40/CRP.3 Report on the human rights situation in Ukraine 16 November 2018 to 15 February 2019
Document Type: Final Report
Date: 2019 Mar
Session: 40th Regular Session (2019 Feb)
Agenda Item: Item10: Technical assistance and capacity-building
GE.19-04753(E)
Human Rights Council Fourtieth session
25 February–22 March 2019
Agenda item 10
Technical assistance and capacity-building
Report on the human rights situation in Ukraine 16 November 2018 to 15 February 2019
A/HRC/40/CRP.3
21 March 2019
English only
A/HRC/40/CRP.3
2
Contents Page
I. Executive summary ................................................................................................................................ 4
II. OHCHR methodology ............................................................................................................................ 6
III. Impact of hostilities ................................................................................................................................ 7 A. Conduct of hostilities and civilian casualties ................................................................................ 7 B. Civilian casualties in 2018 ............................................................................................................ 8 C. Civilian casualties during the entire conflict period ...................................................................... 9 D. Economic and social rights of conflict-affected persons ............................................................. 10
IV. Right to physical integrity .................................................................................................................... 14 A. Access to detainees and places of detention ................................................................................ 14 B. Arbitrary detention, enforced disappearance and abduction, torture and ill-treatment ............... 14 C. Situation of pre-conflict prisoners ............................................................................................... 16
V. Accountability and administration of justice....................................................................................... 18 A. Administration of justice ............................................................................................................. 18 B. Accountability for human rights violations in eastern Ukraine ................................................... 20 C. Accountability for cases of violence related to riots and public disturbances ............................. 20
VI. Democratic/civic space and fundamental freedoms ............................................................................. 21 A. Freedom of opinion and expression and freedom of the media................................................... 22 B. Freedom of peaceful assembly and association........................................................................... 22 C. Freedom of religion or belief ...................................................................................................... 23 D. Discrimination, hate speech, racially-motivated violence and manifestations of intolerance ..... 24
VII. Human rights in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol, Ukraine, temporarily occupied by the Russian Federation ................................................................................. 24
A. International Humanitarian Law violations ................................................................................. 25 B. Administration of justice, intimidation and harassment of human rights defenders ................... 25 C. Freedoms of religion, opinion and expression ............................................................................ 26 D. Illegal population transfers and freedom of movement ............................................................... 27 E. Forced conscription ..................................................................................................................... 28
VIII. Technical cooperation and capacity-building....................................................................................... 29
IX. Conclusions and recommendations ...................................................................................................... 29
A/HRC/40/CRP.3
3
A/HRC/40/CRP.3
4
I. Executive summary
1. This twenty-fifth report on the situation of human rights in Ukraine by the Office of
the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) is based on the work
of the United Nations Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine (HRMMU),1 and
covers the period from 16 November 2018 to 15 February 2019.
2. OHCHR documented 315 human rights violations during the reporting period,
which affected 202 victims.2 This represents an increase of documented violations
compared with those documented during the previous reporting period of 16 August to 15
November 2018.3 Of the violations documented in this report, 221 violations occurred
during the reporting period.
3. Of the violations documented by OHCHR, the Government of Ukraine was
responsible for 126 violations, the self-proclaimed ‘Donetsk people’s republic’ and self-
proclaimed ‘Luhansk people’s republic’4 for 154, and the Government of the Russian
Federation (as the occupying Power in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of
Sevastopol, Ukraine, temporarily occupied by the Russian Federation5) for 35.
4. Throughout the reporting period, OHCHR operations in territory controlled by
‘Donetsk people’s republic’ and ‘Luhansk people’s republic’ continued to be restricted.
Ongoing discussions through regular meetings with representatives of both ‘Donetsk
people’s republic’ and ‘Luhansk people’s republic’ have yet to secure the full resumption of
OHCHR operations in the territory they control, as well as unimpeded confidential access
to detainees in this territory.
5. The armed conflict in eastern Ukraine continued with ongoing hostilities in a
number of hotspots along the contact line. Overall, OHCHR noted a trend of decreasing
conflict-related civilian casualties, which in 2018 were 53 per cent lower than in 2017, and
were at their lowest for the entire conflict period.6 The total civilian death toll of the
conflict reached at least 3,321 as of 15 February 2019. More than 80 per cent of these
occurred before mid-February 2015, reflective of the long-term positive impact of the
Package of Measures to implement the Minsk Agreements on the decline of hostilities and
civilian casualties since the adoption of the latter and United Nations Security Council
Resolution 2202 in February 2015.7
6. During the reporting period, OHCHR documented 16 conflict-related civilian
casualties: two people were killed and 14 injured, which represents a 68 per cent decrease
compared with the previous reporting period from 16 August to 15 November 2018.
Shelling and small arms and light weapons (SALW) fire injured ten civilians – one of the
lowest figures for the entire conflict period. Of these, nine were recorded in territory
controlled by armed groups8 and are attributable to the Government, and one was recorded
1 HRMMU was deployed on 14 March 2014 to monitor and report on the human rights situation
throughout Ukraine, and to propose recommendations to the Government and other actors to address
human rights concerns. For more details, see paras. 7-8 of the report of the United Nations High
Commissioner for Human Rights on the situation of human rights in Ukraine of 19 September 2014
(A/HRC/27/75). 2 Between 16 August and 15 November 2018, OHCHR documented 242 human rights violations. Of
those, 207 human rights violations occurred in the course of that reporting period. These numbers
include civilian casualties caused by the armed conflict. 3 The increase of violations documented is not representative of a deterioration of the overall human
rights situation; it is in part due to a high number of victims of human rights violations OHCHR was
able to interview only after their transfer to government-controlled territory in December 2018 and
February 2019. 4 Hereinafter ‘Donetsk people’s republic’ and ‘Luhansk people’s republic.’ 5 Hereinafter Crimea. 6 279 conflict-related civilian casualties (55 killed and 224 injured) in 2018 versus 604 (117 killed and
487 inured) in 2017. 7 See United Nations Security Council resolution 2202/2015. 8 Eight - in territory controlled by ‘Donetsk people’s republic’ and one - in territory controlled by
‘Luhansk people’s republic’.
A/HRC/40/CRP.3
5
in government-controlled territory and is attributable to armed groups of ‘Donetsk people’s
republic’. During the reporting period, OHCHR did not record any mine-related civilian
casualties.
7. More than five million people,9 including over 1.3 million registered internally
displaced persons (IDPs)10 and persons living in isolated communities along the contact line
in eastern Ukraine continue to bear the brunt of the armed conflict and its consequences.
The hardship they endure is exacerbated by the lack of access to basic services, social
support, as well as remedies and reparations for injured persons and relatives of those killed
and for destroyed property. A dozen civilians died in the first few weeks of 2019, mainly
due to serious health complications, while crossing the contact line. During the winter
months, the lack of adequate heating remained one of the main challenges for civilians,
especially those living along the contact line. Despite consistent court decisions in favour of
individuals who lost access to their pensions, the Government has failed to implement the
judgments and continues to link access to pensions to IDP registration. Further, OHCHR
noted the continued need for broader protection of conflict-affected civilians, including
IDPs, regardless of where they reside in Ukraine, and realization of their economic and
social rights to pave the way for restoring peace and stability in eastern Ukraine.
8. In government-controlled territory, OHCHR had access to official places of
detention and conducted confidential interviews with detainees in accordance with
international standards. In territory controlled by ‘Donetsk people’s republic’ and ‘Luhansk
people’s republic’, OHCHR continues to call for confidential access to detainees to be
granted to OHCHR and international observers.
9. OHCHR welcomes the transfers of 88 pre-conflict prisoners from territory
controlled by ‘Donetsk people’s republic’ and ‘Luhansk people’s republic’ to government-
controlled territory that took place in December 2018 and February 2019. Of them, seventy-
five were transferred from territory controlled by ‘Luhansk people’s republic’ for the first
time since the outbreak of the conflict.
10. OHCHR is concerned about the practice of arbitrary arrest, incommunicado
detention, torture and ill-treatment of civilians in government-controlled territory. During
the reporting period, OHCHR documented two cases of arbitrary detention of civilians
allegedly by officers of the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU). Individuals in territory
controlled by ‘Donetsk people’s republic’ and ‘Luhansk people’s republic’ continued to be
subjected to ‘administrative’ arrest and ‘preventive’ arrest, respectively, which may
constitute enforced disappearance.
11. In conflict-related cases, due process and fair trial violations persist as a result of the
pervasive practice of prolonged pre-trial detention, and the use of force and coercion to
obtain confessions or to accept plea bargains. Interference into the work of courts in
conflict-related and other high-profile trials continued during the reporting period. Five
years after violent clashes between law-enforcement and Maidan protestors, the killings of
protestors and law-enforcement officers remain largely unaddressed by the Government.
Delays in the investigation and trial proceedings related to the 2 May 2014 violence in
Odesa continue.
12. Safeguarding civic space and protecting people’s rights to freedom of opinion and
expression, media and peaceful assembly and association is key in ensuring that the
upcoming presidential and parliamentary elections in Ukraine are peaceful and inclusive.
OHCHR documented 16 violations of the afore-mentioned freedoms, as well as the right to
non-discrimination, a decrease in keeping with the seasonal lull occurring every New Year
9 See Multi-Year Humanitarian Response Plan (HRP) 2019-2020 available from
https://www.humanitarianresponse.info/en/operations/ukraine/document/ukraine-2019-humanitarian-
response-plan-hrp. 10 According to Ukraine’s Ministry of Social Policy, as of 5 February 2019 there were 1,361,912
internally displaced persons registered in Ukraine since the beginning of the armed conflict in 2014.
A/HRC/40/CRP.3
6
period.11 OHCHR remains concerned about the failure of the Government to bring
perpetrators of attacks against media professionals, political and civil society activists to
account. Space for freedom of expression and freedom of the media remains highly
restricted in territory controlled by ‘Donetsk people’s republic’ and ‘Luhansk people’s
republic.’
13. During the reporting period, OHCHR followed closely the developments around the
granting of autocephaly to the newly established Orthodox Church in Ukraine and the
introduction of a 30-day martial law in some regions of Ukraine on 26 November 2018,
following the naval incident near the Kerch Strait.
