Russian forces have carried out sexual and gender-based crimes (SGBC) against Ukrainian civilians and prisoners of war since the beginning of Russia’s aggression in 2014. Since Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022, such crimes have skyrocketed in their gravity, frequency, territorial scope, and victim spectrum. According to the United Nations Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine, victims include girls and boys, women and men from ages four to 80. Russian military and occupation authorities perpetrate SGBC “with brutality, and in combination with other grave violations” such as inhuman treatment, torture, unlawful detention, enslavement, unlawful killings and, summary executions, according to the UN inquiry report.
Ukraine’s responses to these crimes have focused on both criminal justice and reparations for the survivors. The Ukrainian government, human rights NGOs, and international stakeholders have contributed to the documentation and prosecution of direct perpetrators and their commanders for SGBC. In 2022, the War Crimes Department of Ukraine’s Office of the Prosecutor General established a focused unit on conflict-related sexual violence (CRSV). As of November, Ukraine had 326 CRSV cases, of which 117 concerned male victims.
Ukraine is also pursuing reparations. The government is striving to provide comprehensive medical and psychological support, vocational training, and other measures to help SGBC survivors and their families heal and feel empowered to move forward. In 2024, Ukraine implemented a pilot program for urgent interim reparations for CRSV survivors. As of December, 607 survivors (354 men, 241 women, 10 girls, and two boys) applied for reparations under the program. Out of them, 379 survivors (202 men, 172 women, four girls, and one boy) received urgent interim reparations. In late 2024, Ukraine’s parliament supported a more long-term reparations policy. Whether it’s pursuing criminal justice or assessing the need for reparations, the Ukrainian government is trying to take advantage of technological tools to help bring justice for Ukrainian survivors of these crimes, but the process is not without challenges.
Keeping Information and Survivors Safe
Two key factors determine whether and how technology is used: first, the type of response (whether it is criminal proceedings or a reparations process); and second, the stage of response (with or without survivors’ engagement). The following issues have emerged as Ukraine has expanded its use of technology for SGBC investigations.
Server security: Server security is foundational to ensuring the integrity of collected data and, crucially, survivors’ private information and therefore personal security. Prosecution and reparation teams have adopted different strategies for where to house servers storing sensitive information. Stakeholders who keep servers with SGBC information within Ukraine stress Ukraine’s expertise with repelling cyberattacks. Those who use servers outside Ukraine do so with the understanding of the cybersecurity reputation of the chosen jurisdiction. In these situations, only a limited number of professionals have access to the server-stored information, through a multi-step authentication process.
Engagement with survivors: Ukraine’s pilot program for urgent interim reparations for SGBC has been commendably flexible in allowing both online and in-person, on-paper applications. Although the online process offers more convenience, some survivors – particularly older people, or survivors from rural, poorer, or less tech-savvy backgrounds – prefer having human, especially peer-to-peer engagement. This includes peer-to-peer communication with survivors further along in the recovery process and/or those who are engaged in SGBC awareness-raising. This in-person engagement can also include the involvement of trusted civil society lawyers, local paralegal professionals, and psychologists. Such direct human contact facilitates accounts, which are consequently more nuanced and less retraumatizing (as much as it is possible for horrendous SGBC circumstances). In sum, human engagement proves to be crucial at all stages of communication with Ukrainian survivors. Technology is an important tool, but it is secondary to talking directly with survivors.
Open-source investigations: Open-source data can provide important evidence of sexual and gender-based crimes. It can also be used to establish the broader context of the coercive environment in which these crimes take place and can help to link individual crimes to the chain of command. Both criminal justice and reparations investigations search for, classify, and analyze non-confidential, open-source public data (such as social media posts) for evidence of conflict-related SGBC. Initially, there were doubts in Ukraine about whether open-source materials could be used for SGBC investigations, since SGBC tends to take place indoors and in private. However, open-source materials are useful for identifying SGBC red flags such as: the separation of males and females during filtration or other procedures by Russian occupying authorities; footage of forced nudity or executions of naked and/or burned or otherwise mutilated victims; satellite or drone imagery of detention centers, especially amid the mounting evidence of Russia’s policy of widespread and systematic torture, including sexual violence; and social media posts, intercepted communications about, and other footage of batons, sticks, recording equipment, “tapik” field military telephones, and other objects often used for physical and mental sexual torture.
Open-source materials can also help to reduce the number of survivor interviews needed and, thus, can help to minimize re-traumatization. However, they are not enough on their own for establishing SGBC in an armed conflict context, for which survivors’ and witnesses’ statements remain the core source.
