Ігор Вишневський That's Life
15 September 2026, 09:00
2026-09-15
"After the recent cyberattacks, we have taken unprecedented measures." CDTO of the Ministry of Justice - on cybersecurity, AI, IT specialists in the civil service and why digitalization cannot be paperless for the sake of paperless
The digitalization of the justice sector has its own specific challenges: it is necessary not only to digitize a colossal array of sensitive data, but also to ensure the cybersecurity of state registries, which are at constant risk during a full-scale war.
CDTO of the Ministry of Justice Olga Ryabukha has been in office for a little over a year, but before that she already had extensive experience in digitalization of key government processes at the Ministry of Digital Affairs and a number of projects. She emphasizes that the digital transformation of the Ministry of Justice should not be a set of individual IT projects, but a systemic change in the way the justice sector works.
The digitalization of the justice sector has its own specific challenges: it is necessary not only to digitize a colossal array of sensitive data, but also to ensure the cybersecurity of state registries, which are at constant risk during a full-scale war.
CDTO of the Ministry of Justice Olga Ryabukha has been in office for a little over a year, but before that she already had extensive experience in digitalization of key government processes at the Ministry of Digital Affairs and a number of projects. She emphasizes that the digital transformation of the Ministry of Justice should not be a set of individual IT projects, but a systemic change in the way the justice sector works.
We received answers from the Deputy Minister of Justice for Digital Development, Digital Transformations and Digitalization, Olga Ryabukha, who spoke about key digital projects being implemented under her leadership; cooperation with donors; blockers of digitalization in her sector of work; how to overcome the shortage of qualified IT specialists in the civil service; the use of AI in the work of the ministry; what conclusions the Ministry of Justice made after a series of cyber incidents and why its goal is not paperless for the sake of paperless, but digital by default. We are publishing an interview with Olga Ryabukha as part of our series of materials on the work of CDTOs of key ministries and departments.
— The position of CDTO is relatively new for government agencies. What was your personal motivation to work in this role?
— My motivation was largely formed even before the CDTO position appeared in our ministries as such. Before that, I worked at the Ministry of Digital Transformation, where I headed the RPA engineering direction and an expert group on reengineering public services. It was then that I directly worked on one of the first services on the "Diya" portal related to the Ministry of Justice: state registration of an individual entrepreneur, making changes to the individual entrepreneur’s information, and terminating the activity of an individual entrepreneur. Together with the team of the Ministry of Justice and the State Enterprise "NAIS", we actually built the first models of automated interaction of the state with citizens and businesses.
After the Ministry of Digital, I continued working with digital transformation within the framework of the EGAP program of the Eastern Europe Foundation, where I was directly involved in the direction of the Ministry of Justice. This was one of the directions that I liked the most professionally, because here you can see the result of digitalization very clearly: you can take a complex legal process, rethink it and make it so that a person does not feel the complexity of the state system behind it at all.
So when the opportunity arose to work for the CDTO of the Ministry of Justice, it wasn’t just a new position for me. It was an opportunity to return to a direction I had worked in for many years, but now with the opportunity to influence transformation systemically.
I am interested in more than just converting paper processes into electronic form. My motivation is to change the very logic of human-government interaction: removing unnecessary steps, automating what can be automated, ensuring data quality, and at the same time building a secure and sustainable digital infrastructure.
Perhaps most importantly, I already know this system from different sides: as a civil servant, as a digital project manager, and as a project coordinator from the technical assistance program.
Therefore, today I want to use this experience so that the digital transformation of the Ministry of Justice is not a set of individual IT projects, but a systemic change in the way justice works.
— What key digital projects/services/products are being implemented in the work of the ministry with your direct participation or initiative? What is their functionality, what is the benefit?
— One of the key areas is the digitalization of notary services and the creation of a single digital environment for the work of notaries. We are building it as a comprehensive system that includes basic notary registers, an inspection module, and an automated notary workplace.
For the notary, this means fewer manual operations and checks and more convenient interaction with government information systems. For the state, it means standardized processes, better data, and a more controlled and secure work environment.
The second major direction is the development of DRACS electronic services, in particular, expanding the possibilities of online marriage. We are adding new categories of users and new scenarios: in particular, the ability for widows and widowers to apply for marriage online.