14. The Russian Federation, the occupying power in Crimea, has still not granted
OHCHR access to the peninsula in line with UN General Assembly resolution on the
territorial integrity of Ukraine 68/262 and resolutions 71/205, 72/190 and 73/263. OHCHR
monitors the human rights situation on the peninsula from mainland Ukraine. The Russian
Federation continues to apply its laws, in violation of international humanitarian law
applicable to an occupying power, resulting in grave human rights violations,
disproportionately affecting Crimean Tatars. OHCHR also notes that Ukrainian crew
members apprehended by Russian authorities in the Kerch Strait on 25 November 2018
could be considered as prisoners of war and protected under the Third Geneva Convention.
II. OHCHR methodology
15. This report is based on 152 in-depth interviews with victims and witnesses. Findings
are included in the report where the “reasonable grounds” standard of proof is met. The
standard is met when a sufficient and reliable body of information from primary sources
collected through interviews (with victims, witnesses, relatives of victims and lawyers), site
visits, meetings with Government representatives, civil society and other interlocutors, and
trial monitoring is consistent with information from secondary sources assessed as credible
and reliable, such as reviews of court documents, officials records, open-source material,
and other relevant materials. OHCHR applies the same due diligence and standard of proof
when documenting conflict-related civilian casualties.12 Consent is sought from sources on
the use of information, ensuring confidentiality as appropriate. Specific attention was paid
to the protection of victims and witnesses, assessing the risk of reprisals.
16. During the reporting period, OHCHR continued to be present, albeit with limited
operations, in territory controlled by ‘Donetsk people’s republic’ and ‘Luhansk people’s
republic’, and was able to obtain and verify information through various means.
17. While OHCHR cannot provide an exhaustive account of all human rights violations
committed throughout Ukraine, it is able to document patterns of human rights violations
and abuses based on individual cases.
11 During the last reporting period between 16 August and 15 November 2018, OHCHR documented 59
violations of the fundamental freedoms of opinion and expression, peaceful assembly and association,
religion or belief, as well as the right to non-discrimination and equal protection under the law. 12 OHCHR documents civilian casualties by consulting a broad range of sources and types of
information that are evaluated based on credibility and reliability. In analyzing each incident,
OHCHR exercises due diligence to corroborate information from as wide a range of sources as
possible, including OSCE public reports, victim and witness accounts, military actors, community
leaders, medical professionals and other interlocutors. In some instances, documentation may take
weeks or months before conclusions can be drawn, meaning that numbers on civilian casualties may
be revised as more information becomes available. OHCHR attributes a civilian casualty to a
particular party based on the geographic location where it occurred, the direction of fire, and the
overall context surrounding the incident.
A/HRC/40/CRP.3
7
III. Impact of hostilities
18. During the reporting period, hostilities continued to affect the civilian population in
the conflict zone of eastern Ukraine. Against the backdrop of a decreasing number of
ceasefire violations as reported by the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to
Ukraine,13 exchanges of fire across the contact line continued to impact residential areas
and result in civilian casualties and damage to civilian property and infrastructure,
including water facilities and electricity lines. Deteriorating factor was the continued
placing of military positions in immediate proximity to residential areas and decreasing
distances between the positions of Ukrainian forces and armed groups.
A. Conduct of hostilities and civilian casualties
19. Between 16 November 2018 and 15 February 2019, OHCHR recorded 16 conflict-
related civilian casualties: two killed14 and 14 injured,15 a 68 per cent decrease compared
with the previous reporting period of 16 August to 15 November 2018 when 50 civilian
casualties (14 killed and 36 injured) were recorded. The number of locations where civilian
casualties were recorded decreased from 25 to 11. The reporting period was also marked by
the lowest number of civilian casualties compared with same calendar periods (mid-
November to mid-February) from 2014 to 2018.
20. During the same period, shelling and SALW16 fire injured ten civilians (eight men and
13 72,805 ceasefire violations from 16 November 2018 to 15 February 2019 versus 90,771 ceasefire
violations from 16 August to 15 November 2018. 14 A man and a woman. 15 11 men and three women. 16 Small arms and light weapons.
I have already forgotten when I slept in a night robe. We go to bed in sports pants and
sports jumpers so we don’t have to run naked when the shelling starts.
We go to sleep and wonder if we are going to wake up or not.
I wish I could have a good night rest at least once.
- Resident in Kamianka, a village near the contact line.
A/HRC/40/CRP.3
8
two women) and killed none. This is a 44.4 per cent decrease with the previous reporting
period (six killed and 12 injured), and one of the lowest figures for the entire conflict
period. Of the ten civilian injuries caused by shelling and SALW fire, eight were recorded
in territory controlled by ‘Donetsk people’s republic’ and one was recorded in territory
controlled by ‘Luhansk people’s republic’ and are attributable to the Government, and one
was recorded in government-controlled territory and is attributable to armed groups of
‘Donetsk people’s republic’.
21. For instance, on 5 December 2018, a woman was injured by fire from an automated
grenade launcher in the armed group-controlled village of Zaitseve (Donetsk region). On 10
January 2019, three male workers of the Voda Donbasa water station received injuries
when a vehicle, which they drove to the Vasylivka water pumping station near the armed-
group controlled Kruta Balka (Donetsk region) was hit by a rocket or a shell.17 On 16
December 2018, a man was injured in the government-controlled village of Chermalyk
(Donetsk region). On 23 January 2019, the same man’s house came under heavy
machinegun fire. The house is reportedly located near positions of the Ukrainian forces.18
22. During the reporting period, OHCHR did not record any civilian casualties resulting
from mine-related incidents. However, there were six casualties (two killed and four
injured) resulting from the handling of explosive remnants of war (ERW), mostly hand
grenades.
B. Civilian casualties in 2018
22. From 1 January to 31 December 2018, OHCHR recorded 279 conflict-related
civilian casualties: 55 killed (32 men,
15 women, six boys and two girls)
and 224 injured (122 men, 70
women, 16 boys, seven girls and nine
adults, whose gender is yet
unknown). This is a 53.8 per cent
decrease compared with 2017, when
604 civilian casualties (117 killed
and 487 injured) were recorded, and
the lowest annual civilian casualty
numbers during the entire conflict
period.
17 OHCHR civilian casualty records. 18 HRMMU interviews, 28 December 2018 and 28 January 2019.
Conflict-related civilian casualties in 2018,
per type of weapon/incident
Killed Injured Total Percent
Shelling/SALW fire 21 135 156 55.9
MRI/ERW handling 34 85 119 42.7
Drone attacks 2 2 0.7
Road incidents 2 2 0.7
Total 55 224 279 100.0
A/HRC/40/CRP.3
9
23. From 1 January to 31 December 2018, shelling and SALW fire caused 156 civilian
casualties (21 killed and 135 injured), a 54.7 per cent decrease compared with 2017 when
344 civilian casualties (49 killed and 295 injured) caused by shelling and SALW fire were
recorded.
24. Of the 156 civilian
casualties caused by
shelling and SALW fire in
2018: 121 (77.6 per cent)
were recorded in territory
controlled by armed
groups and are
attributable to the
Government, 28 (17.9 per
cent) - in government-
controlled territory and
are attributable to arme
groups, and 7 (4.5
percent) - in ‘no man’s
land’.19
25. From 1 January to 31 December 2018, OHCHR recorded 119 civilian casualties (34
killed and 85 injured) resulting from mine-related incidents20 (MRI) and ERW handling.21
This is a 50 per cent decrease compared with 2017 when 238 civilian casualties (64 killed
and 174 injured), resulting from mine-related incidents and ERW handling, were recorded.
C. Civilian casualties during the entire conflict period22
26. During the entire conflict period, from 14 April 2014 to 15 February 2019, OHCHR
recorded 3,023 civilian deaths (1,794 men, 1,046 women, 97 boys, 49 girls and 37 adults
whose gender is unknown). With the 298 deaths on board of Malaysian Airlines MH17
flight on 17 July 2014, the total death toll of the conflict on civilians has been at least 3,321.
The number of injured civilians is estimated to exceed 7,000.
19 To compare: of the 344 civilian casualties caused by shelling and SALW fire in 2017: 230 (66.9 per
cent) were recorded in territory controlled by armed groups, 113 (32.8 per cent) in government-
controlled territory, and 1 (0.3 per cent) in ‘no man’s land’.
20 Incidents, in which civilians were killed or injured by mines (antipersonnel or anti-vehicle) or
explosive devices triggered in the same way, such as booby traps, or by ERW (explosive remnants of
war) that are inadvertently detonated by unsuspecting civilians. 21 Victims of ERW handling manipulated an ERW for a certain period of time and took actions to cause
its detonation (for instance, by trying to dismantle it), or were near those, who manipulated an ERW. 22 Though civilians have been the major focus of OHCHR casualty recording in Ukraine, OHCHR also
collects reports/data on casualties among combatants to prevent inclusion of combatants into civilian
casualty statistics, and to estimate the total death toll of the conflict. OHCHR estimates the total
number of conflict-related casualties in Ukraine (from 14 April 2014 to 15 February 2019) at 40,000–
43,000: 12,800–13,000 killed (at least 3,321 civilians and est. 9,500 combatants), and 27,500–30,000
injured (est. 7,000–9,000 civilians and est. 21,000-24,000 combatants). Previous conservative
OHCHR estimate of total conflict-related casualties was as of 15 November 2017: at least 10,303
killed, including 2,821 civilians and 7,482 combatants, and at least 24,778 injured, including 7,000 to
9,000 civilians (OHCHR report on the human rights situation in Ukraine covering the period from 16
August to 15 November 2017, paragraphs 29-30). Between 16 November 2017 and 15 February
2019, OHCHR recorded 63 civilian deaths which occurred during that period, and recorded/processed
data on 437 civilian deaths that occurred before 16 November 2017, mostly in 2014 and 2015. The
increase in the estimate of killed combatants from at least 7,482 as of 15 November 2017 to est. 9,500
as of 15 February 2019 is due to combatants’ deaths that occurred from 16 November 2017 to 15
February 2019 (est. 450) and to recorded/processed data on combatants’ deaths that occurred before
16 November 2017 (est. 1,500), mostly in 2014 and 2015.
A/HRC/40/CRP.3
10
Conflict-related civilian casualties during the entire conflict period, per year
27. The reporting
period was marked by the fourth
anniversary of the Package of
Measures for the implementation of
the Minsk Agreements, which was
signed on 12 February 2015. The
ceasefire and disengagement
measures stipulated by the Package,
though never implemented fully,
have over time resulted in a dramatic
decrease in conflict-related civilian
casualties. The first ten months of
the conflict (mid-April 2014 to mid-
February 2015) accounted for 81.9
per cent of all civilian deaths
(2,713), while the four years after
the adoption of the Package
accounted for 18.1 per cent of
civilian deaths (608).
