Since February 2022, when Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the Ukrainian Office of the Prosecutor has reported 376 registered cases of conflict-related sexual violence against civilians. This number falls short of reflecting the true scale of these crimes (expected to reach the thousands), and even more so if counting begins in 2014, when Russia invaded and illegally annexed the Crimean Peninsula. Critically, this number also fails to capture the full range of victims: sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV) has also been committed against Ukrainian military personnel, a group not included in this tally.
Out of the 376 cases, 87 got a notice of suspicion, which, in Ukraine marks the moment a person formally becomes a suspect. Of these, 60 individuals were indicted, and 21 were sentenced to prison. Although survivors have acknowledged gaps in the legal framework, during roundtables and interviews, they have also noted improvements in their interactions with law enforcement authorities. Yet, survivors’ experiences and needs should not be assumed as homogeneous. Not everyone will seek or feel able to pursue criminal justice. There should be no presumption that survivors must disclose their experience or testify in court. Certain survivors channel their distressing experience into activism, turning their stories into powerful tools to support others and help document atrocity crimes. Others prefer to heal privately. Sharing their experience or being involved in lengthy legal proceedings is difficult or something they want to refrain from doing. Some fear for their relatives still living in territories occupied by Russian forces or for their brothers and sisters in uniform still being detained. Others need additional support before even thinking of engaging with the criminal justice system. Importantly, the desire to avoid personal involvement does not mean survivors do not want justice. Instead, it may indicate they hope accountability can be pursued without their direct involvement.
With the war in its fourth year, the number of accounts of conflict-related SGBV is likely to rise, as survivors increasingly feel empowered to share their stories. Law enforcement authorities must be prepared to handle this growing number of people coming forward, including scenarios where survivors choose not to participate in court proceedings or later withdraw their testimony. The real challenge lies in whether Ukraine is prepared to respond to these dynamics, both to a potential surge in survivors disclosing their experiences and to prosecutions that must proceed without the active involvement of victims.
A New Trend for Prosecuting Sexual and Gender-Based Violence
Article 1 of Ukraine’s Criminal Code (CCU) promises to uphold human rights and public safety. Since 2014, this commitment has been severely tested. Not many (if any) domestic systems are equipped to address the magnitude of atrocity crimes faced by Ukraine. For investigators and prosecutors working on these crimes, it quickly became clear legal processes needed to be reviewed so that these crimes could be more effectively investigated and prosecuted without overburdening survivors. For instance, measures, such as allowing a video record of a survivor’s questioning as evidence in court, were implemented to facilitate criminal proceedings during martial law and avoid unnecessary direct involvement of survivors beyond their statement, including being summoned to court.
International developments have also shown Ukraine’s willingness to align its domestic law with international standards and increase survivors’ safety throughout proceedings. In June 2023, Ukraine ratified the Istanbul Convention, a treaty aimed at combatting violence against women. Ukraine now must align its national legislation (and practice) accordingly. Among other trauma-informed and survivor-centered practices, the Convention states that law enforcement authorities must conduct investigations and prosecutions of SGBV cases that do not solely depend on a survivor’s report or complaint and that, when possible, proceedings may continue even if survivors withdraw their statement or complaint (our emphasis). When survivors are not coerced to remain silent, their decision to withdraw from any legal proceedings should be respected. Investigators and prosecutors should not summon them to court, an experience that could otherwise be highly (re)traumatizing.
What Are the Challenges for the Ukrainian Justice System?
Despite the Ukrainian government’s commitment to these changes, there are several provisions of Ukraine’s Criminal Procedure Code–or their application–that remain at odds with international best practices. In many instances, an insufficient shared understanding of the Istanbul Convention’s requirements and their practical application reflects enduring institutional and normative challenges with the implementation across justice actors and service providers. For instance, provisions such as the right to summon survivors to court or the survivor’s obligation “not to impede the establishment of the circumstances of the commission of a criminal offense” have been interpreted by investigators and prosecutors as imposing a “duty” on survivors to participate in criminal proceedings. This interpretation raises serious concerns about how investigations and prosecutions can proceed effectively without relying on survivors’ direct participation and without requiring survivors to be present in court or to conduct investigative actions.
