Experts of the Committee against Torture Praise Measures to Prevent Torture in Ukraine, Ask about Alleged Torture of Russian Prisoners of War and Reports of Corruption and Torture in Prisons
The Committee against Torture today concluded its consideration of the seventh periodic report of Ukraine, with Committee Experts praising the State’s legislative and policy measures to prevent torture, and raising questions about alleged torture of Russian prisoners of war, as well as reports of torture and corruption in prisons.
Claude Heller, Committee Chair and Country Co-Rapporteur, said Ukraine had suffered a devastating war since the full-scale invasion by the Russian Federation on 24 February 2022, in flagrant violation of international law and the United Nations Charter. More than three years of war had led to numerous military and civilian deaths and serious violations of international human rights law, including summary executions, torture and ill-treatment, and arbitrary detentions.
Mr. Heller said that, over the past decade, Ukraine had made considerable amendments to legislation and ministries, including with respect to the occupied territories. He welcomed that the national strategy for human rights had been updated to include strategic goals for combatting torture, the appointment of human rights inspectors in places of detention, and the State’s ratification of the Rome Statute in 2024.
Since February 2022, Mr. Heller said, 240 Russian prisoners of war had reported suffering torture during the armed conflict in Ukrainian detention centres. What measures had been taken in cases where torture had been confirmed? The Committee was concerned about reports of illegal detentions by Ukrainian authorities. How many people had been detained illegally?
Peter Vedel Kessing, Committee Expert and Country Co-Rapporteur, said prisons under Ukrainian control were suffering under the war. Some faced frequent shelling by Russian troops, and were reportedly becoming hotbeds of torture and corruption. Newly arrived prisoners were reportedly routinely beaten, and there was reported overcrowding in prisons. What steps had been taken to reduce overcrowding and improve prison conditions?
Introducing the report, Liudmyla Suhak, Deputy Minister of Justice for European Integration of Ukraine and head of the delegation, said Ukraine was systematically implementing measures to prevent and combat torture at the national level. The 2021 strategy for combatting torture in the criminal justice system introduced a system for combatting torture by law enforcement, while the national human rights strategy had been updated to include specific strategic goals for combatting torture.
Ms. Suhak said that the conditions of detention for Russian prisoners of war complied with international humanitarian law and had been inspected 112 times by the International Committee of the Red Cross between 2018 and 2024. To ensure that prisoners of war were not tortured during transfers to detainment camps, the delegation added, clear legal procedures had been developed. Military officials were trained on the rights of prisoners of war.
The delegation said that the State party had undertaken measures to combat corruption and ill-treatment of inmates in the penitentiary system. An internal security unit had been created to investigate reports of violations by penitentiary staff and inmates. In 2024, persons responsible for observing the rights of convicts and preventing torture were also introduced into the staff of 56 penal institutions.
In closing remarks, Mr. Heller said that the State party’s efforts to engage in the dialogue were commendable in the context of the bloodthirsty war. The issues discussed were not issues of the past but were ongoing. Ukraine sought to protect its territorial integrity and the well-being of its population. The rest of the world was hoping for an end to the war that respected the territorial integrity of Ukraine. The Committee hoped that its next dialogue with Ukraine would take place in conditions of peace, prosperity and democracy.
In her concluding remarks, Ms. Suhak said that Ukraine would actively work to implement the Committee’s concluding observations. Tens of thousands of Ukrainian citizens were being held by Russia, and virtually every Ukrainian citizen who had been returned from Russia had suffered some form of torture. Ukraine urged Russia to fully comply with its obligations under international law and to end its illegal war. The Committee’s efforts would help to hold Russia to account.
The delegation of Ukraine consisted of representatives from the Ministry of Social Policy; Coordination Centre for Legal Aid Provision; Prosecutor General's Office; Security Service; Ministry of Defence; Ministry of Justice; State Migration Service; State Bureau of Investigation; National Police; Ministry of Health; the Permanent Mission of Ukraine to the United Nations Office at Geneva; and the European Court of Human Rights.
The Committee will issue concluding observations on the report of Ukraine at the end of its eighty-second session on 2 May. Those, and other documents relating to the Committee’s work, including reports submitted by States parties, will be available on the session’s webpage. Summaries of the public meetings of the Committee can be found here, and webcasts of the public meetings can be found here.
