Metropolitan Arseny (Yakovenko)
Metropolitan Arseny of Svyatogorsk, abbot of the Holy Dormition Svyatogorsk Lavra.(secular name: Ihor Fedorovych Yakovenko)
Date of birth: 06/21/1968
Place of birth: Porosozerо settlement, Suoyarvsky district, Karelian ASSR
Metropolitan Arseny has served as abbot of the Holy Dormition Svyatogorsk Lavra since January 20, 1995.
The hierarch joined the monastery's brotherhood in 1993, when the Svyatogorsk Lavra was reopened after decades of Soviet rule. Metropolitan Arseny has dedicated his life to restoring monastic and liturgical life to the monastery.
He is currently held in pre-trial detention at the Dnipro Detention Center.
On April 24, 2024, the SBU — Security Service of Ukraine (the Ukrainian successor to the KGB) — conducted searches at the Holy Dormition Svyatogorsk Lavra of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, one of the 3 most important Orthodox monasteries in Ukraine bearing the title of Lavra.
The Svyatogorsk Lavra is an ancient and majestic monastery situated on the chalky Holy Mountains on the high right bank of the Siverskyi Donets River, with caves hewn into the rock and ancient churches where liturgical life has continued for many centuries.
� Svjatogorsk,_Lavra_3.jpgBut in the last 10 years it has acquired yet another important role. It has become an island of peace in the midst of the conflict in Donbas.
The Svyatogorsk Lavra is located in the Kramatorsk district of Donetsk Oblast and has been forced to exist near the front line since the beginning of the 2014 conflict. This turned it into a center of gravity for war refugees from villages and towns that had suffered from the war both before and after the full-scale invasion.
The Lavra and the brotherhood under the leadership of Bishop Arseny sheltered and fed thousands of refugees, provided what medical assistance they could, and organized schooling for children. This large-scale humanitarian mission, in which other UOC dioceses also participated by bringing food to the Lavra, has continued for years and continues to this day.
That same day, April 24, SBU officers served a notice of suspicion on the Lavra's abbot, Metropolitan Arseny of Svyatogorsk, and arrested him. From that moment to the present day he has remained in custody, as the court imposed pre-trial detention as a preventive measure immediately after his arrest, during the night of April 24–25.
Initially for 60 days, and then with the detention in the pre-trial detention center (SIZO — a remand prison, de facto a jail) extended repeatedly without basis until the end of October 2025, when the metropolitan was mockingly released on bail.
What was Metropolitan Arseny charged with? And for what reason was he held in the SIZO for a year and a half? The bishop was served a notice of suspicion of committing a crime under Part 2 of Article 114-2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine: "dissemination of information about the movement, displacement, or location of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, where their identification on the ground is possible."
This article, introduced in Ukraine at the height of the invasion in spring 2022, provides for a sentence of up to 8 years' imprisonment.
According to the SBU and the investigation, Metropolitan Arseny allegedly disclosed such information during a public sermon at the Lavra that he delivered in September 2023 (!) — 8 months before the notice of suspicion was served on him.
That is, if the SBU is to be believed, it took them 8 months to identify a criminal offense in that sermon. And on that basis they came to search the Lavra and place the bishop in custody.
From this one can draw at minimum the conclusion that the Armed Forces of Ukraine suffered no harm from this alleged "disclosure," otherwise they would have come for the Metropolitan very soon and charged him under the more serious Part 3 of that article.
Here are the talking points that accompanied the publication about the notice of suspicion against Bishop Arseny on the SBU website — "The SBU has notified the Metropolitan of the Svyatogorsk Lavra, who 'tipped off' the Russian aggressors about the positions of the AFU in Donetsk Oblast, of suspicion":
"The Security Service documented the subversive activity of the abbot of the Svyatogorsk Lavra of the UOC (MP), Metropolitan Arseny. According to the investigation, the cleric 'handed over' to the occupiers the locations of defense forces' checkpoints in the Kramatorsk district of Donetsk Oblast.