D. Economic and social rights of conflict-affected persons
28. About 5,2 million conflict-affected persons,24 including over 1.3 million registered
IDPs and persons living in isolated communities along the contact line continue to suffer
due to the lack of access to basic services, such as water and heating, the lack of adequate
housing, healthcare, and the absence of mechanisms for remedy and reparations. Displaced
persons and those residing in territory controlled by ‘Donetsk people’s republic’ and ‘Luhansk people’s republic’ face difficulties in accessing their pensions and social benefits. In December 2018, as reported by the Pension Fund, only 562,000 pensioners with
residence registration in territory controlled by ‘Donetsk people’s republic’ and ‘Luhansk people’s republic’ continued to receive pensions. Notably, this is less than a half of the pensioners registered in those territories as of August 2014.25
29. Due to restrictions on freedom of movement, which result, in particular, in long
waiting lines at entry-exit checkpoints on the contact line, civilians continue to face
23 Including 298 on board of MH17 flight on 17 July 2014. 24 See Multi-Year Humanitarian Response Plan (HRP) 2019-2020. 25 1,278,200 pensioners were registered as of August 2014. UN Briefing Note, Pensions for IDPs and
persons living in the areas not controlled by the Government in the east of Ukraine, February 2019.
Killed Injured Total
2018 55 224 279
2017 117 487 604
2016 112 476 588
2015 954 >2,000 >3,000
2014 2,08223 >4,000 >6,000
Total 3,320 >7,000 >10,000
We appreciate all the assistance, but nothing brings us joy when there is shelling. I will
not survive another escalation. If someone tells you they are not afraid, don’t believe
them. It is terrifying.
- A retired coal-miner from the government-controlled village of Zhovanka.
A/HRC/40/CRP.3
11
difficulties accessing government-controlled territory, to maintain family ties, access their
social entitlements or critical services and facilities, such as hospitals. This contributes to
the negative impact on the already fragile socio-economic situation and jeopardize
prospects for social cohesion and people’s wellbeing.
1. Remedy and reparation for conflict-affected population
30. During the reporting period, OHCHR observed the implementation of the
amendments to the law ‘On the status of war veterans and their social protection guarantees’, which expanded the scope of the law to include civilians, who acquired a disability as a result of hostilities.26 The inter-agency commission to establish the nexus
between disability and conflict-related injury has considered in total 30 cases as of 15
February 2019. OHCHR welcomes this development, but remains concerned that
provisions of the Law expressly exclude civilians who were injured in territory not
controlled by the Government after 1 December 2014. OHCHR is also concerned by the
continued lack of a comprehensive state policy of remedy and reparation for civilian
victims of the armed conflict.
2. Right to restitution and compensation for use or damage of private property
31. OHCHR notes the long-standing absence of a unified, comprehensive and inclusive
mechanism to enable access to compensation for civilian property damaged and/or
destroyed due to hostilities. As of 15 February 2019, there are over 50,000 civilian homes
on both sides of the contact line damaged during the hostilities and homes of some 40,000
families, living on both sides of the contact line, are reportedly in urgent need of repairs to
protect inhabitants from low winter temperatures.27
32. Civilians face multiple obstacles in accessing compensation for the military use of
their houses, land and other property in government-controlled territory.28 Persons told
OHCHR the military forces did not sign lease agreements with them for the use of their
property. Without such documents, civilians are not able to claim compensation for utility
bills and any damages to their property caused during its use by the military. OHCHR has
yet to observe the initiation of investigations into acts of looting allegedly committed by
officers of the Ukrainian Armed Forces or other ground military forces.
26 Law “On amendments to the Law of Ukraine ‘On the status of war veterans and their social
protection guarantees’ enhancing the social protection of participants of the anti-terrorist operation, of
the Revolution of Dignity and of the family members of such persons,” no. 2203-VIII of 14
November 2017. The law entered into force on 24 February 2018. 27 See Humanitarian Needs Overview 2019, p. 10 and Multi-Year Humanitarian Response Plan 2019-
2020, p. 12. 28 OHCHR does not assess the military necessity of the use of civilian homes, land or property.
Court case on reparations for the family member of a person killed
due to hostilities, Luhansk region
The Supreme Court is considering a case of a woman seeking reparation for the loss of
her daughter, who died during the armed conflict in eastern Ukraine. The Supreme Court
did not suspend the execution of an earlier positive ruling by an appeals court. According
to the judgment, the Government of Ukraine is obliged to provide monetary reparation for
the family.
OHCHR notes the positive development, which paves the way to ensure reparation for
people who have lost their family members in the armed conflict. The Government has yet
to develop, establish and ensure proper implementation of a comprehensive mechanism
for remedy and reparation for individuals, who have been injured, and to families of those,
who lost their family member due to conflict.
A/HRC/40/CRP.3
12
33. On a separate note, OHCHR observed that IDPs, among them persons with
disabilities, residing in collective centres29 in Odesa, Sviatohirsk and Zhytomyr, experience
frequent interruptions of adequate heating.
3. Right to social security and social protection
34. OHCHR regrets the absence of changes in Government policy that links payment of
social benefits, in particular pensions, with the need to register as an IDP, which would
result in inability of Ukrainian citizens to access their fundamental social and economic
rights on an equal basis, especially as pensions are recognized as a form of property.
35. Despite three Supreme Court decisions,30 issued over the past six months, ordering
the restoration of rights to pensions and social entitlements, the Government continues to
link access to pensions with IDP registration.
36. OHCHR positively notes that national courts followed the Supreme Court’s judgment in an “exemplary case,” restoring pension rights of an IDP.31 Since the judgement entered into force in September 2018, national courts have issued over 450 rulings in favour
of IDPs between October and December 2018.32 Despite the general court practice on this
issue, OHCHR regrets that the Government has so far failed to execute the court rulings, in
violation of Ukrainian law.
37. In accordance with a July 2018 ruling of the Kyiv Appellate Administrative Court33
that invalidated certain provisions of the Cabinet of Ministers Resolutions no. 365 and
637,34 authorities can no longer carry out home visits for residence verification of IDPs and
suspend pension payments on these grounds, when an individual is not found to be in
residence. Reports indicate, however, that the practice continues. On 20 December 2018,
the Supreme Court upheld the appellate court decision.35 Welcoming this final ruling,
OHCHR reiterates that the Government should review its IDP policy more broadly to
ensure equal access to pensions regardless of place of residence or IDP registration.
38. In another positive development, the Government adopted a state programme on
physical, medical and psychological rehabilitation, and social and professional re-
adaptation of veterans of the armed conflict in eastern Ukraine.36 This followed the
establishment of the dedicated Ministry for Veterans Affairs in November.37
39. In accordance with the law “On particular aspects of public policy aimed at safeguarding the sovereignty of Ukraine over the temporarily occupied territory of the
29 OHCHR monitoring in Odesa, Sviatohirsk and Zhytomyr. 30 See OHCHR Report on the human rights situation in Ukraine, 16 August - 15 November 2018, paras.
37-39. 31 Ibid, para. 37. 32 According to NGO Right to Protection (R2P), there were about 60 positive court rulings during each
quarter of 2018. This is more than a 65 per cent increase in comparison to each quarter in 2017.
Overall, national courts issued about 550 positive decisions regarding applications submitted in 2018. 33 The Kyiv Appellate Administrative Court judgment of 4 July 2018, case no. 826/12123/16, available
at http://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/78808062. See OHCHR Report on the human rights situation in
Ukraine, 16 May - 15 August 2018, para. 39. 34 The ruling rendered inactive the following provisions of Cabinet of Ministers Resolutions no. 365 and
637: the Procedure for exercising control over the payment of social benefits to internally displaced
persons at the place of their actual residence/stay and paras. 7-9, 13 of the Procedure for allocation
(renewal) of social benefits to internally displaced persons, approved by Cabinet of Ministers
Resolution no. 365; as well as para. 1(10) of Cabinet of Ministers Resolution no. 637. 35 Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court, judgment of 20 December 2018 case no.
826/12123/16, available at http://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/78808062. 36 Cabinet of Ministers Resolution no. 1021 of 5 December 2018 ‘On approval of the State Target
Programme on physical, medical and psychological rehabilitation and social and professional re-
adaptation of participants of the anti-terrorist operation and persons taking part in the measures on
ensuring the national security and defence, the containment and deterrence of the armed aggression of
the Russian Federation in Donetsk and Luhansk regions, for the period until 2022’. 37 Cabinet of Ministers Resolution no. 986 of 28 November 2018 ‘Issues regarding the activity of the
Ministry for Veterans Affairs of Ukraine’.
A/HRC/40/CRP.3
13
Donetsk and Luhansk regions of Ukraine,”38 the President of Ukraine signed a decree establishing a list of residential areas, which are not controlled by the Government.39
Meanwhile, Order No.1085 of the Cabinet of Ministers, also indicating these areas, remains
in force, which could lead to inconsistent or interrupted payment of pension and social
benefits.40
4. Freedom of movement, isolated communities and access to basic services
39. Despite a 2.5-hour reduction in operating hours of the crossing points as of 1
December 2018, enforced as part of a shift to the winter operation mode, during the
reporting period, there were over one million crossings of the contact line on average each
month. OHCHR notes improvements of conditions at the crossing points made by the
Government, however, civilians continue to wait in long queues and are regularly exposed
to snow, ice and low winter temperatures, and inadequate sanitary and medical facilities, on
both sides of the contact line. Since the beginning of 2019, 11 persons died while crossing
the contact line in eastern Ukraine, reportedly due to health condition.41 Four people died at
the only crossing point in the Luhansk region open exclusively to pedestrians, near the
government-controlled town of Stanytsia Luhanska. Civilians also face other risks when
crossing the contact line. For instance, in December 2018 and February 2019, around 90
people were temporarily trapped in ‘no man’s land’ coming from territory controlled by ‘Donetsk people’s republic’ due to arriving at the Maiorske crossing point shortly before its closure.42 They were eventually let through by Ukrainian authorities.