The Committee will next meet in public on Tuesday, 29 April at 4 p.m. to hear the presentation of reports on follow-up to articles 19 and 22 of the Convention and reprisals.
Report
The Committee has before it the seventh periodic report of Ukraine (CAT/C/UKR/7).
Presentation of Report
LIUDMYLA SUHAK, Deputy Minister of Justice for European Integration of Ukraine and head of the delegation, said Ukraine was systematically implementing measures to prevent and combat torture at the national level. The 2021 strategy for combatting torture in the criminal justice system outlined the development of a national system for combatting torture committed by law enforcement personnel. The national human rights strategy had been updated to include specific strategic goals for combatting torture and ensuring the right to liberty and security of person. The strategy for the reform of the penitentiary system 2021-2026 aimed to address structural problems and create a humanistic system for the execution of criminal penalties.
During the reporting period, several amendments were made to criminal legislation. The Criminal Code had been revised to bring the definition of torture into line with the provisions of the Convention, and to introduce criminal liability for the crime of enforced disappearance. Additionally, legislation was revised to guarantee the right of detainees to be held in proper conditions and to facilitate the consideration of complaints about improper detention conditions. The criminal penalty system now also included probation supervision.
In 2024, amendments were made to the Code of Administrative Offences to distinguish between domestic violence, gender-based violence and sexual harassment, to increase administrative liability for such acts. Several legislative initiatives were currently under consideration by Parliament, including a draft law on the penitentiary system, as well as other draft laws that would introduce a standard for minimum cell space of four square metres per detainee, the right of convicts to short-term visits outside the colony under certain conditions, and revised procedures for detaining persons.
New internal regulations for the temporary detention centres of the national police adopted in 2023 stipulated that police officers were not allowed to carry out acts of torture or other forms of inhuman treatment on detainees. In 2018 and 2019, internal regulations for pre-trial detention centres and penitentiary institutions of the State Penitentiary Service were approved. These rules were regularly updated. In 2024, the Security Service’s procedure for holding persons in temporary detention facilities was revised.
Ukraine provided unhindered access for both national and international monitoring mechanisms. In 2024, the national preventive mechanism of the Ombudsperson conducted 543 visits to penitentiary institutions, and the United Nations Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine carried out 44 visits between 2018 and 2024.
Efforts were being made to develop a child-friendly juvenile justice system. As a result, over the past five years, there had been a steady reduction in juvenile crime, and over the past seven years, the number of minors registered by probation authorities had dropped three-fold.
In 2024, a Commissioner for Missing Persons under Special Circumstances was appointed within the Ministry of Internal Affairs, and a specialised unit for combatting torture and other ill-treatment of persons, staffed with 157 investigators, had been launched within the State Bureau of Investigation. Within the Office of the Prosecutor General, separate specialised units had been established to combat human rights violations in the law enforcement and penitentiary sectors, as well as to combat crimes committed in the context of the armed conflict. The Ministry of Justice also had a separate Department of Penitentiary Inspections.
In 2024, persons responsible for observing the rights of convicts and preventing torture were introduced into the staff of 56 penal institutions. The State had developed the digital infrastructure of both law enforcement agencies and the penitentiary system, launching registers of convicted persons, persons taken into custody, and missing persons under special circumstances. An automated exchange of information on detained persons between law enforcement agencies and free legal aid centres was being introduced. In cases of violence or torture against detainees and convicts, they had the right to free legal representation in court.
State social programmes aimed at preventing and combatting domestic violence, gender-based violence, and human trafficking were being implemented. Free secondary legal aid was provided to victims of domestic violence and human trafficking.
In response to Russia’s armed aggression against Ukraine, Ukrainian law enforcement agencies had initiated investigations into 163,700 war crimes and crimes of aggression on Ukrainian territory. In 2024, the Criminal Code was amended to ensure criminal prosecution for the most serious international crimes, as well as to bring it into line with the Rome Statute, which entered into force for Ukraine in 2025.