A separate important area is accessibility. We provide the possibility of support from a sign language interpreter for people with hearing and speech impairments, so that the digital service is accessible not only technologically, but also practically.
We are also developing international document delivery, which is especially important for Ukrainians who are abroad. A person should receive the necessary document regardless of where they are physically located. A separate scenario is online divorce.
The third direction is electronic apostille. Here we move from a physical and paper procedure to a digital document that can be verified online, using an electronic signature and QR code.
In all these projects, it is important to me that digitalization is not just about creating a new interface.
We are changing the process itself — removing unnecessary steps, automating checks, and using data that the state already has. The criterion for success for me is how much the project reduced the number of actions for a person, reduced the time for the employee, and at the same time increased the reliability of the process.
— Who are the main donors to your digital projects?
— Our key partners in digital transformation are several international programs and organizations. First of all, the Swiss-Ukrainian EGAP program, implemented by the Eastern Europe Foundation. Within the framework of this partnership, a number of digital services are implemented in the field of DRACS, business and real estate. For us, this is a long-term partnership that allows us not just to create individual electronic services, but to systematically change state processes.
The second important partner is the European Union within the DT4UA project. In particular, with the support of the project, we are working on the development of digital solutions in the field of justice and the modernization of relevant information systems.
A new phase of the Pravo-Justice project, implemented with the support of Expertise France, is also starting. This is an important partnership for us, particularly in terms of further developing the digital transformation and institutional capacity of the justice system.
Separately, we have expert support from UNDP, in particular their Digital Department. We are currently working together on a draft of a new model charter for a charitable organization. This is a good example of how digital expertise can be applied not only to technological products, but also to simplifying and modernizing legal procedures.
For me, it is fundamentally important that in all these partnerships, the state remains the owner of the process and determines what outcome the citizen should receive. International partners help us with funding, expertise and technological capabilities, but digital transformation should be part of the state’s own strategy, not a set of donor projects.
— Name three factors that, in your opinion, are hindering digitalization in your line of work?
— I would name the following three factors. The first is the complexity of the processes themselves. We do not set ourselves the task of simply digitizing the existing process. On the contrary, we strive to completely reengineer it: review the sequence of actions, remove unnecessary stages, change the regulatory model and build the process around the needs of the user. That is why the most work often takes place not in IT, but in changing the regulatory framework, rebuilding processes and harmonizing them between different institutions.
The second is data quality and interoperability. The state already has a huge amount of data, but it has historically been created by different systems, at different times, and according to different rules. Therefore, the next level of digitalization is not just about creating an electronic service, but ensuring that government systems can securely exchange data, and that the information is high-quality and up-to-date.
The third is security. In the field of justice, we work with data that has very high legal and social value. Therefore, the speed of digitalization cannot be achieved at the cost of reducing the level of cyber protection.
Today, the digitalization of the Ministry of Justice is both digital transformation and digital resilience.
— What services or procedures in your field still remain completely paper-based and create the biggest problems? What exactly is holding them back from being converted to "digital"?
— The biggest problem is not the paper itself. Paper is just a sign that the process is built around a document, not around a person’s need. So we look more broadly: what documents are needed, who issues them, who checks whether this data is already in state registers, whether a physical signature or seal is required, and whether the entire procedure can be legally transferred to a digital environment.
For example, in the case of the apostille, we are moving in exactly this direction: from a physical procedure to a digital document that can be checked online in a few seconds.
But not every procedure can be simply translated into an app. For some legal processes, it is first necessary to change the legislation, ensure proper identification, electronic signature, interagency interaction, and fraud protection mechanisms.
Therefore, our goal is not paperless for paperless’s sake, but digital by default where it is legally, technologically, and securely possible.
— Do you use artificial intelligence or automated data analysis tools in your department? What kind of solutions? How do you control the risks of algorithm errors?
— Yes. But I think it is fundamentally important to separate the use of AI as a tool for increasing productivity and the use of algorithms for making legally significant decisions.
One of the interesting areas we are currently working on together with the Global Government Technology Centre Kyiv (GGTC) is the development of a legal advisor on the website of the Ministry of Justice. Its task is to automatically provide citizens with answers to the most common legal queries and help them find relevant legal information faster.