40. According to the 2019 Humanitarian Response Plan under a 2019-2020 Strategy,
around 3.5 million people in Ukraine need humanitarian aid and protection services.43
Many conflict-affected civilians in villages on both side of the contact line lack access to
basic services. During the winter, heating was one of the main challenges for civilians
living along the contact line. The cost of coal, which is traditionally used for heating
houses, increased drastically during the winter, forcing civilians to collect firewood in
nearby forested areas, making them even more vulnerable to landmines or being subject to
fines for cutting down trees.
41. OHCHR notes that the Ministry of Defence has not progressed in finalizing the draft
Resolution regulating the procedure for movement of persons and transfer of goods across
the contact line. As a member of a working group created by the Ministry of Defence to
develop the draft Resolution, OHCHR underlines the necessity to harmonize the draft
Resolution with existing national norms and international standards, as well as key
recommendations of the international community and civil society.
38 The text of the law is available at https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/2268-19/ 39 The decree establishing “Boundaries and list of districts, cities, towns and villages, parts of these
areas, temporarily occupied in Donetsk and Luhansk regions” is available at
https://www.president.gov.ua/ 40 Cabinet of Ministers order No.1085 is available at https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/ 41 According to monitoring by national and international organizations, in total, during the reporting
period, 13 civilians died when crossing the contact line in eastern Ukraine. 42 Social media posts by NGOs Right to Protection and Proliska, Representative of the Ombudsperson’s
Office in Donetsk and Luhansk regions, and the Joint Forces Operation of Ukraine, 6 December 2018
and 14 February 2019. 43 See Multi-Year Humanitarian Response Plan (HRP) 2019-2020.
Crossing the contact line is a humiliating experience.
- A resident in Travneve, the village near the contact line.
A/HRC/40/CRP.3
14
IV. Right to physical integrity
42. During the reporting period, OHCHR documented at least 172 human rights
violations involving unlawful or arbitrary detention, torture, ill-treatment and/or threats to
physical integrity, committed on both sides of the contact line.44 Out of these violations 18
can be attributed to the Government of Ukraine, and at least 154 can be attributed to
‘Donetsk people’s republic’ and ‘Luhansk people’s republic.’ At least 91 violations
occurred within the reporting period, which affected 46 victims (40 men and six women).
A. Access to detainees and places of detention
43. In government-controlled territory, OHCHR continued to enjoy access to official
places of detention and conducted confidential interviews with detainees in accordance with
international standards. OHCHR interviewed 93 conflict-related detainees (85 men and
eight women) in pre-trial detention facilities (SIZO) in Bakhmut, Kharkiv, Kherson, Kyiv,
Mariupol, Mykolaiv, Odesa, Starobilsk, Vilniansk and Zaporizhzhia.
44. OHCHR follows the ongoing penitentiary reform and welcomes all efforts to
transfer medical personnel from subordination of the State Penitentiary Service of Ukraine
to the Centre for Health Protection of the State Penal Service of Ukraine.45 However, the
transition process negatively affects the provision of health care at the detention facilities.46
OHCHR continued to receive complaints regarding the lack of access to health care and
adequate food, especially for detainees in need of a special diet due to illness.
45. In territory controlled by ‘Donetsk people’s republic’ and ‘Luhansk people’s
republic’, OHCHR did not have unimpeded access to places of deprivation of liberty to
visit and speak in private with detainees. The lack of such access raised serious concerns
about the treatment of detainees and conditions of detention. First-hand information
received from pre-conflict prisoners transferred to serve their sentence in government-
controlled territory supports OHCHR concerns (see Situation of pre-conflict prisoners).
B. Arbitrary detention, enforced disappearance and abduction, torture
and ill-treatment
46. OHCHR is concerned that the previously identified pattern47 of arbitrary deprivation
of liberty, enforced disappearance, torture and ill-treatment of individuals in government-
controlled territory may be re-emerging. In at least two cases, documented during the
reporting period, victims were arbitrarily arrested during daytime allegedly by SBU
officers.48
47. OHCHR received information that several SBU officers in camouflage uniforms,
armed with machine guns entered the house of an Armenian national and asylum seeker in
Ukraine, in Svitlodarsk on 13 December 2018. SBU searched his house without a warrant
and seized his electronic equipment and documents. They threatened to deport him to
44 This number encompasses violations in relation to inhuman conditions of detention and treatment in
penitentiaries in territory controlled by ‘Donetsk people’s republic’ and ‘Luhansk people’s republic.’
The majority of these violations dated back to 2014-2016. In some colonies, OHCHR documented
systematic beatings of prisoners by men wearing masks, which allegedly lasted until mid-2018, and
the widespread use of forced labour. 45 A state institution independent of the management of penal institutions of the State Penal Service of
Ukraine. 46 The process of transfer of the State Penal Service premises for the needs of medical units, as well as
medicine and medical equipment to the structural units of the Centre for Health Protection of the State
Penal Service in the regions is ongoing. These structural changes lead to the lack of medicines and
staff in penitentiary institutions. 47 OHCHR report on the human rights situation in Ukraine, 16 November 2017 - 15 February 2018,
para. 29. 48 OHCHR interviews, 12 January and 24 January 2019.
A/HRC/40/CRP.3
15
Azerbaijan or Crimea, and his family to ‘no man’s land’.49 He told OHCHR that they then
handcuffed him, put a bag over his head and took him to a basement, where they
interrogated him, accusing him of espionage for the Russian and Armenian intelligence. He
said SBU officers periodically beat him, each time for 20-30 minutes, to force him to
confess. The man agreed to confess to the SBU accusations on video camera after being
threatened at gun point. Two day later, they took him to Kyiv, held him in an apartment and
continued to beat him, inflicting severe pain and leaving numerous bruises on his body. On
17 December, SBU officers took him to a hospital for his injuries, registering him under a
fake name. He said doctors recommended hospitalization, but SBU officers took him to
another apartment and held him there for around two weeks. At one point, he did not
receive food for two days. Finally, on 29 December, the SBU released him, telling him to
keep silent about his ordeal.50
48. In another case, on 15 November 2018, two men, allegedly SBU officers, wearing
camouflage and masks detained a Russian citizen in Kyiv. They handcuffed him and took
him to an unknown location. On 23 November, after the man’s wife reported his
disappearance, the police opened a criminal investigation, but closed it five days later.51 On
26 December, a prosecutor’s office instructed the police to reopen the investigation. On 30
December, the man’s personal information (name, surname, date of birth, and alleged
criminal charges) appeared on the Myrotvorets website.52 As of 15 February 2019, his
relatives have no information about his whereabouts.
49. Late on 21 November 2018, several SBU officers detained a woman in the
Kostiantynivka – Kyiv night train.53 They ordered her to leave the train, seized her passport
and mobile phone and drove her from Kostyantynivka to an SBU office in Mariupol. She
told OHCHR that the Mariupol SBU interrogated her all night and she learned that the SBU
got her name and other identifying personal information from the Myrotvorets website. The
woman saw her lawyer a day after her arrest, when she was taken to Kramatorsk to meet a
Donetsk Regional Prosecutor in order to receive an act of suspicion. She was charged with
creating ‘a terrorist group or organization’.54 On 23 November, the Zhovtnevyi district court
of Mariupol ordered her arrest.55
50. OHCHR notes that prompt, timely, effective and transparent investigations of all
incidents of arbitrary detention, enforced disappearance, torture and other ill-treatment
could help stop the pervasive practice and prevent reoccurrence. In this regard, OHCHR
notes that the State Bureau of Investigations (SBI) became operational on 27 November
2018.56 This body took over the investigative jurisdiction over the crimes involving senior
49 No man’s land is commonly described as a territory, where no authorities exercise control, even
though it is formally controlled by the Government of Ukraine. 50 OHCHR interview, 24 January 2019. 51 Pursuant to Article 284 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, part 1(2). 52 The website includes personal data and information available on social media about persons,
allegedly involved in activities of ‘Donetsk people’s republic’ and ‘Luhansk people’s republic’. It is
allegedly maintained by volunteers but has been actively used since 2014 by Ukraine’s law-
enforcement and military. As previously noted by OHCHR, the website also publishes information
about members of civil society and journalists, who work in territory controlled by ‘Donetsk people’s
republic’ and ‘Luhansk people’s republic.’ 53 In November 2014, she received an IDP registration and had been crossing the contact line from
territory controlled by ‘Donetsk people’s republic’ to government-controlled territory on a regular
basis. 54 Pursuant to Article 258-3 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. 55 OHCHR interview, 28 November 2018. 56 The State Bureau of Investigations was established on 1 March 2016 by Cabinet of Ministers
Resolution no. 127 of 29 February 2016. However, the Bureau began its work only two and a half
year later. By the end of 2018, the SBI had around 843 cases under investigation, nearly 80 per cent
of which had been transferred to the SBI from other investigative bodies. According to authorities, in
order to prevent the backlog, the investigations opened before 27 November 2018 would not be
transferred to the SBI and should be finalized by the prosecutors within a year. The statement of the
Head of the SBI, Roman Truba, 21 December 2018, available at https://dbr.gov.ua/news/roman-truba-
shtat-slidchikh-dbr-bude-zbilsheno.
A/HRC/40/CRP.3
16
public officials, judges, officers of law enforcement or national anti-corruption bodies, and
the crimes related to military service.57
51. During the reporting period, in territory controlled by ‘Donetsk people’s republic’
and ‘Luhansk people’s republic’ individuals continued to be subjected to 30-day
‘administrative arrest’ and ‘preventive arrest,’ respectively, which amount to arbitrarily
incommunicado detention and may constitute enforced disappearance. In territory
controlled by ‘Luhansk people’s republic,’ OHCHR documented cases of ‘preventive
arrests’ of civilians, held incommunicado for prolonged periods, before formalizing these
‘arrests.’58
52. On 16 November 2018, representatives of the ‘ministry of state security’ (‘MGB’) of
‘Luhansk people’s republic’ detained a Luhansk resident at the entry-exit checkpoint near
Stanytsia Luhanska. The man called his mother and told her he had been detained. His
mother sent complaints about his detention to the ‘MGB’, ‘head’ of ‘Luhansk people’s
republic’, ‘general prosecutor’s office’, and the ‘ministry of the interior’ (‘MoI’), requesting
information about her son’s whereabouts. On 26 November, the ‘MGB’ informed her that
her son was being held incommunicado under ‘preventive arrest.’ He was released on 4
December 2018.59
C. Situation of pre-conflict prisoners
53. OHCHR welcomes the transfer of 88 pre-conflict prisoners (83 men and five
women) that took place during the reporting period60 from places of detention in territory
controlled by ‘Donetsk people’s republic’ and ‘Luhansk people’s republic’ to government-
controlled territory in December 2018 and February 2019.61 There were two transfers from
places of detention in territory controlled by ‘Luhansk people’s republic’ since the
beginning of the armed conflict. To date, 274 persons (including nine women) have been
transferred from places of detention in territory controlled by ‘Donetsk people’s republic’
and ‘Luhansk people’s republic.’