In 2022, the procedure for the detention of prisoners of war was approved. It stipulated that the interrogation of prisoners of war should be carried out in a language they understood, without the use of torture or other coercive measures. The conditions of detention for Russian prisoners of war complied with international humanitarian law and had been inspected 112 times by the International Committee of the Red Cross between 2018 and 2024. Conversely, Russian authorities continued to deny access to Ukrainian prisoners of war, as well as civilian detainees, held by Russia in violation of international humanitarian law.
Ukraine had also been taking measures to support victims and those affected by armed aggression. Since 2022, victims of a number of criminal offences, including torture or cruel treatment, had been entitled to free secondary legal aid. In 2024, the legal status of victims of sexual violence related to Russia’s armed aggression and the legal basis for providing them with urgent interim reparations were determined at the legislative level. An international compensation mechanism for damages caused by Russia’s aggression was being developed. In 2024, 40 categories of claims that could be submitted to the International Register of Damages were approved, including some related to torture, deprivation of liberty, and sexual violence.
Questions by Committee Experts
CLAUDE HELLER, Committee Chair and Country Co-Rapporteur, welcomed the delegation’s presence, considering that Ukraine had suffered a devastating war since the full-scale invasion by the Russian Federation on 24 February 2022, in flagrant violation of international law and the Charter of the United Nations. After more than three years of war, hundreds of thousands of military personnel on both sides were estimated to have died, with many more wounded, missing in action and in captivity. From February 2022 to February 2025, there had been more than 12,800 civilian deaths and more than 30,000 injuries in systematic attacks on civilian towns, cities, and infrastructure, while the number of deaths of Russian civilians was expected to have risen to 360. These were very conservative elements.
The war had led to serious violations of international human rights and humanitarian law, including summary executions; torture and ill-treatment; arbitrary detentions; forced transfer of people, including minors, to the occupying State; and acts of sexual violence. More than 13 million people required humanitarian assistance, more than two million homes had been destroyed in Ukraine, and there were 10.6 million displaced people in Ukraine.
Over the past decade, Ukraine had made considerable amendments to legislation and ministries, including with respect to the occupied territories. The national strategy for human rights had been updated to include strategic goals for combatting torture. The adoption of the strategy to combat torture and the related plan of action and the appointment of human rights inspectors in places of detention would contribute to preventing torture and facilitating investigations. It was also welcome that in 2024, a commissioner for disappeared persons was appointed within the police force, and that Ukraine had ratified the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance.
The Committee was concerned that not all the elements of the Convention had been incorporated in the Criminal Code, which did not establish the State’s responsibility to hold public officials accountable when they committed acts of torture under orders from superiors. Why was the number of cases of torture that reached court much smaller than the number of investigations carried out?
The Ombudsperson carried out independent monitoring of constitutional rights and freedoms. However, the body lacked financial resources and experts on monitoring. There was a lack of transparency in the selection of its staff, and a lack of balanced regional representation. The national preventive mechanism had also been criticised for its lack of experts and funding, delays in its investigations, and its lack of cooperation with civil society. There was a low level of implementation of recommendations made by the Ombudsperson; only one-third of the recommendations made in 2023 were addressed. Could the delegation comment on these issues?
State bodies responsible for guaranteeing the rights of detainees appeared to have been ineffective. Victims of torture were allegedly subjected to reprisals by authorities and the Istanbul Protocol was not applied well by the State. Could the delegation comment on this?
In 2015, Parliament had adopted a decision to suspend certain obligations stemming from the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the European Convention of Human Rights and impose martial law until the cessation of the Russian aggression. The Committee was concerned by acts carried out by armed groups in eastern Ukraine from 2014 to 2017. During this period, more than 100 criminal cases were brought against Ukrainian security officials, including related to offences of torture and sexual violence. Had court proceedings concluded?
The State party had taken a significant step by ratifying the Rome Statute in 2024. The implementation law partially harmonised criminal law with the Statute, requiring acts of torture systematically committed against the civilian population to be tried as crimes against humanity. However, the law did not amend legislation on war crimes to bring it in line with the Statute. Would the State do this?
Both Russia and Ukraine had mutually accused each other of acts of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment against civilians. There were more than 6,000 Ukrainian prisoners under Russian custody, who reportedly lacked access to food and medical support. There were credible reports that Russian authorities had carried out around 80 executions of Ukrainian forces. The United Nations Independent Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine had reported widespread torture of civilians in areas under Russian control. Persons arrested in these territories were tried by non-recognised courts and were not granted access to lawyers of their choice. Information on trials was not provided to families. Could the State party provide information on the number of such trials carried out?
