Review

The article provides a comprehensive analysis of the participation of defence counsel in the selection of preventive measures in criminal proceedings on high treason under martial law. The rel-evance of the study is обусловлена by the increasing number of such proceedings, their high public salience, and heightened risks of excessive use of pre-trial detention driven by a security-focused narrative. It is substantiated that the stage of selecting a preventive measure is critical for ensuring the right to liberty and personal integrity, as it is at this stage that the standard of permissible proce-dural coercion is shaped and the reality of adversarial proceedings between the parties is determined. The paper раскрыває the procedural role of defence counsel as a subject of proof and an insti-tutional guarantee of human rights protection within judicial control over the application of preventive measures. The standards of proof of «reasonable suspicion» and «sufficient grounds» are analysed as baseline criteria for assessing applications submitted by an investigator or prosecutor. The study also demonstrates the avenues through which defence counsel may influence the verification of the evidentiary basis, the assessment of procedural risks, and the reasoning of judicial rulings. Particular attention is paid to proving the disproportionality of pre-trial detention and substantiating alternative preventive measures as a key instrument for safeguarding the right to liberty. The research examines specific features of high treason proceedings related to restricted access to case materials, the use of classified and digital evidence, and an increased likelihood of formal-ization of judicial control. On this basis, practical recommendations are formulated to strengthen the active procedural stance of defence counsel and to raise the standards of judicial scrutiny. It is concluded that effective participation of defence counsel, combined with an appropriate judicial response to defence arguments, is a decisive condition for maintaining a balance between national security interests and the protection of an individual’s fundamental rights in criminal proceedings on high treason.