57 Articles 401-435 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, except for Article 422 ‘disclosing military
information constituting a state secret’, which remains under the SBU jurisdiction. 58 OHCHR interview, 21 January 2019. 59 OHCHR interview, 5 December 2018.
60 On 12 December 2018, the transfer of 42 pre-conflict prisoners (39 men and three women) was
carried out from territory controlled by ‘Luhansk people’s republic’ to government-controlled territory.
On 13 December 2018, 13 prisoners (11 men and two women) were transferred from territory
controlled by ‘Donetsk people’s republic’. On 7 February 2019, another 33 pre-conflict prisoners (all
men) were transferred from territory controlled by ‘Luhansk people’s republic.’ Based on interview
with prisoners, OHCHR was able to verify information about conditions of detention between 2014 and
2018. 61 Among those transferred on 12 December 2018, two individuals were transferred from the Luhansk
SIZO, where they had been held since 2014. One of them had appealed a first-instance court ruling;
another was scheduled for transfer from the pre-trial detention to another city for trial, but due to the
outbreak of the armed conflict remained there. Moreover, OHCHR is aware of at least three
individuals, who were held in a Donetsk SIZO, before the outbreak of the armed conflict in eastern
Ukraine. In October 2015, a court in government-controlled territory ordered the release of one of
these three individuals, however, he remains in custody.
Back in 2016 I could complain to the prison administration for forcing us to
work. Now no one would complain for fear of being thrown in the isolation ward and
beaten.
- A pre-conflict prisoner transferred from a penal colony
in territory controlled by ‘Luhansk people’s republic’.
A/HRC/40/CRP.3
17
54. Transferred prisoners told OHCHR that there were more prisoners in territory
controlled by ‘Donetsk people’s republic’ and ‘Luhansk people’s republic,’ who wanted to
be transferred to government-controlled territory and maintain contacts with relatives living
there.62
55. Recently transferred individuals from detention facilities in territory controlled by
‘Donetsk people's republic' and 'Luhansk people's republic', including from two female
penal colonies, reported a deterioration of detention conditions and prisoner treatment after
the outbreak of the armed conflict in 2014. In particular, they mentioned insufficient food
supply and the lack of electricity: in 2014-2015 during power outages, lasting from a couple
of hours to several months, prisoners had to burn furniture to heat their barracks. They said
the situation had improved since 2016, however, ill-treatment by prison staff, the absence of
adequate medical treatment, including specialised doctors, such as gynaecologists, and
forced labour remain of concern. Prisoners also reported difficulties in maintaining contacts
with relatives who live in government-controlled territory.
56. Pre-conflict prisoners were transferred from eight places of detention in territory
controlled by 'Luhansk people's republic'.63 Transferred prisoners said that their detention
conditions worsened after the outbreak of the armed conflict. They described inadequate
accommodation, such as leaking barrack roofs, low inside temperature during the cold
season, and insufficient health care due to the lack of medical staff and medicines
(particularly for prisoners living with HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis). In several instances,
delays to deliver timely and adequate medical care led to an inmate’s death in custody. In
some colonies, prisoners said they had gone “hungry” for several months in 2014 and
lacked access to water and electricity.
57. Some of the transferred prisoners complained that in 2014-2015 members of armed
groups entered penal colonies, beat prisoners and subjected them to mock executions.
Prisoners also reported severe beatings by men in masks and by penal colony staff, who
allegedly changed their uniforms and put masks on. The prisoners said it was done to
intimidate and ‘discipline’ them, including when the prison administration was
understaffed. In some instances, such beatings, allegedly, led to serious injuries requiring
medical attention or prisoners’ deaths. Such visits by ‘masked men’ continued till mid-
2018, but reportedly stopped since then.
58. OHCHR received allegations of forced labour in most penal colonies in territory
controlled by ‘Luhansk people’s republic’. In Sukhodilsk penal colony №36, prisoners said
they had to work in two shifts from 6:30am to 9pm, often without days off on weekends
and meagre or no compensation.64 Those, who did not want to work or who did not meet
the work requirements, were beaten and put in the isolation ward. The ‘head’ of the colony
personally beat prisoners in front of others to intimidate and make them work harder.
59. Individuals, transferred from five penal colonies in territory controlled by ‘Donetsk
people’s republic,’ confirmed information OHCHR had received from other transferred
prisoners about the lack of food, water, electricity, heating, hygiene items and medicine in
2014-2015.65 Some reported that the situation had gradually improved in Snizhne female
penal colony №127, whereas the situation had remained difficult in male colonies despite
minor improvements. Male prisoners alleged that in 2014-2015 a special unit from armed
groups of ‘Donetsk people’s republic’ with insignia ‘ROSNAZ’66 entered Yenakiieve penal
colony №52 on two occasions and severely beat some prisoners. Since 2016, the treatment
of prisoners reportedly improved, however a number of issues remain unresolved, in
particular, Michurinska penal colony №57 in Horlivka is still affected by shelling.
62 OHCHR interviews with pre-conflict prisoners, 18-20 December 2018. 63 Some of the prisoners were also held in other detention facilities for various periods of time. 64 The prisoners said they received 80-90 RUB a month, whereas a pack of tea cost 180 RUB. 65 See OHCHR report on the human rights situation in Ukraine, 16 November 2017 - 15 February 2018. 66 Meaning a “republican special unit”.
A/HRC/40/CRP.3
18
V. Accountability and administration of justice
A. Administration of justice
60. OHCHR notes the persistent practice of prolonged pre-trial detention and the use of
pressure to obtain forced confession or plea bargains. OHCHR documented 89 violations of
the right to a fair trial in conflict-related criminal cases.67
61. During the reporting period, OHCHR continued to observe a worrying trend of
convicting individuals affiliated or linked with armed groups of ‘Donetsk people’s republic’
and ‘Luhansk people’s republic’ based on guilty pleas and confessions without material
evidence. In 35 out of 60 verdicts in conflict-related criminal cases, defendants pled guilty
or admitted guilt. In 2468 out of those 35 cases prosecutors presented no material evidence,
giving rise to concerns about substantiality of the charges. In four cases defendants were
sentenced to as much time as they had already spent in pre-trial detention69 and were thus
immediately released. OHCHR is concerned that defendants could see pleading guilty to a
crime as the only way to be released from detention in the context of a protracted trial.
62. The wide application of plea bargains in conflict-related criminal cases is
problematic due to the practice of coercing defendants to admit guilt, including through the
use of physical violence, as documented by OHCHR. In at least three documented cases,
detainees of the Kharkiv SIZO tried on terrorism charges complained of being under
pressure.70 In particular, the SIZO administration repeatedly placed defendants in
punishment cells71 for minor infractions of the SIZO rules and regulations.72 By conducting
excessively frequent searches and seizures of personal items, the administration allegedly
provoked other detainees to be violent towards the defendants. One of them was brought to
the court with visible injuries on his face and body and told the court that he had been
beaten after complaining to the prosecution about this punitive practice by top SIZO
officials. He explained to the court that he feared for his life but refused to describe the
beating.
67 The Criminal Code of Ukraine, articles 109-1141, 258-2585, 260, and 261. These crimes constitute
“conflict-related crimes”. 68 Data from the Unified Register of Court Decisions. 69 According to para.5 Art. 72 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine as of the version amended by Law №
838-VIIІ of 26.11.2015 (also known as the ‘Savchenko law’ after Nadiia Savchenko, a member of the
Parliament and an author of the law), a pre-trial detention shall be counted as a part of a sentence at a
ratio of 1:2 days. See the Great Chamber of the Supreme Court judgement of 29 August 2018 №
663/537/1. 70 Cumulative data of OHCHR court monitoring, interviews with victims and their relatives, visits to
penitentiary facilities, information provided by governmental bodies upon OHCHR’s requests. 71 Placing of defendants in punishments cells comes with other restrictions such as prohibition of
personal items, receiving packages (on which many detainees depend for food and medications),
absence of adequate medical care and poor cell conditions (such as, low temperature). 72 The most common disciplinary violations were reportedly possessing or bringing to the SIZO a
prohibited item, being awake after 10 p.m., interfering with cell searches and arguing with guards.
While article 176.5 is in force, a person can be held in SIZO eternally. There is
no need to prove anything. It’s a very convenient tool.
- A detainee in the Kyiv SIZO.
A/HRC/40/CRP.3
19
63. According to the information73 received by OHCHR, the SIZO administration placed
the three defendants in punishment cells at least a dozen times, to force them to admit guilt
in court, while the prosecution failed to meaningfully investigate the allegations of ill-
treatment. OHCHR emphasizes that the right not to be compelled to testify against oneself
or to confess guilt comprises the guarantee of absence of any direct or indirect physical or
undue psychological pressure with a view to obtaining a confession of guilt.74
64. Despite the prohibition of unreasonably lengthy pre-trial detention and the need to
reconsider alternatives to pre-trial detention,75 courts continue to put in custody individuals
charged with links or affiliation with armed groups and crimes against national security
relying solely on provisions of article 176.5 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine.
OHCHR is aware of at least 46 cases, where defendants had been in pre-trial detention for
over two years. In 11 of these cases the defendants have been in custody for over four years
– equaling to eight years of imprisonment according to the ‘Savchenko law’.76 The situation
is exacerbated by appeal courts’ heavy reliance on article 176.5 instead of international
human rights law and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. In some cases,
defendants could not appeal due to the delay in obtaining court orders of their restraint
measures, which violated their right to appeal.