Since February 2022, 240 Russian prisoners of war had reported suffering torture during the armed conflict in Ukrainian detention centres. Could the delegation comment on these accusations? What measures had been taken in cases where torture had been confirmed, and how was the State party preventing torture? The Committee was concerned about reports of illegal detentions by Ukrainian authorities. How many people had been detained illegally? There had also been allegations of arbitrary detention of civilians suspected of collaborating with Russia after territories were reclaimed.
The Committee was also concerned about the impact of the conflict on the rule of law. Several cases of threats and violence against journalists had been reported. Ukraine introduced a procedure in 2022 to prohibit broadcasts that “could jeopardise the independence and sovereignty of the country”. Some journalists had been criminalised after working in occupied territories, despite there being no evidence of having committed unlawful acts. Could the delegation comment on this issue?
More than 2,000 criminal lawsuits had been filed on the glorification of Russian actions. This had reportedly given rise to 443 guilty verdicts involving non-custodial sentences. Authorities had imposed security restrictions, including limiting access to information. A bill before Parliament sought to restrict access to court decisions until the cessation of martial law, and several other bills had sought to limit certain rights for human rights defenders. There was deep-rooted impunity for crimes against activists.
There had been an unprecedented increase in gender-based violence in Ukraine. The number of cases of domestic violence had increased by more than 30 per cent in 2024, with a number of these cases involving men returning from the front. The State was seemingly reluctant to hold members of the armed forces accountable for such crimes.
A 2017 law amended legislation regarding psychiatric care in response to past violations of patients’ rights. Norms allowing for involuntary sterilisation were eliminated. However, there were reports of excessive hospitalisation of persons with psychosocial disabilities, including children, and a lack of provision of alternative, community-based care services. There were allegations of torture and ill-treatment in psychiatric hospitals; could the delegation comment on this?
PETER VEDEL KESSING, Committee Expert and Country Co-Rapporteur, said that the situation in Ukraine was tragic after three years of war. Mr. Kessing commended Ukraine’s commitment to its human rights obligations in these difficult times, adopting laws and policies to strengthen human rights protections. Ukraine had continued to engage with the European Court of Human Rights since 2022, resulting in the closure of 75 cases.
What steps had been taken to ensure that Ukrainian soldiers and State officials did not engage in torture? What training did these officials receive on the Convention? Could the delegation confirm that its derogations from international law in the martial law period did not relate to the Convention? Did Ukraine continue to apply international human rights law in situations of armed conflict?
The State party needed to prosecute and hold accountable all those who committed torture on occupied territories when it regained control of the territory. What steps had been taken to document such acts? How had the State party ensured that Ukrainian citizens who were victims of torture had access to remedies when they returned to Ukraine? Ukraine had developed a draft law on compensation for victims of violent crimes and a related State fund. Had this law been adopted?
There had been reports of beatings of men who sought to avoid conscription. In one case, a man claimed he had been drafted illegally as he had not undergone a medical examination. Could the delegation provide statistical information on injuries and deaths linked to hazing and investigations into such incidents? How did the State ensure that conscripts were treated in line with international obligations?
There had been reports of excessive use of force by Ukrainian police over the reporting period. Detainees in police detention did not have access to food or drinking water. What steps had been taken to prevent ill-treatment in police detention? Access to a lawyer was not always provided for arrested persons; how would the State ensure this? Video recording of interrogation was discretionary. Would the State make recording mandatory and ensure that recorded footage of interrogations was kept? Were Russian prisoners of war and civilians arrested by Ukrainian forces provided with procedural safeguards? How many children had been held in pre-trial detention over the last three years? Were there time limits on the detention of children, and were children separated from adults in detention?
Prisons under Ukrainian control were suffering under the war; some faced frequent shelling by Russian troops, and were reportedly becoming hotbeds of torture and corruption. Since winter 2024, there had been increased raids on prisons by special forces. The Committee commended that human rights observers had been appointed in some prisons. What actions did they carry out and were they now appointed in all prisons?
