Which the Constitutional Court decided (quote):

[roseline371274]

The Constitutional Court of Ukraine has repeatedly stated that restrictions on the exercise of constitutional rights and freedoms cannot be arbitrary and unfair, they must pursue a legitimate goal, be conditioned by the social necessity of achieving this goal, be proportionate and justified, in the event of a restriction of a constitutional right or freedom, the legislator is obliged to introduce such legal regulation that will allow the optimal achievement of the legitimate goal with minimal interference in the exercise of this right or freedom ( paragraph three of subparagraph 2.1 of paragraph 2 of the motivational part of the Decision of June 1, 2016 No. 2-rp/2016). However, the legislator, having established exclusively such a preventive measure as detention, in relation to persons suspected or special database accused of committing crimes provided for in Articles 402-405, 407, 408, 429 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, did not comply with the specified requirements.

The above gives grounds for concluding that the provision of Part Eight of Article 176 of the Code contradicts Part Two of Article 3 , Parts One and Two of Article 8 , Parts One and Two of Article 29 of the Constitution of Ukraine, as it violates the principle of the rule of law and restricts the right of an individual to freedom and personal integrity .

The Constitutional Court of Ukraine came to a completely similar conclusion in its decision of June 25, 2019, case No. 7-r/2019, in
"To declare as inconsistent with the Constitution of Ukraine (unconstitutional) the provisions of Part Five of Article 176 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, which stipulate that preventive measures in the form of a personal bond, personal surety, house arrest, and bail cannot be applied to persons.