65. OHCHR is also concerned that protracted trials in conflict-related criminal cases
might be caused, inter alia, by the lack of judges.77 In the majority of conflict-related
criminal cases, the courts schedule hearings only once every month or two.
66. OHCHR continued to document cases of interference by members of extreme right-
wing groups in criminal proceedings of conflict-related and high profile criminal cases
through the intimidation of judges, defendants and their lawyers. In three documented
cases78 members of extreme right-wing groups disrupted court hearings by verbally abusing
judges and defendants. In one case, they beat a defendant in a conflict-related case outside
the courtroom,79 but police did not stop the beating.80
67. OHCHR is concerned about the lack of progress in the criminal case regarding the
killing of journalist Oles Buzyna81 in 2015 and allegations of obstruction of justice. The
High Council of Justice is still considering the issue of one of the judge’s removal for
failing a qualification test.82 The judge had previously claimed she was made to fail the test
73 OHCHR interviews with the victims and their defense counsel, trial monitoring, government data. 74 See Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 32. Article 14, para. 41. 75 See Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 35 Article 9, para. 37. 76 Para. 5 Art. 72 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. In one such case, tried in the Zhovtnevyi district
court of Kharkiv, five out of eight defendants are in custody although the court has not yet conducted
the preparatory hearing. The defendants complained to OHCHR that the prosecution threatened them
with indefinite custody unless they all accept guilty pleas. 77 According to the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine, as of January 2019, Ukraine’s
judicial system lacked 32 per cent of the judges needed to staff the country’s courts: 5,503 judges
were employed out of 7,991 required. The number of judges, authorized to administer justice was
even lower, as the tenure of 702 judges had terminated. As a result, 14 courts had no active judges
and did not operate, while 124 courts lacked more than half of their judges. The data was proved on
30 January 2019 at OHCHR’s written request. 78 Court hearings at the Dzerzhynskyi district court of Kharkiv, 12 December 2018, the
Ordzhonikidzevskyi district court of Mariupol, 13 December 2018, and the Shevchenkivskyi district
court of Zaporizhzhia, 21 January 2018. 79 OHCHR trial monitoring at the Dzerzhynskyi district court of Kharkiv on 4 January 2019. 80 Prior to the hearing, members of an extreme right-wing group organized a protest outside the court. 81 See OHCHR report on the human rights situation in Ukraine, 16 May to 15 August 2018, para. 84. 82 See High Qualification Commission of Judges decision of 6 August 2018, available at:
www.vkksu.gov.ua/
There is no way to be released other than to sign a plea bargain.
- A detainee in the Odesa SIZO.
A/HRC/40/CRP.3
20
in order to remove her from the case.83 Although the judge continues to participate in the
trial,84 concerns arise about her bias towards the defendants and a likely re-trial in case of
her eventual removal by the High Council of Justice,85 which would violate the rights of the
victim’s relatives and the defendants. The judge’s allegation of the interference into her
professional activities merits prompt and effective investigation.
68. In an unrelated case, the car of Valentyn Rybin, a lawyer known for defending
conflict-related detainees, was set on fire.86 According to Rybin,87 the police is reluctant to
investigate the attack.
69. During the reporting period, OHCHR observed violations88 of the right to a public
hearing when judges held hearings of conflict-related criminal cases in their offices instead
of courtrooms89 without making these changes known to the general public90 and thus
obstructing public presence.
B. Accountability for human rights violations in eastern Ukraine
70. OHCHR continued to document Ukrainian authorities’ inaction in prosecuting
military officials, suspected of crimes against civilians.91 OHCHR notes that prosecutors
fail to enforce defendants’ presence during trials as a general practice.92
C. Accountability for cases of violence related to riots and public
disturbances
71. OHCHR noted limited progress in legal proceedings concerning the 2014 Maidan
protests and the violent events of 2 May 2014 in Odesa.
1. Accountability for the killings of protesters during the Maidan protests
72. Five years after violent clashes between law enforcement and Maidan protestors, the
Special Investigations Department (SID) of the Prosecutor-General’s Office continues its
probe into killings during the protests in early 2014. The SID, however, will lose its
investigative functions on 20 November 2019.93 By then, all investigations conducted into
the Maidan killings must be completed or transferred to the State Bureau of Investigations,
which began its work on 27 November 2018.
83 During a session at the High Council of Justice on 9 October 2018, the judge alleged that she was
made to fail the test to disqualify her from hearing Buzyna’s case. A video recording of the session is
available at: http://www.vru.gov.ua/video/497. 84 Defense lawyers requested the court to remove the judge from the case due to her allegations at the
High Council of Justice on 9 October 2018. 85 On 9 October 2018, the High Council of Justice postponed the hearing of the judge’s case. 86 A Сar of a Defence Lawyer Rybin, Who Protected Ruban and Yezhov, Was Burned, UNIAN. 87 Rybin’s speech on 22 January 2018, available at: https://press.liga.net/press-
conf/releases/konferentsiya-peresliduvannya-ta-napadi-na-advokativ-sogodenni-realii-derjavi. 88 OHCHR trial monitoring at the Kramatorsk city court, 5 December 2018. 89 Courts must provide for adequate facilities for the attendance of interested members of the public. See
Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 32. Art. 14, para. 28. 90 Courts must make information regarding the time and venue of the oral hearings available to the
public. See Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 32. Art. 14, para. 28. 91 In the case of eight members of Aidar battalion tried at the Zhovtnevyi district court of Kharkiv, four
years later, the court has not yet started to hear the merits of the case. 92 In the case of an SBU officer charged with an Avdiivka resident’s killing on 4 March 2017, the
prosecutor failed to enforce the dependent’s participation (via videoconference). In particular, he did
not request the court to order the defendant’s detention or suspension from service. The defendant
continues to serve in the SBU and has access to service firearms. 93 Parts 1 and 2 of Chapter XI. Transitional Provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine.
A/HRC/40/CRP.3
21
73. While the SID continues its work, the investigators have been stripped of labour and
social protection guarantees,94 which, according to the SID Head, has had a negative impact
on the work of the department.95
74. The Office of the Military Prosecutor completed its investigation into the shooting
from the SBU building in Khmelnytskyi on 19 February 2014. The former Head of the
Khmelnytskyi SBU, who had allegedly ordered the use of lethal force against the
protestors, and the SBU officer, who had allegedly shot and killed one person and injured
three protestors, have been indicted on charges of abuse of power, unintentional killing and
negligent grave bodily injury. On 18 December 2018, a court ordered house arrest for the
SBU officer96 but he was later released.97
2. Accountability for the 2 May 2014 violence in Odesa
75. Delays in the investigation and trial proceedings related to the 2 May 2014 violence
in Odesa continue. As of 15 February 2019, almost five years after the events, which led to
the deaths of 48 people, none of the state officials have been held accountable.
76. On 16 January 2019, the court of appeals for Odesa region reversed the decision of
the Kyivskyi district court of Odesa to return to the prosecutor’s office the indictment
against three State Emergency Service officials accused of negligence and ruled to start the
trial.
77. OHCHR notes no progress in the case against the only ‘pro-unity’ activist accused
of killing: two hearings were adjourned due to the court’s failure to select a jury panel and
disruption of the proceedings by ‘pro-unity’ supporters. On 17 December 2018, around 30-
40 supporters of the defendant disrupted the hearing in the Malynovskyi district court of
Odesa. When the panel of judges attempted to leave the courtroom, one of the supporters
approached the presiding judge obstructing his movement and began arguing with him. The
judge was only able to leave the courtroom after the defendant and his lawyer interfered.
78. The Prymorskyi district court of Odesa has not started to hear the case against three
high ranking police officials accused of negligence and endangering others. On 11 October
2018, the judge ruled to merge the case with another legal proceeding against one of the
accused related to the 2 May violence in Odesa. However, on 16 January 2019, the case
was returned for retrial due to procedural issues.
VI. Democratic/civic space and fundamental freedoms
79. During the reporting period, OHCHR documented 16 violations of the rights to
freedom of opinion and freedom of expression, freedom to peaceful assembly and
association, freedom of religion or belief and the right to non-discrimination. While the
Ukrainian authorities were responsible for all 16 human rights violations that OHCHR
documented during the reporting period, the space for freedom of expression and freedom
of the media remains highly restricted in territory controlled by ‘Donetsk people’s republic’
and ‘Luhansk people’s republic’.
80. The 30-day martial law period declared in ten regions of Ukraine98 did not lead to
significant human rights limitations. However, certain martial law restrictions had direct
94 According to p. 5 of Transitional provisions of Law of Ukraine “On the Public Prosecutor's Office”,
social and pension guarantees for prosecutors are extended to investigators of the Prosecutor's Office
until the State Bureau of Investigations starts operating on 27 November 2018. 95 OHCHR meeting, 13 December 2018. 96 See the ruling of the Podilskyi district court of Kyiv of 18 December 2018 at
http://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/78821440. 97 See the ruling of the Pecherskyi district court of Kyiv of 3 January 2019 at
http://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/79001111. 98 The martial law was in force between 26 November and 26 December 2018 in ten out of 25
administrative regions of Ukraine: Vinnytsia, Luhansk, Mykolaiv, Odesa, Sumy, Kharkiv, Chernihiv,
Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson and the internal waters of the Azov Sea and the Kerch Strait.
A/HRC/40/CRP.3
22
application under national legislation leading to restrictions of electoral rights and the right
to peaceful assembly.99 The prohibition to hold elections resulted in the cancellation of the
elections to territorial “hromadas” in the ten regions under martial law.100 At the same time,
the prohibition to hold public assemblies was not strictly enforced. OHCHR observed that
public events did take place in the affected regions. Police in Odesa reportedly evoked the
martial law when dissolving a public event in order to unblock a traffic jam.101
A. Freedom of opinion and expression and freedom of the media
81. Despite the decrease in the number of violations of freedom of expression and
freedom of the media during the reporting period, OHCHR continues to document cases of
interference in the work of media professionals and physical attacks and acts of
intimidation against them. Seven incidents took place during the period under review,
which led to nine human rights violations, including the persistent lack of investigations
into attacks against journalists and civic activists.
82. On 18 November 2018, members of extreme right-wing groups used pepper spray
against a Canadian journalist covering a transgender rights public event in Kyiv and
punched him in the face. Police opened an investigation into the attack, classifying the
assault as ‘hooliganism’.