This occurred during his liturgy. At that time, the vicar, on camera, named for his parishioners the addresses of Ukrainian military checkpoints. This video was subsequently published on the Lavra's website and in a local Telegram channel group.
In this way, the cleric attempted to covertly 'leak' to the aggressor the locations of Ukrainian checkpoints in a frontline area."
That is, already on the day of the detention, before the investigation was concluded and certainly before a court verdict, the SBU website describes what happened as "subversive activity" and "an attempt to leak valuable information to the aggressor" — in other words, deliberate criminal acts. The SBU and the prosecution presented no evidence to support their claims and would not do so throughout the subsequent year and a half of detention and abuse.
But was there any disclosure of sensitive information in that sermon at all?
Anyone who wishes can listen to that sermon — it is available in the public domain.
In this 9-minute sermon, delivered on the eve of the Feast of All Saints of Svyatogorsk (the Council of Svyatogorsk Saints) on September 23, 2023, we can hear the bishop's indignation at the discrimination against UOC faithful that pilgrims to the Lavra had encountered in those days.
And that indignation had an immediate cause: on that day, September 23, pilgrims and people transporting humanitarian cargo to the Svyatogorsk Lavra for the major annual feast of the Council of Svyatogorsk Saints began to be stopped at new checkpoints, subjected to thorough checks with their passport details and phone numbers recorded, and forced to wait for hours for the opportunity to pass through without any reasonable justification — or were not allowed through at all.
Some never made it through that cordon — they could not wait, did not hold out, did not arrive.
According to the bishop, there had been no such checks or travel restrictions either before or after that occasion — they were introduced specifically for the feast day. And all the explanations given by the SBU only confirmed the artificial, anti-church, and discriminatory nature of these measures. It was a provocation and an act of contempt for the civil rights of Orthodox Ukrainians.
That is why we hear in the sermon words of grief and astonishment, words of rebuke and condemnation of the criminal injustice inflicted on Orthodox believers, who are subjected by Ukrainian authorities to groundless restrictions and intimidation.
At the same time, nothing of the kind is applied to any other religious denomination in Ukraine — not even to foreigners. As an example, the bishop cites the most lenient treatment by Ukrainian authorities of Hasidic pilgrims, who travel to Uman every year in their tens of thousands for the Rosh Hashanah New Year celebration without any restrictions, despite the ongoing hostilities. This had happened just days before, in mid-September of that year, and no one subjected the Hasidic pilgrims to such humiliations and inconveniences.
While our faithful are being prevented even from holding traditional religious processions.
"They stand there, checking, writing down passport details, photographing. Recording everyone's email and phone number. Well, that is a violation of legal rights. Did they record the 32,000 Hasidim in Uman who came to celebrate the New Year in the same way? And if pilgrimage is permitted to one religious denomination, there must be equal rights for other religious denominations too. And if foreign citizens came and celebrated their religious holiday, why are we, citizens of Ukraine — who by their passports are native to this land, in their own homeland — why are we not allowed to come and pray to the saints who were glorified here, on the soil of Ukraine?
And that is precisely why we came. To entrust ourselves, our families, our husbands and sons on the front, into God's hands, under the Protection of the Mother of God, under the intercessory prayers of the Svyatogorsk Saints — we came to pray for them. We came to pray for our homeland, for the speediest peace in our homeland — that is why we gathered, isn't it, brothers?
(An approving "Yes!" from the congregation)
So people asked for prayers that somehow the situation [of pilgrims being barred from the Lavra — ed.] would be resolved. But I also ask for all of your prayers.
Because this document-checking operation has been scheduled for only 2 days — today and tomorrow. Before this they were not checking, and after this, I think, even by tomorrow afternoon they will no longer be checking. Because what matters to them is to cut things off.