For us, this is an important example of how AI can make legal information more accessible and understandable to humans, without replacing professional legal judgment.
At the same time, in the field of justice, we cannot build a model based on the principle of “the algorithm said, the state did.” The final legally significant decision must remain under human control, unless the law provides otherwise.
Therefore, the key principles for us are data protection, information access control, model testing, quality control of responses, the possibility of human control, and a clear understanding of where the algorithm can go wrong.
The main question today is not "whether to use AI?", but where exactly its use provides real added value to the state and where the risk is unacceptable.
— How do you solve the problem of personnel shortage in the public sector for IT specialists, given the difference in salaries?
— The state is unlikely to be able to systematically compete with the private sector solely on wages. And we need to honestly admit this. Therefore, the answer should consist of several components.
First, the interest of the tasks themselves. In the public sector, an IT specialist may work not on another commercial product, but on a system that is used by millions of people and on which the functioning of the state depends.
Secondly, professional environment and development. We must create conditions in which a strong specialist can work with modern architecture, cybersecurity, data, AI, interoperability — and at the same time develop professionally.
Third, the state should use different models of attracting expertise: its own teams, partnerships with the private sector, international technical assistance, and project expertise.
We must stop perceiving the state IT specialist as a service staff. A strong digital team is a strategic asset of the state.
— In the face of constant cyberattacks from the Russian Federation, do you pay attention to protecting your department’s registers, information systems, and electronic documentation? What efforts are being made in this regard?
— Cybersecurity is one of the critically important areas for us. At the same time, it is fundamentally important that cybersecurity is not a function of the CDTO.
We have deliberately separated digital transformation and cybersecurity: the CDTO coordinates IT and digital development, while the cybersecurity function has a separate area of responsibility. This allows us to ensure the necessary level of internal control, controllability, and accountability.
The Ministry of Justice has a state enterprise "NAIS", on the basis of which a separate cyber center has been created and a specialized cybersecurity team operates. This is one of the strongest teams of this profile in Ukraine, and I believe that they do extremely important work.
Regarding the direct protection of information systems and registries, after the recent cyberattacks, we have taken unprecedented measures to strengthen the cyber defense and cyber resilience system of the Ministry of Justice.
A separate focus is the human factor. Even the best technological system will not be sufficiently protected if employees do not follow basic rules of cyber hygiene. Therefore, training, raising awareness and creating a security culture within the organization are important.
— What lessons has your department learned from recent cyber incidents or data leaks in the public sector?
— I would say that the main lesson is that cyber resilience should be a systemic function, not a reaction to an individual incident.
The second important lesson is that a digital state must be prepared not only for an attack, but also for a rapid recovery. It is critical to have response, backup, and recovery scenarios so that even a serious incident does not paralyze the delivery of government services.
And third, cybersecurity cannot be a one-time project. It is an ongoing process that requires regular reinforcement, monitoring, and adaptation to new threats.
That is why today we are no longer talking only about the protection of individual systems, but about the overall cyber resilience of digital justice.
— What are the three main tasks you set for yourself in the digitalization of your sector of activity?
— I would highlight three main areas. The first is a complete reengineering of government processes and the creation of seamless digital services. We do not set ourselves the goal of simply transferring existing procedures online. Our task is to review the process itself, remove unnecessary steps, automate what can be automated, and make human interaction with the state as simple and understandable as possible.
The second is the quality of government data. It is important for us not to simply accumulate data, but to make it high-quality, clean, up-to-date and verifiable. This involves unique identifiers, eliminating duplication, verifying information and constantly improving data quality. Only then does data become a true asset of the state, which can be safely used to automate processes, provide services and make management decisions.
The third is the creation of a single digital environment for the work of the state. This means that various information systems and state bodies can interact effectively with each other, and citizens are not forced to understand the internal structure of the state.
In short, my formula is this: process reengineering → quality data → seamless interaction between the state and people.
“The team called it the ‘Excel ship’ because the data took a long time to reach us.” CDTO of the Ministry of Veterans Affairs — on what hinders the digitalization of veteran services and how to deal with it
"We are already testing certain AI tools directly in medical institutions." CDTO of the Ministry of Health spoke about the difficulties of digitalization and the role of AI in the healthcare sector
