Amid the multitude of crimes committed in Ukraine since 2014, conflict-related sexual violence (CSV) has emerged as a persistent and significant concern, primarily affecting women and girls aged 20-30. 4 years has 80 years old. A recent OHCHR investigation report notably documented how Russian soldiers raped and committed sexual violence against women, acting with impunity in the occupied territories. In several cases, Ukrainian authorities were also accused acts of sexual violence. These crimes take different forms, ranging from gang rape to being forced to witness an act of sexual violence committed against a family member or loved one. Sexual violence is also used against men and women in detention and described by the OHCHR amounting to a “form of torture or ill-treatment”. As indicated by the ICTY (Tadic affair), rape is considered a serious form of torture. Other forms of sexual violence, such as forced nudity, may be considered inhumane or degrading treatment. Taking into account current international legislation, acts of SVLC reported in Ukraine since 2014 constitute crimes under international law. UN Security Council Resolution 1820 notably recognized in 2018 that rape and other forms of sexual violence are considered a war crime, in accordance with Article 8 of the law. Rome Statute.
An administrative reparations program can be defined as an “extrajudicial procedure used by States to provide redress to a massive number of victims of flagrant violations of IHRL and/or serious violations of IHL”.». Such programs are mainly used in armed conflict or post-conflict situations where judicial alternatives are lacking. They are more advantageous for victims than legal proceedings (which have several constraints, including high costs, victims’ lack of confidence in the judicial system, cross-examinations, the need to gather evidence). Administrative programs are only an additional measure and victims receiving administrative relief still have the right to receive relief from local or international courts.
In situations of armed conflict, including in Ukraine, various factors such as the length of proceedings, cost, high threshold of proof or the fact that only a handful of victims initiate legal proceedings prevent victims from obtaining reparations. judicial. In Ukraine recently, the rarity of convictions related to VSLC crimes hinders the ability to use criminal procedure and individual responsibility to compel perpetrators of sexual violence to compensate victims. Given the urgency of this situation for several victims, a 2019 OHCHR report report The focus on Ukraine has already indicated that, as an alternative, state authorities should resort to administrative procedures to grant reparations to victims of this conflict.
A 2023 UNGA resolution (A/RES/ES-11/5) recognized the responsibility of the Russian state in this armed conflict, emphasizing Russia’s obligation to establish a reparation mechanism. However, at least in 2024, the persistence of this armed conflict and the reluctance of the Russian authorities hamper the use of traditional legal channels to obtain reparations. In light of these circumstances, it is important, as an alternative, to consider Ukraine’s responsibility to take proactive steps towards reparative actions. THE UNGA Guidelines on Reparations (non-binding) state in particular that “States should endeavor to establish national programs of reparation and other forms of assistance to victims in cases where the parties responsible for the harm suffered are unable or unwilling to fulfill their obligations”.
It is also important to highlight that under international human rights law (IHRL), a state has a continuing obligation to provide reparations to victims within its jurisdiction. This obligation is indicated in various treaties ratified by Ukraine. States have an obligation to provide reparations to their citizens, but the Belfast Guidelines also mention the possibility of using “frozen and sanctioned assets of those responsible for these crimes” to provide reparations. This is the current consideration for the implementation of reparations programs in Ukraine.
Whereas before the Russian invasion in 2021, in the absence of any administrative reparation program Ukrainian victims could only obtain legal reparations, an alternative mixed approach was initiated. In 2021, the Ukrainian authorities notably facility a “Working Group for the development and implementation of international legal mechanisms for compensation for damage caused to Ukraine”. Based on the recommendation of the UNGA A International Claims Commission could now be created (potentially financed by frozen Russian assets) and used to provide reparations to victims of the war in Ukraine. To anticipate the future functioning of this type of organ, a damage register was created. initiated by the European Council and the Ukrainian authorities and the Ukrainian authorities are currently establishing a national register of victims. Despite the lack of certaintyseveral administrative reparation plans are now expected and authorities must adapt them to respond to different types of damage, with a particular focus on the needs of VSLC victims.
Beyond financial compensation, victims of CRSV have the right to different forms of repairs. This is why the Ukrainian authorities and the international community must take into account the specific aspect of victims affected by VSLC in Ukraine and act through a holistic approach and victim-centered program. As an example, in other situations, a trust fund for VSLC victims has been established. initiated in the Central African Republic to provide medical care, psychosocial rehabilitation, education and socio-economic support. Symbolic remedial measures such as a statue or memorials can also be provided to victims of sexual violence (in DRC Or IraqFor example).
According to a recent study by the Global Survivors Fund (GSF), Ukrainian CRSV victims are seeking different forms of reparation, including medical-psychological care, public awareness, security and financial support. This GSF study also highlights that a significant proportion of Ukrainian victims have little understanding reparations as a legal concept. In this way, a victim-centered approach is necessary to provide direct assistance to victims and facilitate their access to reparations. This can be facilitated by an administrative reparations process involving victims, victims’ groups, government authorities and civil society. Concerning the urgent needs of certain victims, recently, a pilot project focused on victims was initiated between the Ukrainian government, victims’ groups, NGOs and the IOM to provide VSLC victims with “the financial compensation necessary to put an end to the exacerbation of their suffering”.
However, despite the launch of several procedures, several gaps still need to be filled to establish a comprehensive long-term reparation strategy that truly meets the needs of VSLC victims. For example, the Register established by the Ukrainian authorities to draw up a list of victims is long and controversial. It does not include victims of crimes committed before 2021 and only generally mentions harm to life and health, which may not correspond to specific crimes committed against VSLC victims. This register also does not clearly take into account the potential types of redress (mainly focusing on payments provided), and the absence A significant challenge is the existence of clear guidance on how to obtain victim status. Likewise, the top-down aspect of the European system Damage register was also criticized due to lack of inclusion victims and the lack of consideration of their needs.
The international community and national authorities will need to improve the implementation of a specific reparations program through a victim-centered approach that does not impose gaps in evidence preventing multiple victims from accessing reparations. For example, the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women note In 2020, insufficient compensation and support was provided to victims of VSLC in Bosnia. Although a comprehensive reparations plan was launched, several victims of VSLC have not had access to any form of reparation due to lack of evidence. The unique circumstances and challenges faced by victims of VSLC, particularly those residing in border areas, will require a focus on their specific needs. Large-scale reparations programs risk failing to meet the demands of the affected population if they do not include a comprehensive victim-centered approach, particularly for victims of VSLC. The wide age range of VSLC victims in Ukraine also demonstrates the diversity of their reparation needs. State authorities should also avoid tight deadlines to allow all victims to seek long-term compensation.
Further reading on international electronic relations