In addition, despite a growing recognition among law enforcement authorities of the importance of building bigger cases and that sexual violence crimes are (almost) never isolated cases, there is still an understanding that most war-related SGBV, and, especially, when committed against civilians during Russian occupation, should be investigated on a case-by-case basis. Such an approach aligns with Ukrainian criminal tradition and does not come as a surprise. Prosecutors and investigators have been working on domestic cases most of their career prior to Russia’s invasion. For that reason, however, investigations still highly depend on survivor’s testimony and active participation, meaning that proceedings are unlikely to continue if a survivor withdraws. Such practice fails to respect the survivor’s best interest and is potentially harmful as survivors might feel like the entire success of the investigation is relying on them – an unnecessary stress and burden.
An additional factor that makes it challenging for authorities to integrate these new practices into their daily work is their duty to consider the general interest of society in achieving justice. Traditionally, upholding “public order and safety” has been understood as holding perpetrators accountable through the criminal justice system no matter what. In Ukraine, this approach is further reinforced by the scale and nature of the crimes, which have been committed against the state and its people as a whole. Investigators and prosecutors have at times echoed this view, and it is understandable that a well-intentioned motivation to encourage survivor participation in pursuit of a greater collective purpose can be compelling.
There is no doubt that striking a balance between Ukraine’s obligations to protect survivors’ best interests, and, therefore, accepting them withdrawing or taking a step back from a case, versus achieving formal or traditional justice by placing perpetrators behind bars, can be challenging. However, as Ukraine moves forward in its negotiations to join the European Union, it would be to its advantage to incorporate this practice into the CPC (and ensure its respect), especially since it has been embedded in EU Directives. Moreover, while concerns have been raised whether obligations stemming from the Istanbul Convention were imposing new practices unfamiliar to Ukraine, it is important to stress that Ukraine’s constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) already establish a duty to protect survivors’ physical and mental well-being and prioritize their best interests and security. The Istanbul Convention, therefore, does not create new obligations. In addition, international treaties ratified by the Ukrainian parliament, such as the ECHR and its related case law from the European Court of Human Rights, must be considered in legal interpretation by domestic courts. This approach makes it compulsory for state entities, such as law enforcement authorities, to comply with international human rights standards such as the EU Directives, provided they do not conflict with national law.
How Can These Best Practices Be Adopted Without Overloading Investigative Teams?
With an increased awareness of the importance of respecting survivors’ rights and an understanding that conflict-related SGBV is often part of a broader war strategy, law enforcement authorities are already adapting their practices. The recommendations below offer practical guidance that, based on the authors’ direct experience working with Ukrainian authorities, could be easily integrated to the current work.
- At the very beginning of an investigation, investigators and prosecutors should seek to gather evidence in a proactive way that will make the prosecution possible even without the survivor’s participation. Cases can be built using alternative evidence, including eye-witness accounts, such as pre-violence and post-violence witnessing of harms; evidence from family and close friends as to impact and change of the victim’s behavior and attitude; insider evidence such as community leaders, teachers, doctors, etc.; medical records, including from local hospitals after the Russian occupation, or from rehabilitation centers (received and ongoing treatments); forensic psychological examination reports; photographic evidence; crime-scene evidence; physical evidence; or even hearsay.
- During the trial, prosecutors can present to court expert witnesses who can provide contextual information, explain the possible harms and impacts caused by these violations or lay out the context (both historical and cultural) to explain alleged perpetrators’ intention behind systematic attacks. These experts can explain to judges that a survivor who withdraws from a case is not “uncooperative” and that their decision comes from a personal preference not to participate. The survivor might in fact prefer to avoid, or might feel unable, (re)experiencing a traumatizing memory. Of course, such a shift in practice also requires a commitment from the judiciary to hear these cases and to treat them with the seriousness they deserve.