And at first, when I called the SBU, they explained to me: 'Your Grace, do not worry, this is simply a routine, shall we say, document check — it happens here and there in the oblast.' But I say, this is not a document check. People are not being let through! Then they told me: 'Well, we must avoid any large gatherings.' Well, I say, then go and say that near the 'Nova Poshta' branch in Sloviansk and at the Sloviansk market [places where large numbers of people naturally gather for everyday reasons — ed.]. And tell that to Uman, where they [the Hasidim] were celebrating. Why did you not say that there? But by train, and by bus, and in private cars, through Poland — 32,000 pilgrims.
Are we somehow lesser on our own land?
Therefore, brothers and sisters, I ask for your holy prayers. There are temptations, of course. But nonetheless, there is also a Feast. And this temptation must not disrupt our prayerful spirit. We came to pray. And we will pray. Yes, this is happening, yes, unfortunately. We will pray for those who were turned away, who could not get through. And for those who are now asking for prayers to get through. We will pray for everyone, because that is what the Lord has commanded"...
Surely these emotions — words of pain and disappointment from the abbot of a monastery that has endured days of bombardment, blockades, the deaths of brotherhood members, destruction and fires, that for years has fed and sheltered thousands of refugees — surely these emotions will be understood by anyone with a heart and common sense.
And it is precisely these words — exposing the deliberate and obvious discrimination, the violation of the rights of UOC faithful by Ukrainian authorities, and the readiness to speak openly about this problem to the whole world — that, in our view, constitute the true reason for the repression against Bishop Arseny, for whom a case of alleged "disclosure of military information" was fabricated.
It was precisely this — the courage to call things by their proper names and to ask uncomfortable questions — that could not be forgiven of the humble metropolitan, whose patience with the lawlessness and suffering to which his monastery had already been subjected by politicians of every stripe had finally run out.
Moreover, the neutralization of the abbot of one of the three UOC Lavras clearly formed part of the overall strategy, publicly stated by the authorities, to seize and subordinate to themselves and their pocket church — the OCU — key cultural and religious sites, historic sacred places belonging to the UOC. To strike at its heart — as has already happened with the Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra, and is happening right now with the Svyatogorsk and Pochaiv Lavras — these plans are no secret.
Let us return to what the SBU and the court attempt to present as "leaking the addresses of checkpoints to the enemy," and confirm that the elements of a criminal offense have simply been cynically fabricated.
The very episode that the persecutors seized upon spans from 15 seconds to the end of the second minute of the video. That segment is sufficient to understand what the bishop is saying, how, and in what context.
The specific mention of checkpoints occurs in the portion between 1:12 and 1:23 — that is, 10 seconds.
Let us quote everything the bishop said about the checkpoints, without context, exactly as spoken:
"… But today three posts are standing in Tatyanivka [a village adjacent to the Lavra — ed.]. One on the hill near Artyom, one post here below, and one near the entrance to the monastery at the far end of Tatyanivka. They stand there, checking, writing down passport details, photographing…"
And where are the addresses here? Where is the so-called ability to "identify on the ground"?
You will find no precision in these words, and certainly none of the checkpoint addresses the SBU writes about.
How, for example, does one identify on the ground what the bishop called "a post here, below"? What kind of address is that, and what coordinates can be derived from "below"? Could any experienced intelligence officer — including those working at the SBU — point to a precise location on a map that they clearly deduced from the words "here below"?
And what is "near Artyom"? How large is that "near," and on which side of "near"? Or "at the far end of Tatyanivka" — where exactly is that, which street and house number, what coordinates?
Who leaks coordinates like that?!
And the most important question — why?! What could be more absurd, when every local resident (of whom there are thousands) has a smartphone with messaging apps through which anything can be secretly and undetectably leaked in detail, with geolocation and photographs? When there are drones and satellites?
For what purpose, in such circumstances, would the bishop risk passing information in such a ridiculous manner — even if he were truly someone's agent? Is there even the faintest semblance of logic in this? And what is the military value of entirely vague information about the approximate location of some ordinary temporary checkpoints — checkpoints that appeared that morning to harass the faithful and would likely disappear the next day?