Newly arrived prisoners were reportedly routinely beaten, and special forces used illegal force against inmates. Was it necessary to deploy special forces in prisons? Would the State abandon this practice? There was reported overcrowding in prisons, with inmates in one prison forced to alternatively sleep on the floor. There were also reports of limited access to fresh air, clean drinking water and sunlight in some prisons. What steps had been taken to reduce overcrowding and improve prison conditions? Some prisoners were appointed as “duty” prisoners and given duties to oversee other prisoners. Had steps been taken to eliminate this practice and protect all prisoners’ rights?
Medical staff in prisons reportedly did not document inmates’ injuries. Could the delegation provide information on the number of deaths in custody over the last three years? What steps had been taken to strengthen healthcare in prisons? There were no rules banning force-feeding in prisons; did the Government intend to elaborate such rules? Did the Ukrainian Ombudsperson have access to all places of detention and could it conduct unannounced visits? To what extent could non-governmental organizations access places of detention? Article 391 of the Criminal Code made it an offence to disobey orders by prison staff. This provision was reportedly abused by staff to engage in corrupt practices; would it be revised?
Other Committee Experts asked questions on measures taken by State authorities to respond to and prevent domestic violence; the status of the draft bill criminalising domestic violence and sexual violence; measures to ensure penalties for domestic and sexual violence were commensurate with the gravity of the crime; the number of investigations and convictions for domestic violence cases over the reporting period; efforts made to establish civil registries to facilitate birth registration and prevent trafficking of children; whether the State party held Ukrainian forces that were returned to the State accountable when they were accused of torture; how the State treated prisoners of war from third countries; and whether the clergy and staff of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church had been provided with support after the banning of the Church.
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said the State party provided training on the Convention and other international and European human rights norms for penitentiary staff. Currently, there were 119 children held in pre-trial detention and 177 children held in juvenile detention facilities, including just one girl. Judges assessed the necessity of detention for children once every three months.
The State party had undertaken measures to combat corruption and ill-treatment of inmates in the penitentiary system. An internal security unit had been created to investigate reports of violations by penitentiary staff and inmates and to initiate criminal proceedings against accused persons; the Government was currently recruiting staff for the unit. The State party had recruited 54 out of 56 human rights inspectors for its prisons and adopted a resolution on their scope of activity. These inspectors reported directly to the State about the problems they witnessed.
Currently, there were 37,000 inmates in places of deprivation of liberty in Ukraine. The prison population was declining gradually. More than 8,000 prisoners had been voluntarily mobilised at the beginning of the war. The Government had allocated funds to build a new detention facility in Kyiv that could accommodate more than 1,000 detainees and decrease the population of other prisons. Norms on construction had been revised to protect prisons from shelling and improve security. Despite budget cuts, over 7,500 places had been newly created in detention centres since 2022.
The State party was fighting the spread of criminal influence and a criminal subculture in prisons. It sought to proactively prosecute crimes occurring within prisons and to adopt a law on prison labour, which would increase salaries paid to prisoners who engaged in labour and improve conditions for prison labour.
There had been 432, 376 and 368 deaths in prisons respectively in 2022, 2023 and 2024. Some 98 per cent of prisoners infected with AIDS and 93 per cent of prisoners with disabilities were held in inclusive settings. The Ministry of Justice supported the idea of transferring the management of healthcare services in prisons to the Ministry of Health; discussions on this would begin soon. Rules on force-feeding were adopted two years ago.
The Ombudsperson had not complained about not being able to access any detention facilities. Some non-governmental organizations had been granted access to penitentiary facilities. An anonymous, online complaints system for prisons had been set up; last year, 6,000 complaints had been submitted by prisoners on various topics. A commission was also being created that would handle complaints of improper conditions in prisons. Discussions were underway on the revision of article 391 of the Criminal Code.
All prisoners of war were kept in common conditions. Persons with criminal records were separated from those without. Ukraine fully followed its international obligations under the Geneva Conventions. It had allowed 400 monitoring missions to visit its detention facilities for prisoners of war.
Since 2014, the State party had lost 34 penitentiary institutions located in occupied territories, including seven since 2022, in which more than 3,000 inmates were held. More than 1,000 of these inmates had already served their sentences, but had no money or documents needed to return to Ukraine. The State was working with non-governmental organizations to support their return. More than 500 persons had thus far returned.