83. OHCHR remains concerned about the failure of the Government to bring
perpetrators of attacks on civil society activists to account. OHCHR notes the creation of a
special parliamentary commission to investigate a lethal attack on a senior staff of the
Kherson city council and attacks on other activists.102 Concerns remain, however, about the
lack of effective investigations by law enforcement into these attacks so far.
84. OHCHR documented two attacks against members of political parties during the
reporting period. On 28 November 2018, around 30 masked men attacked three political
activists in Odesa.103 On 12 December, a group of approximately 15 perpetrators, with
alleged links to extreme right-wing groups, stormed offices of a political party in Kyiv.
They beat at least two political activists and searched the offices. The police arrived after
the attack when the perpetrators had already left.104
85. Space for freedom of expression and freedom of the media remains highly restricted
in territory controlled by ‘Donetsk people’s republic’ and ‘Luhansk people’s republic’.
OHCHR is concerned that expression of any critical opinion or alternative view could lead
to arbitrary detention or other punishment of critics.
B. Freedom of peaceful assembly and association
86. OHCHR continued to document attacks by extreme right-wing groups on peaceful
assemblies organized by groups, with whose views they disagree. On 18 November 2018,
members of extreme right-wing groups attacked the transgender rights public event in Kyiv.
Despite the presence of the police on site, the members of extreme right-wing groups from
a counter-rally followed several event participants and attacked them by using pepper
99 Article 19 of Law of Ukraine ‘On the legal regime of martial law’ no. 389-VIII of 12 May 2015. 100 On 29 November 2018, the Central Electoral Commission of Ukraine cancelled the elections in
several territorial “hromadas” (united territorial communities), scheduled for 23 December 2018 in all
ten regions under martial law (in total 52 elections). 101 On 28 November 2018, a group of Odesa residents blocked a public road protesting against an
unlawful construction. Police dispersed the protest and apprehended one of the protestors for
disobedience. After a few hours in a police station, the protestor was released. 102 Established on 6 November 2018, the commission conducted numerous meetings with victims of
attacks, law enforcement, state and local officials, including in Odesa, Kharkiv and Kherson; OHCHR
interview, 18 January 2019. 103 OHCHR interview, 1 February 2019. 104 OHCHR interview, 7 February 2019. The police initiated a criminal investigation on charges of
hooliganism. However, the victims’ lawyer noted the absence of investigative activities.
A/HRC/40/CRP.3
23
spray. Two participants and one journalist received injuries. Instead of isolating
perpetrators police asked organizers to stop the event and forced the participants into a
nearby subway station. Authorities did not launch an investigation into the disruption of the
peaceful event and attacks against the participants.105 OHCHR notes that such attacks could
amount to a form of gender-based discrimination against LGBTQI people.
87. In territory controlled by ‘Donetsk people’s republic’ and ‘Luhansk people’s
republic’, OHCHR did not observe any developments with regard to peaceful assembly. In
territory controlled by ‘Luhansk people’s republic’, a ‘decree’ remains ‘in force’, according
to which organizers of peaceful assemblies are required to seek prior approval of the
‘ministry of state security’ or the ‘ministry of the interior’.106
C. Freedom of religion or belief
88. OHCHR continued to monitor developments related to granting autocephaly to the
newly established church – the Orthodox Church in Ukraine. On 15 December 2018,
members of the Unification Council of the Orthodox Churches of Ukraine formally agreed
to create the new church and chose its leader. OHCHR documented incidents that could be
perceived as acts of intimidation against members of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the
Moscow Patriarchate.
89. During the reporting period, the SBU in several regions of Ukraine initiated four
criminal investigations into incitement to religious enmity and hatred; one of these cases
has an additional charge of high treason, without issuing notices of suspicion.107 The SBU
conducted searches in the premises of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow
Patriarchate and places of residence of clergymen, questioning some of them.108
90. On 20 December 2018, the Parliament of Ukraine launched a process of mandatory
renaming of religious organizations that are affiliated with religious centers in the Russian
Federation. OHCHR is concerned that this process is primarily targeting Ukrainian
Orthodox Church communities and may be discriminatory.109 OHCHR is also concerned
that the Parliament warranted restrictions on access of the clergymen of such organizations
to the premises of the Ukrainian Armed Forces on the basis of national security
considerations, which contravenes article 18(3) of the ICCPR.110
91. Following the establishment of the new church, a number of religious communities
decided to join. OHCHR received reports that in a few cases the transfers were not
voluntary and were initiated by state or local authorities or even representatives of extreme
right-wing groups, who were not members of those religious communities.111 Furthermore,
105 OHCHR interviews, 15 January 2019. 106 See OHCHR report on human rights situation in Ukraine, 16 May - 15 August 2018, para. 100. 107 OHCHR interview, 17 January 2019. The police launched criminal investigations in Zaporizhzhia,
Kyiv, Zhytomyr and Rivne regions. 108 OHCHR interview, 17 January 2019. 109 According to law no. 2662-VIII of 20 December 2018, a religious organization that is affiliated with a
foreign religious organization, the governing centre of which is located in a country, recognized as an
“aggressor state”, should include this affiliation in its name, or risk ceasing its operations. On 18
January 2018, the Verkhovna Rada adopted the law “On the peculiarities of the state policy to ensure
the state sovereignty of Ukraine in temporarily occupied territories in Donetsk and Luhansk regions,”
which recognizes the Russian Federation as an aggressor state. President Poroshenko signed the law
on 20 February 2018. 110 Human Rights Committee in para. 8 of its general comment No. 22 (1993) emphasized that Article
18(3) of the ICCPR permits restrictions on the freedom to manifest religion or belief only if
limitations are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health or morals, or
the fundamental rights and freedoms of others. This paragraph is to be strictly interpreted: restrictions
are not allowed on grounds not specified there, even if they would be allowed as restrictions to other
rights protected in the ICCPR, such as national security. 111 OHCHR interview, 25 February 2019.
A/HRC/40/CRP.3
24
on 17 January 2019, the Parliament adopted amendments setting out a procedure for
voluntary change of denomination by religious communities.112
D. Discrimination, hate speech, racially-motivated violence and
manifestations of intolerance
92. OHCHR continued documenting violations related to discrimination, hate speech
and/or violence, targeting members of minority groups or those holding alternative or
minority opinions. Among two incidents documented that occurred during the reporting
period, one involved threats and another direct violence by members of extreme right-wing
groups. The failure of the law enforcement to prevent violence, to properly classify these
violations as hate crimes, and to effectively investigate and prosecute these crimes violates
the right to non-discrimination and creates an environment of impunity. It also denies
victims of these attacks equal access to justice.
93. Investigations and prosecution of several attacks against Roma people still lack
progress.113 Positively, on 28 December 2018, prosecutors of the Lviv Regional
Prosecutor’s Office charged a man responsible for the killing of a young Roma man outside
Lviv in June 2018.114 In contrast, the Holosiivsky district court of Kyiv cancelled on
procedural grounds the note of suspicion against an alleged perpetrator in another violent
attack against a Roma settlement in Kyiv in April 2018.115
94. OHCHR documented the case of a prisoner with pro-Ukrainian views, who served
his sentence in a penal colony in territory controlled by ‘Luhansk people’s republic’
between 2014 and 2018. The prisoner had conflicts with the colony administration for his
political views and speaking Ukrainian. The colony administration staff reportedly forced
the prisoner “to drop his nationalistic views”, threatened and beat him. In 2016, the colony
guards allegedly beat him with batons as ordered by the colony head. After this incident,
the prisoner was held in the isolation cell for a year. He said that as a result of his long-
lasting intimidation and ill-treatment, he tried to commit suicide in December 2017.116
VII. Human rights in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol, Ukraine, temporarily occupied by the Russian Federation
95. The overall human rights situation in Crimea continued to be marked by restrictions
in the exercise of fundamental freedoms and the lack of effective remedies to seek justice.
In addition, the continuing failure of the Russian Federation to acknowledge its status as an
occupying power in Crimea has resulted in further violations of international humanitarian
law committed by its State actors during the reporting period, failing to recognize and
ensure obligations related to applicable occupation law.
96. OHCHR continued to record human rights violations, including restrictions on
freedoms of opinion, expression, and religion or belief, and violations of international
humanitarian law in Crimea. In total, OHCHR documented 38 violations during the
reporting period, and of this number 25 violations occurred within the reporting period;
112 According to the law, a decision to change subordination is made by two thirds of the community’s
quorum. The amendments reaffirm the principle of religious communities’ independent determination
of their membership and establish a moratorium on sale or other transfer of the religious community’s
property until the registration process is completed. 113 See OHCHR Report on the human rights situation in Ukraine, 16 May to 15 August 2018, para. 91. 114 See OHCHR Report on the human rights situation in Ukraine, 16 August to 15 November 2018, para
82. 115 On 25 February, the Kyiv court of appeal will hear the prosecutors’ appeal of the Holosiivsky district
court decision to cancel the notice of suspicion to the alleged perpetrator. 116 OHCHR interviews, 18 December 2018.
A/HRC/40/CRP.3
25
with the Government of the Russian Federation responsible for 35 and the Government of
Ukraine for three.117
A. International Humanitarian Law violations
97. On 25 November 2018, Ukrainian authorities reported an assault of the Russian
Federation naval forces on three Ukrainian naval vessels near the Kerch Strait. The
Ukrainian vessels were on their way to the Azov Sea through the Kerch Strait, which is the
only passage between the Black Sea and the Azov Sea and lies between the Russian
Federation and Russian Federation-occupied Crimea. The Ukrainian Government stressed
that the Ukrainian ships were attacked in international waters, while the Russian Federation
insisted that the ships entered its territorial waters and received repeated warnings to leave
the area. The Russian Federation naval forces opened fire on the Ukrainian vessels, seized
them, and captured 24 crew members (22 naval officers and two SBU officers).
98. OHCHR notes that by virtue of the continued occupation of Crimea by the Russian
Federation, an international armed conflict continues to exist between the two States in
Crimea and international humanitarian law continues to apply there. As such, a single
hostile encounter between the armed forces or assimilated armed units of two sovereign
states, as the 25 November 2018 incident, suffices to trigger the application of international
humanitarian law, irrespective of the pre-existence of an armed conflict. Consequently, the
rules of international humanitarian law that are applicable to international armed conflict
continue to apply.