For whom did those checkpoints represent a threat or a valuable target, if during those days the nearest front line was between 40 and 70 kilometers from Svyatogorsk, where fierce battles of major military formations were being fought?
The absurdity of the criminal charge and the entire accusation is more than evident. As is the actual meaning of the sermon, in which the bishop mentioned those ill-fated checkpoints simply for specificity when describing how and by whom the rights of the faithful were being restricted.
We recommend listening to the entire 9-minute sermon in order to understand what Metropolitan Arseny is truly being persecuted for — for criticizing the religious discrimination and abuse of UOC faithful by Ukrainian authorities.
No act corresponding to the formulations applied by the SBU without any evidence — "handing over to the occupiers the locations of checkpoints" and "covertly leaking to the aggressor the positions of deployments" — was committed by the bishop, and there is not a single indication that such an absurd "transfer of data" was intentional.
For this fabricated and imaginary crime, from which evidently no one suffered, the bishop was held in custody for a year and a half and subjected to various forms of abuse that threatened his life and health.
� photo_2025-12-12_18-47-19.jpg
The bishop was held in a pre-trial detention center that was cold in winter and hot in summer, and the very trips to court hearings from Dnipro to another city, Sloviansk, hundreds of kilometers away, became a form of torture in which it is hard to discern any practical purpose other than deliberate torment.
Let us quote the Lavra's website ("On the anniversary of Metropolitan Arseny's arrest — Holy Dormition Svyatogorsk Lavra"), which conveyed the history and details of these ordeals better than anyone:
"Metropolitan Arseny spent his birthday (June 21) in the courtroom. That day the hearing lasted the entire day, from 8:00 to 20:00. On the 19th anniversary of the bishop's episcopal ordination, December 5, 2024, his term of detention was extended once again.
The trips to court hearings in Sloviansk and back to the Dnipro pre-trial detention center during the summer months were a source of torment for Metropolitan Arseny.
The bishop was transported in a prison van designed for intra-oblast — that is, short-distance — journeys, in a "stakan" [literally "glass"] — a cramped cell measuring 50 cm × 70 cm × 150 cm, in which it is impossible to change position, in handcuffs.
(what a "stakan" is — now imagine 7 hours in one on the road, in cold and in heat)
Throughout the journeys the Lavra's abbot was left without food or water. The trips lasted no less than 15 hours (300 kilometers each way, meaning 7 or more hours in each direction).
Such journeys were repeated from July until almost the end of September, including on hot days when the thermometer in the shade reached 37 to 40 degrees Celsius. In total, the bishop endured no fewer than 10 such conveyances.
For a person suffering from a number of chronic illnesses, as Bishop Arseny does, these journeys were tantamount to torture and damaged his health. In particular, after the conveyance on August 27, the Lavra's abbot needed two days to recover.
On occasion, hearings were scheduled on two or three consecutive days. In such cases, the bishop had only a few hours of night rest between them."
At the end of September, following a series of court hearings on the matter, lawyers succeeded in securing the holding of sessions by videoconference, thereby eliminating the need for the multi-hour journeys. Since then, Metropolitan Arseny has participated in hearings without leaving the SIZO, via an online connection.
At the same time, the court effectively refused to make the proceedings public — it denied, without justification, an online broadcast of the case against the bishop, as demanded by the lawyers and by a society that was closely following the high-profile case.
In October 2024, the lawyers filed a motion for hearings in the bishop's case to be broadcast on the "Sudova vlada Ukrainy" portal and its YouTube channel. The court began examining this motion on January 30, 2025, and rejected it on February 18.
• We should note that Ukraine has already seen several criminal cases involving the actual video documentation and subsequent publication of events sensitive to the defense effort: footage of air defense systems in operation during strikes, or the results of Russian strikes, filmed and posted in the public domain by Ukrainian citizens.
Some such footage could genuinely have been of value to the enemy and simultaneously posed a threat to Ukraine's defense capability. Real threats, not imaginary ones.
