Reissuing and Apostilling a Duplicate Diploma Supplement from Kharkiv University for a 1977 Graduate from Sudan

Introduction

A citizen of the Republic of Sudan, who studied medicine at Kharkiv University from 1971 to 1977, approached Disputes Law Firm after losing the supplement to her diploma. What she needed was not simply a duplicate of the document, but one that could be apostilled — a requirement for continuing her professional practice abroad. Producing and legalizing the document involved two separate obstacles, each requiring its own legal solution. By early July, the client had received an apostilled diploma and supplement.

Background

Work on the case began with an attorney's inquiry to Kharkiv University. Since almost 50 years had passed since the client's graduation, and the university itself continues to operate under active hostilities, it was first necessary to establish two things: whether the relevant records were still held in the archive, and whether the university had the practical capacity to issue a duplicate of the document accompanying the diploma. The response confirmed both points and outlined the procedure for moving forward.

In January, an application was submitted to the university addressed to the Vice-Rector for Academic and Pedagogical Affairs. The client's personal file was located in the archive and forwarded to the faculty, where all subsequent steps in producing the document took place. The first duplicate was ready in April.

Legal Position and Actions Taken

The obstacle of the individual's registry code in EDEBO

The duplicate issued in April turned out to be unsuitable for apostille: it lacked the individual's registry code from the Unified State Electronic Database on Education (EDEBO). The dean's position had its own formal logic — a duplicate may only reproduce the information contained in the original, and the 1977 diploma could not, by definition, contain an EDEBO code. The problem was that this logic left the document with no path to an apostille: without the EDEBO code, apostilling the document under current procedure was not possible.

Negotiations with the faculty resolved the impasse. An individual's record was created for the client in EDEBO, the document was registered, and the code was added to a new duplicate. The second version was produced within a month.

The obstacle of the missing apostille on the diploma itself

The next obstacle arose at the stage of submitting the document for apostille. The image center of the Ministry of Education and Science, having received a copy of the diploma, refused to apostille the supplement — because the diploma itself carried no apostille. The consular legalization performed back in 1977 did not close this gap.

The client was left with two options: wait several more months for a new duplicate of the diploma itself, or apostille the original Soviet-era diploma without delay. The second option carried an apparent legal risk: Clause 7 of the Rules on Affixing an Apostille to Official Documents Intended for Use Abroad requires the competent authority to verify the authenticity of the signature of the person who certified the document. At the time the diploma was issued in 1977, no registry of authorized signatures existed at all.

Clause 4 of the same Rules proved decisive: originals of official documents issued by institutions of the former Soviet republics are not accepted for apostille in Ukraine — with the exception of documents on education and academic degrees issued by the Ukrainian SSR. The client's diploma had been issued by precisely such an institution, and therefore fell within this exception. The client chose this path and sent the original diploma to Ukraine.

Outcome

The chosen strategy proved correct: in early July, the diploma and its supplement were successfully apostilled, and the client received her documents.

Conclusion

Both obstacles in this case shared a common source: a document issued in 1977 could not, as a matter of fact, meet requirements introduced by registries and procedures established decades later. The EDEBO code issue was not resolved by altering the content of the document, but by registering the underlying fact — creating an individual's record that had never existed before. The apostille issue likewise had nothing to do with the diploma's authenticity; it turned on the application of a specific rule that allows education documents issued by the Ukrainian SSR to enter modern international circulation without repeating the entire issuance procedure.

Apostilling the original diploma, rather than waiting for a new duplicate, proved the faster solution — not because it was the bolder choice, but because it relied on the precise application of an exception set out in current rules. In cases involving Soviet-era documents, it is precisely this kind of prior legal analysis, rather than the mere fact of approaching a competent authority, that determines how quickly a client receives a result.