On 10 October last year, Parliament adopted a law on the ratification of the Rome Statute. Ukraine had taken on board comments from the International Criminal Court regarding its legislation on crimes against humanity and the responsibility of superiors; the State had amended its Criminal Code in response.
Certain restrictions could be imposed on rights and freedoms under martial law, but Ukraine had not restricted the right to freedom of religious belief. The President had last year signed a Presidential Order that banned the activities of the Russian Orthodox Church, which was based on the ideology of the regime of the Russian Federation and condoned Russia’s war crimes.
Ukraine had not introduced severe restrictions on freedom of expression. Domestic media faced challenges, including the mobilisation of journalists as soldiers, dwindling resources, and damaged infrastructure caused by the Russian aggression. The State party sought to bring its media legislation in line with that of the European Union. Ukraine had risen 18 places in the World Press Freedom Index thanks to the reforms implemented.
The national police continued to manage custody records, which recorded arrests, pre-trial detention and releases, as well as detainees’ injuries. These records were kept for 25 years. There was constant video surveillance of police detention sites and independent monitoring visits were carried out. The Criminal Procedural Code had been amended to ensure that officials involved in arrests were not responsible for managing detainees’ stay in police detention. Detainees in temporary detention were provided with three hot meals per day. Standards for detention facilities stipulated that cells needed to have a water supply that detainees could access.
Since February 2022, 83,000 criminal proceedings had been instigated related to missing civilians and military officers. Some 9,000 missing persons had been found alive, while many deaths were also identified. Specialised departments for the investigation of crimes committed in the armed conflict had been established in police departments in several regions and a centre for tracing missing persons had been established in Kyiv.
The police force had recorded 179,000 administrative offences related to domestic violence, registered 19,000 perpetrators for monitoring, and had set up specialised units for tackling domestic violence in more than 60 regions. In 2024, more than 5,000 officers were trained on combatting domestic and gender-based violence.
The State constantly looked for crimes of human trafficking and took prompt responses when cases were identified. As of May 2025, 1,500 criminal offences of human trafficking had been investigated. International organizations supported training for State officials on trafficking in persons. Ukraine had joined two international taskforces to combat trafficking in persons, through which more than 3,000 Ukrainian victims of trafficking were identified across the world.
Eleven years since the Maidan revolution, investigators were continuing to investigate crimes related to it. Courts had issued 11 guilty verdicts against 14 people. The State Bureau of Investigation had suspected 340 people. The former President of Ukraine and other former high-level officials were under suspicion of having facilitated the murders of more than 67 persons between 2013 and 2014. In this period, police officers were deployed to supress protests, and courts had found activists guilty on spurious grounds. In some cases, police officers beat activists and even participated in premeditated murders. In total, there were more than 4,000 cases of criminal activity and more than 2,000 victims. There was now an opportunity to bring justice for these past crimes. There were three criminal proceedings underway related to armed gangs that had attacked individuals and homes.
War crimes were investigated by the national security service and the police. In 2024, 149 Ukrainians had been executed by Russians, and 54 had so far been executed this year. These were conservative estimates. Almost every Ukrainian prisoner of war had suffered some form of violence.
There were around 20 cases under examination of war crimes committed by Ukrainians. Doctors who provided medical examinations of prisoners of war were required to document signs of torture.
According to Ukrainian law, information about persons in detention was immediately communicated to the legal aid centre. If evidence was gathered while a defence lawyer was absent, there was a high likelihood that courts would not admit it. The State was providing legal support for prisoners who had been illegally transferred to Russia and supporting them to serve the remainder of their sentences in Ukraine. Persons with disabilities and older persons could access legal aid if they had low income or were internally displaced. Legal aid was provided to minors and victims of gender-based violence and trafficking in persons.
National standards on detention of prisoners of war stipulated that detainees’ human dignity and international law needed to be respected. No violations of human rights or cases of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment had been found while monitoring visits of places of detention.
Pre-trial investigations were underway into alleged war crimes against Ukrainian prisoners of war by Russia, including extrajudicial executions and the use of physical, psychological and sexual violence. These prisoners were systematically subjected to violence over the course of their detention; this had been confirmed by medical examinations. Some 4,000 prisoners had been returned to Ukraine.