There have also been prosecutions and convictions for filming footage of violent mobilization of Ukrainians — when people are rounded up like cattle in the streets and forcibly shoved into minibuses — on the grounds that it is not the process itself but the publication of footage thereof that "demoralizes society in the interests of the enemy."
Even in this one can find some rationale — however dubious from a legal and moral standpoint. But the bishop did nothing of the sort.
⚠️ In none of the cases known to us of this type did any of the accused spend a year and a half in pre-trial detention, despite instances of systematic publication and a far more evident potential for harm from video footage compared with very vague words about inconsequential temporary checkpoints.
Blogger who filmed the handing out of summonses sentenced to prison | Novyny.live
Ukraine has begun punishing people for publishing videos of violent mobilization
What is more: all or nearly all those convicted of such acts received suspended or "probationary" sentences, meaning they were effectively spared from serving time. But the situation with Bishop Arseny is entirely different.
His preventive measure was extended multiple times and was not once revised until October 2025, despite the complete absence of grounds for a measure as severe as pre-trial detention of an elderly monk. His lawyers made regular attempts to secure a less severe and more proportionate preventive measure; a number of members of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine (members of Parliament) were prepared to stand surety for the metropolitan — but the court remained heartlessly and unjustifiably unyielding.
From April 25, 2024 to October 27, 2025, in the course of the trial on the first charge, Bishop Arseny was held in custody for a year and a half, during which an elderly and physically unwell man lived in the harsh conditions of a SIZO, was subjected to abusive journeys of 300 kilometers one way to the court, and received no adequate medical care.
Despite complaints, medical indications, and deteriorating health, the court authorized a medical examination of the bishop only on September 12, 2025. And even then, only within the SIZO premises.
On September 30, the bishop had to be urgently hospitalized due to a sharp deterioration in his condition. A cardiologist issued a diagnosis according to which the bishop requires surgery — surgery that has still not been performed.
On October 31, 2025, the metropolitan was released from the SIZO but was immediately detained again at the exit, with a new charge brought against him under yet another article.
Pre-trial detention was once again imposed as the preventive measure, with no alternative offered.
On February 25, 2026, the Chechelivsky District Court of the city of Dnipro ruled to change the preventive measure for the abbot of the Svyatogorsk Lavra from pre-trial detention to house arrest.
The court examined the defense's motion to replace the preventive measure with one not involving pre-trial detention.
� photo_2026-02-25_15-49-03.jpg
Bishop Arseny attended the hearing in person. Faithful of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church came to the courtroom to support him. Member of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine Viktoria Hryb also participated in the hearing.
The lawyers asked the court to replace Bishop Arseny's preventive measure of pre-trial detention — which is an exceptional and last-resort measure in criminal proceedings — with release on surety, release on bail, or house arrest. In doing so, they cited relevant precedents of the European Court, which considers round-the-clock house arrest an alternative to SIZO detention.
As the defense noted, unfortunately Ukraine is a leader in the number of cases filed with the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). Every Thursday the ECHR issues a ruling against Ukraine for violations of the rights of persons subject to ongoing court proceedings, including violations in the area of the unjustified extension of pre-trial detention. Article 5 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms states that a person detained shall be entitled "to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial."
The lawyers also filed a motion to return the indictment on the grounds that it did not comply with the requirements of the criminal procedural legislation, namely Article 291 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine.
Having heard both the defense and the prosecution, Judge Tetiana Vasylivna Bezruk retired to the deliberation room. Upon returning, she announced the court's ruling: to replace the preventive measure with round-the-clock house arrest until April 25, 2026, without the application of an electronic monitoring device.
� photo_2026-02-25_14-59-53.jpg
� photo_2026-02-25_14-59-55.jpg
Bishop Arseny was released from custody right in the courtroom.
The motion to return the indictment was denied by the court.
The ruling is not subject to appeal.
КУ ст. 35 (свобода вероисповедания) · ЕСПЧ ст. 9 · Нормы ООН