Training, Consent, and Other Challenges
Technological training: A significant challenge for criminal justice professionals involved in SGBC investigations in Ukraine is the lack of proper training for newly introduced technology. This lack of training has led investigators to make operational mistakes while conducting interviews and/or working with evidence while using technology, resulting in the production of inadmissible records or, in some cases, even loss of testimonies and evidence. Although technology can enhance efficiency in investigative processes, it must be used correctly to ensure a survivor-centered approach. Ukraine’s criminal justice professionals require more training regarding the newest available technology and its secure use. Such training should be regular and equally reach all criminal justice professionals: investigators, prosecutors, judges and their staff. Finally, training should benefit professionals across Ukraine, especially those in the most affected northeast and southeast regions.
Informed consent, procedural clarity, and data security: In prosecution and reparation processes involving technology, Ukrainian SGBC survivors emphasized that they require clear and respectful explanations of how the information they provide will be digitally stored and used, and the security protocols that will be applied. Some survivors are concerned that they have not been provided with this information. As survivors stress, and international standards require, even with the utmost security protocols for the digital preservation and processing of their data, survivors must be kept informed through accessible and respectful explanations. For open-source investigations, engaged actors should at all times consider the degree of a possible exposure of a survivor’s identity and, where needed, try to seek their consent to respective proceedings. Instruments such as the Open-Source Practitioner’s Guide to the Murad Code could offer helpful guidance.
AI and other tech abuse by perpetrators: A third significant challenge for both prongs of SGBC responses is identifying AI- and other artificially generated “evidence,” specifically designed and planted in the public domain to compromise investigations. Russian perpetrators often use more “traditional” technology such as recording sexual and other abuse and sending harrowing pictures and videos to victims’ loved ones, to blackmail them into dropping charges, devastate them or dissuade them and other Ukrainians from armed resistance, to avoid similar abuse. Investigators require regular training on AI-related abuse and its key identifying flaws (for example, persons whose hands have more than five fingers in AI-generated “photos”). The state and first responding human rights NGOs should also provide constant psychological and cybersecurity advice to survivors and their families considering possible atrocity footage coming from perpetrators.
Looking Ahead
Technological progress is expanding investigative toolkits in real time. The challenges outlined above, however, underscore the necessity for continuous ethical consideration, adaptation, and cross-sector collaboration in the use of technology, to ensure justice which is both empathetic and effective for SGBC victims and witnesses.
For example, SGBC survivors in Ukraine are not always ready to communicate with more than one investigator in the room. Therefore, the classic two-person documentation approach (with one person asking questions and another recording the exchange) often cannot be used. In many cases, survivors do not give consent to the use of any type of recording device, except for written notes. Such circumstances put significant technical responsibilities on the interviewer, as they need to maintain eye contact and type or write the information they receive simultaneously. The challenges in doing so lead to the deterioration of humane interactions and personal connection that are very much needed during trauma-informed interviews. In such cases, investigators feel that they would benefit from the development of accessible software that accurately transcribes oral questions and answers, or that can turn written notes into typewritten transcripts. Such technology would allow the interviewer to keep their attention on the interviewee and would improve the efficiency and accuracy of the recorded testimonies while mitigating the secondary trauma on the interviewer, sparing them from going through the traumatic narrative again when deciphering the notes.
Another important area of improvement concerns data preservation. International experience demonstrates how the suspension of mandates, the lack of transfer protocols, and the non-availability of secured storage platforms can undermine the most meticulously assembled evidence. The recent shutdown by the Trump administration of Yale University’s database tracking Ukraine’s deported children is a striking example of why pre-emptive data preservation strategies are crucial. In the context of Ukraine, all involved stakeholders—prosecution, reparations actors, and human rights NGOs working on the documentation and analysis of SGBC—should constantly reassess the security of servers storing or processing SGBC information. This includes considerations about placing servers in Ukraine or internationally. Ukrainian stakeholders should also constantly reassess the reliability of private technology companies providing their support for Ukraine’s SGBC responses in light of the changing geopolitical and U.S. climate. Where possible, technology service providers should be diversified, to represent different jurisdictions and sources of funding, and, thus, mitigate the risks of a sweeping withdrawal.
This analysis was prepared as a part of a research project on the use of technology in sexual and gender-based international crime investigations, funded by the Cross-Border Conflict Evidence, Policy and Trends XCEPT research program, funded by UK International Development from the UK government; however, the views expressed do not necessarily reflect the UK government’s official policies.