Since February 2022, some 433 persons were detained for crimes of collaboration with Russia. The draft law of December 2022 on collaboration included provisions to improve liability for collaboration; it was currently under consideration. Some 819 investigations were underway on cases of collaboration related to healthcare and education. The teaching of school subjects based on the standards of the aggressor State did not constitute an offence. Some teachers deliberately carried out propaganda in educational institutions; this could constitute an offence.
Around 22 doctors had been notified of being under suspicion of collaboration. Criminal liability was excluded for actions carried out while providing healthcare to patients. Since February 2022, pre-trial investigations on collaboration had been carried out into 97 affiliates of religious organizations, including more than 20 clerics of the Orthodox Church. The security service had declared 197 minors as suspects in offences such as high treason, sabotage and damage to property. Many cases involved minors who were recruited by the Russian special services. Training was provided for investigators who interviewed children on the best interests of the child.
To ensure that prisoners of war were well-treated and not tortured during transfers to detainment camps, clear legal procedures had been developed. The Chief of Defence had issued orders to ensure that international human rights law was strictly followed in this process. Military officials were trained on capturing enemy combatants and on the rights of prisoners of war.
To ensure that human rights were followed during mobilisation and conscription, clear legislation had been established. Persons could apply for deferment of conscription for medical or family reasons. An investigator had been appointed within the Land Force Command to investigate allegations of human rights violations occurring during conscription.
The Ministry of Health had made changes to ensure that only psychiatric patients who posed a danger to themselves or others were isolated for legally defined periods. All primary health care providers were obligated to undergo training on identifying mental health issues and referring patients to mental health care services. These measures would help to decrease the number of patients needing institutionalisation.
More than 34,000 persons with disabilities and older persons lived in residential institutions. The Government had developed a strategy to reform these institutions and support community-based care and assisted living. Approximately 7,000 people received day care services. There were around 4,600 children cared for in institutions. The Government had approved a strategy to ensure the right of every child in Ukraine to grow up in a family environment by 2028. A law preventing violence against children had been adopted in 2024 and the State was currently developing a procedure for responding to cases of violence against children.
In 2024, around 182,000 reports of domestic violence had been received by the State. A programme for addressing traumatic war experiences had been developed. Measures had been implemented to coordinate policies on domestic violence and protect victims.
In 2022, Parliament adopted a law on amending the Criminal Code in line with the Convention. The revised law’s definition of torture addressed the liability of persons who conspired to commit torture. Discriminatory motives for the crime of torture were considered to be aggravating offences and carried a harsher penalty. The law also addressed the criminal liability of officials who ordered acts of torture. Amnesty was not issued to persons who committed torture crimes.
No derogations had been made from the State party’s obligations under international human rights law during the martial law period. Martial law foresaw the ability to prohibit peaceful assembly, but in practice, this restriction had not been applied. The Government took steps to provide compensation for victims of various types of crimes.
A special draft law had been developed that sought to improve the institutional capacity of the Ombudsperson, including by lowering the age limit for members of the Ombudsperson’s Office and imposing restrictions on reductions to the Office’s budget.
Questions by Committee Experts
CLAUDE HELLER, Committee Chair and Country Co-Rapporteur, welcomed information on measures to provide compensation for victims of human rights violations. Up to mid-February 2025, 159,000 criminal cases had been recorded related to the armed conflict, but it was unclear how many of these cases related to torture. The justice system had not been prepared to deal with the challenges brought by these cases. Acts of torture committed in occupied territories, difficulties in verifying evidence, and the internal displacement of victims hindered investigations. There was a lack of guarantees of a fair trial for trials in absentia, in which 95 per cent of accused persons were sentenced. Articles 27 and 28 of the Criminal Code needed to be amended to protect the victims and witnesses of serious international crimes.
Crimea was annexed 11 years ago, and the freedom of the media had been called into question under the Russian occupation. Russian authorities reportedly curtailed the rights to freedom of expression and assembly. Lawyers and human rights defenders had been victims of persecution and had been unable to perform their work. The European Court of Human Rights had recently found that Russia followed a pattern of criminally sentencing persons in Crimea who discredited the Russian forces. Had there been cases of torture in Crimea?