- Investigators and prosecutors should avoid siloing investigations of SGBV. They should not assume these crimes are isolated acts or that alleged perpetrators are only driven by their personal interest, or overlook the broader impact of these acts on communities. The newly amended Article 442-1 of Ukraine’s Criminal Code prohibiting crimes against humanity, including SGBV, might increase practitioners’ understanding that conflict-related SGBV is usually part of a larger attack strategy, often committed as a tactic of war, to humiliate communities and targeted groups and to destabilize political opponents. Russia’s full-scale invasion is no exception: Russian soldiers are committing SGBV as a demonstration of power, to destroy the social fabric of Ukrainian communities, and to humiliate Ukrainian soldiers. By investigating larger cases, with multiple survivors of SGBV (and of other crimes), law enforcement will lift the burden from the shoulders of a single survivor whose story should be understood in the wider context of the current war.
- Finally, while acknowledging significant challenges, there is a growing discussion on the use of open-source information in courtrooms. The Ukrainian legal system is not yet fully adapted, and the absence of a clear legal framework continues to limit the use of open-source evidence in current proceedings. Still, despite these obstacles, open-source tools have proven to be incredibly valuable in investigating international crimes, especially when it comes to corroborate evidence or to generate investigative leads. It can also help to identify the locations of atrocities and guide investigators on where to collect additional evidence.
Justice Is About More Than Putting Perpetrators Behind Bars
Accountability through the formal criminal system is an important aspect of justice, but not the only one. Justice must also be understood through holistic support, recognition, full and effective reparations, and the documentation of survivors’ experiences, not merely as part of a legal process, but also as memorialization efforts. These various dimensions of justice are interconnected and complementary, together forming a more complete and meaningful approach.
Studies conducted in Ukraine and in other conflict zones have shown that survivors are seeking different avenues for accountability. Cognizant of this fact, Ukraine, with the help of its international partners, has been working to build a support system for SGBV survivors that goes beyond criminal justice and that is more holistic.
For instance, most SGBV survivors who officially reported cases to the criminal system received a variety of support services, including psychosocial support, legal aid, medical care, and various material or technical help. With their consent, they can also be referred to the Victims and Witnesses Coordination Centre to be accompanied throughout the process and referred to services. The newly adopted law on urgent interim reparation for conflict-related sexual violence also marks a significant step by establishing a clear mechanism to deliver timely reparations without requiring survivors to officially take part in criminal proceedings. Relatedly, victims can submit a claim to the Register of Damage for Ukraine, which is responsible for collecting, verifying, and organizing evidence of damage suffered by individuals, legal entities, and the state. Final decisions regarding compensation and adjudication will be taken by the Claims Commission for Ukraine, expected to become operational in 2026.
Finally, it is worth mentioning the recently launched platform “Було так” (“It Happened This Way”), which aims to improve the quality of services provided by justice and support institutions. Individuals can report (anonymously or not) unprofessional or inadequate treatment by law enforcement, prosecutors, legal aid providers, or civil society organizations. Submitted reports are analyzed and forwarded to the relevant institutions for follow up and accountability. By highlighting systemic gaps and recurring issues, “Було так” could play a critical role in strengthening institutional response and fostering a more transparent and truly survivor-oriented support system.
Although the pace may be gradual and these mechanisms may not yet fully meet survivors’ expectations or are not yet as effective as expected, their existence marks meaningful progress nonetheless. These efforts also acknowledge an important truth: not every survivor sees bringing perpetrators to justice as their top priority or even their ultimate goal. For survivors, justice might mean freely obtaining forms of support that will meet their immediate needs and that will help them move forward with their lives. Some might also decide to take part in the criminal system at a later stage. Every survivor deserves the chance to choose the type of actions and measures that feels right for them, whether it’s relocation to a safer place, rehabilitation, financial compensation, a swift investigation that does not rely on their direct participation, or any forms of reparation they deem meaningful and fair.
Other countries’ experiences reveal something powerful: the more options and support the government provides, the more likely survivors are to feel empowered to pursue justice on their own terms. When they do, they often come to see themselves as part of a larger movement toward accountability and healing. Ukraine’s steps toward building this kind of system are not just about addressing individual’s needs, they’re about laying the groundwork for justice and recovery for society and striking this important balance between survivors’ rights and justice for the whole nation.
The authors wish to thank Ulic Egan, Senior Legal Advisor and Lead of the SGBV Mobile Justice Team at Global Rights Compliance, for his helpful review and contributions.