PETER VEDEL KESSING, Committee Expert and Country Co-Rapporteur, said it was positive that overcrowding had been reduced, that a new prison facility had been established, that an electronic register had been established, and that measures were taken to remove the prison hierarchy and improve access to health care. How could prisoners access the internet to make complaints to the Prison Service? How did the Service respond to complaints? Did any concern torture? Human rights monitors in prisons were commendable. Did these monitors also perform other functions in prisons? How many complaints had been received from human rights monitors and what follow-up had been conducted? There was reportedly a risk of reprisals for prisoners who lodged complaints. What measures were in place to counter reprisals against prisoners?
Prisoners of war were at a high risk of ill-treatment. What measures were taken to monitor that Russian prisoners of war were treated in line with requirements under international law? Did they undergo medical exams and was there video recording of interrogations? Was there a procedure for releasing prisoners of war who required medical treatment?
Another Committee Expert asked follow-up questions on the situation of prisoners and prison conditions in Crimea, including on the transfer of prisoners and cases of torture occurring during transfers; the situation in closed psychiatric institutions and steps taken to protect vulnerable groups such as children, and to improve conditions and oversight of these institutions; and measures taken to promote the return of children forcibly transferred from Ukraine to Russia and to ensure accountability for such acts.
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said around 7,000 complaints had been submitted by prisoners, around 1,700 of which were submitted electronically. Inmates could access specific web pages where they could submit complaints using tablets in a dedicated room. Human rights inspectors reported suspected cases of torture to the Chief of Police. Their work was supplemented by the internal security unit, which started disciplinary proceedings that could result in criminal investigations. There had been complaints submitted to the Ombudsperson regarding reprisals against prisoners. These were under investigation.
The State party was gathering evidence on war crimes and crimes against humanity occurring in occupied territories. It transferred evidence of such crimes to the International Criminal Court on request. A working group had been established to improve the implementation of the Rome Statute in Ukraine, including through legal amendments. Last year, the State had documented over 2,800 Ukrainian civilians and over 4,000 prisoners of war who were victims of torture. Many liberated civilians chose to move to different countries rather than return to Ukraine, making investigations difficult.
Ukrainian non-governmental organizations had reported that there were at least 4,700 transfers of detainees from Crimea to the territory of the Russian Federation, including 220 female detainees. The Russian Federation had failed to provide information in response to the judgement of the European Court of Human Rights that obliged Russia to return these prisoners to Ukraine.
The Government had adopted several measures to address the issue of the forcible displacement of Ukrainian children, including a procedure for identifying and returning such children, a register of deported and forcibly displaced children, and an inter-agency commission on the issue.
Concluding Remarks
CLAUDE HELLER, Committee Chair, said that, based on the dialogue, the Committee would issue concluding observations, which would include recommendations that the State party could implement within one year, as well as other recommendations that would require more time to implement. The Committee believed that its recommendations would support the implementation of the Convention in Ukraine.
The State party’s efforts to engage in the dialogue were commendable in the context of the bloodthirsty war. The issues discussed were not issues of the past but were ongoing. The last dialogue with Ukraine happened over 11 years ago and many things had happened since. Ukraine sought to protect its territorial integrity and the well-being of its population. The rest of the world was looking on, hoping for an end to the war that respected the territorial integrity of Ukraine. The dialogue had been constructive and frank. The Committee hoped that its next dialogue with Ukraine would take place in conditions of peace, prosperity and democracy.
LIUDMYLA SUHAK, Deputy Minister of Justice for European Integration and head of the delegation, thanked the Committee for the dialogue and civil society organizations that had submitted alternative reports. Ukraine would actively work to implement the Committee’s concluding observations.
Tens of thousands of Ukrainian citizens were being held by Russia. More than 170 torture chambers had been identified in Russia and virtually every Ukrainian citizen who had been returned from Russia had suffered some form of torture, which was carried out in a systemic, widespread manner by Russian authorities. The State party was grateful to the Committee for keeping the issue of Russian war crimes on the international agenda. Ukraine urged Russia to fully comply with its obligations under international law and to end its illegal war of aggression. The Committee’s efforts would help to hold Russia to account.
___________
Produced by the United Nations Information Service in Geneva for use of the media;
not an official record. English and French versions of our releases are different as they are the product of two separate coverage teams that work independently.
CAT.007E