99. All 24 crew members, including those who had reportedly sustained injuries during
the incident, have been charged with illegal crossing of the Russian border, a criminal
offence punishable by up to six years of imprisonment, and remanded in custody.118
Between 29 and 30 November 2018, the Russian Federation authorities reportedly
transferred all 24 crew members from Simferopol to Moscow, where they placed them in
SIZOs.
100. The Ukrainian Government considers the apprehended crew members to be
prisoners of war. Similar statements were made by the crew members and their lawyers,
including during court hearings on the measure of restraint. Nevertheless, as of 15 February
2019, the Russian Federation authorities refuse to apply international humanitarian law
provisions to the incident and deny the detained crew members the status of prisoners of
war.
101. OHCHR notes that based on the provisions of international humanitarian law,119 the
24 detained crew members could be considered as prisoners of war and protected by the
Third Geneva Convention. In any case, they shall enjoy the status of a prisoner of war until
a competent tribunal determines otherwise.120 OHCHR recalls that prisoners of war must
inter alia be humanely treated, protected against violence or intimidation, and provided
with the medical assistance if needed.
B. Administration of justice, intimidation and harassment of human rights
defenders
102. On 7 December 2018, a district court in Simferopol sentenced Crimean Tatar lawyer
Emil Kurbedinov, known for defending critics of Crimea’s occupation and alleged
members of organizations, banned in the Russian Federation, to five days of administrative
117 The violations attributable to the Government of Ukraine did not necessarily occur in Crimea itself,
but concern events in mainland Ukraine connected to the situation in Crimea. They are related to
freedom of movement, access to public services, and the right to property. 118 OHCHR interviews, 27 – 29 November 2018. 119 Article 4 (A) (1) and 4 (A) (4) of the Third Geneva Convention and Articles 43 and 44 of Additional
Protocol I. 120 Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention.
A/HRC/40/CRP.3
26
detention for disseminating extremist symbols through a social network.121 During a court
hearing, the judge ignored the fact that the impugned content was posted five years ago –
prior to the de facto implementation of the Russian legislation in Crimea122 – and denied
over 40 motions of his defense team, including the motion to ensure the presence of a
prosecutor, to question an expert witness and recuse a presiding judge.123 Kurbedinov was
released on 11 December after serving his sentence in full.
103. OHCHR notes that Kurbedinov’s conviction follows a series of earlier incidents that
indicate a pattern of deliberate intimidation, hindrance, harassment or interference by the
Russian authorities in Crimea with his professional activities. In 2017, he was also
prosecuted for social media posts.124 On 6 November 2018, police raided his office in
Simferopol to serve him with a “formal warning” against engagement in extremism.
OHCHR is concerned that this time, the extremism charges may be used to formally
deprive Kurbedinov of his right to practice law in Crimea. On 18 December, the Ministry of
Justice of Crimea requested a bar association in Simferopol to renounce Kurbedinov’s
membership, which may lead to his disbarment.
104. Emil Kurbedinov’s case reflects the overall hostile attitude of Russian Federation
authorities towards human rights defenders and civic activists. Lawyers, who take up
defense in sensitive cases against individuals accused of extremism or terrorism in Crimea,
risk facing similar charges themselves. OHCHR reiterates its findings on the pressure faced
by members of Crimean Solidarity, a non-registered civic group cooperating closely with
defense lawyers on the peninsula.125 The law enforcement have disrupted the group’s
meetings and issued formal warnings to Crimean Solidarity members not to engage in
illegal activities, including unauthorized public gatherings and extremist acts.126
C. Freedoms of religion, opinion and expression
105. Consistent with previous OHCHR findings, the pattern of criminalization of
affiliation to or sympathy towards religious Muslim groups, banned in the Russian
Federation, continued to disproportionately affect Crimean Tatars.
106. On 24 December 2018, a military court in the Russian city of Rostov-on-Don found
four Ukrainian citizens, all Crimean Tatar men previously transferred to the Russian
Federation from Crimea, guilty of membership in a terrorist organization and preparation to
commit a forcible seizure of power. One man received a 17-year prison sentence, while
three others – 9 years of imprisonment each. The accusations were based on the defendants’
alleged membership in Hizb ut-Tahrir, an Islamic movement, which is legal in Ukraine but
banned as a terrorist group in the Russian Federation. According to a court ruling,127 the
defendants were prosecuted for four meetings, during which they had discussed Islamic
dogmas, Hizb ut-Tahrir ideology and sharia law. In a separate case, on 22 January 2019, the
Supreme Court of Crimea found four Crimean residents guilty of membership in Tablighi
Jamaat, another Islamic group banned in the Russian Federation. Three defendants received
conditional sentences, while the fourth man was sentenced to four years of imprisonment.128
In both cases, the defendants were found guilty based on their alleged membership in the
121 Judgment of the Kyivskyi district court of Simferopol, 7 December 2018, Case No. 5-1148/2018. 122 This may be viewed as a violation of Article 70, Geneva Convention IV. 123 OHCHR interview, 7 December 2018. 124 Earlier, on 26 January 2017, Emil Kurbedinov was sentenced to ten days of administrative detention
on similar charges, see OHCHR report on the human rights situation in Ukraine, 16 November 2016 -
15 February 2017, para. 128. 125 OHCHR second thematic report “On the situation of human rights in the temporary occupied
Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol, Ukraine”, 13 September 2017 - 30 June
2018, para. 53. 126 The police disrupted meetings of Crimean Solidarity on 27 January 2018 in Sudak and on 27 October
2018 in Simferopol. 127 Judgment of the Severo-Kavkazskiy circuit military court of the Russian Federation, 24 December
2018, Case No. 1-42/2018. 128 Judgment of the Supreme court of Crimea, 22 January 2019, Case No. 1-1/2019.
A/HRC/40/CRP.3
27
banned Muslim groups, as well as the fact that they had possessed, read and discussed
books deemed to be ‘extremist’ under the Russian law despite the absence of any evidence
indicating that they had called for or planned to engage in any form of violence or violation
of public order.
107. OHCHR notes with concern that in September 2016, four other Crimean Tatar men
received long prison sentences for their alleged membership in the same organization,129
while at least 11 other Crimean residents are currently on trial on similar charges.130
OHCHR reiterates that freedom to manifest one’s religion or belief may only be limited on
the grounds prescribed by law, which are necessary to protect public safety, order, health,
morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.131
108. During the reporting period, at least five criminal cases against Crimean residents
charged for their alleged anti-Russian statements in social media were closed following the
de-criminalization of a single act of “incitement of hatred or violence” under Russian
law,132 which is de facto applied in Crimea. Previously, OHCHR reported extensively about
the systematic use by the Russian Federation authorities of the anti-extremism legislation in
Crimea against critics of the peninsula’s occupation and vocal pro-Ukrainian activists.133
OHCHR welcomes this positive step by the Russian Federation, although the extent to
which such de-criminalization will be implemented remains to be seen.
D. Illegal population transfers and freedom of movement
109. According to the Russian Federation judicial registry, in 2018, courts in Crimea
ordered deportation from the peninsula of at least 435 individuals considered foreigners
under Russian Federation laws, including 231 Ukrainian nationals. Of the total number in
2018, at least 50 individuals were “forcibly removed”, a procedure that prescribes
placement in temporary detention before deportation. Many of the deported were Ukrainian
citizens, whose residence rights in Crimea were not recognized by authorities. In one case,
a man, who had relocated to Crimea from Kyiv to undergo medical rehabilitation, was
deported after having been compelled to cooperate with law enforcement, or risk
detention.134
110. Deportations of protected persons from Crimea occur against the backdrop of
restrictions imposed on free movement between mainland Ukraine and the peninsula.
During the reporting period, the Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation denied
entry to a Ukrainian journalist and banned her from Crimea for 10 years.135 Russian border
officials informed the journalist of the ban at one of the crossing points of the
Administrative Boundary Line without any explanation of the specific grounds for such
decision. Russian authorities issue similar bans to other journalists, civic activists, or other
public figures, who are perceived as critics of Crimea’s occupation.136
111. Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons
from occupied territory to the territory of the occupying Power, or to that of any other
country, occupied or not, are prohibited under international humanitarian law, regardless of
129 See OHCHR report on the human rights situation in Ukraine, 16 August - 15 November 2016, para.
164. 130 See OHCHR report on the human rights situation in Ukraine, 16 May - 15 August 2018, para. 111-
112. 131 ICCPR, art. 18 (3). 132 Law of the Russian Federation No 519-FZ, 27 December 2018. 133 See inter alia OHCHR second thematic report “On the situation of human rights in the temporary
occupied Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol, Ukraine”, 13 September 2017 -
30 June 2018, para. 46. 134 OHCHR interview, 21 November 2018. 135 OHCHR interview, 29 November 2018. 136 See OHCHR first thematic report “On the situation of human rights in the temporary occupied
Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol, Ukraine”, 22 February 2014 - 12
September 2017, para. 128.
A/HRC/40/CRP.3
28
their motive.137 International human rights law guarantees to everyone the right to liberty of
movement and freedom to choose their own residence within their own country.138
E. Forced conscription
112. The reporting period was marked by the eighth conscription campaign of Crimean
residents into the Russian Federation Armed Forces since the beginning of the occupation.
During the latest campaign, which ended in December 2018, approximately 2,800 men
from Crimea were enlisted, bringing the overall number of Crimean conscripts to at least
14,800 men.139 The number of the enlisted Crimeans has significantly increased from 500
conscripts during the first military draft in 2015.
113. Draft evasion is punishable under Russian criminal law by up to two years
imprisonment. OHCHR notes that criminal prosecution of Crimean residents for evading
Russian military drafts has intensified during 2018, with at least 21 guilty verdicts.140 One
defendant was sentenced to a suspended prison term, while others were fined. Forced
enlistment adversely affects the enjoyment of human rights of potential conscripts,
restricting their free movement and access to education and employment. In one case, a
resident of Crimea was forced at his local military draft commission to leave Crimea or face
conscription in the future. Registering at the military draft commission was also a
prerequisite for receiving his university diploma in Simferopol.141
114. As an occupying power, the Russian Federation must comply with international
humanitarian law prohibiting compulsion of Crimean residents into its armed or auxiliary
forces.142 No pressure or propaganda aimed at securing voluntary enlistment is permitted.
137 Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. 138 ICCPR, Article 12. 139 All figures are approximate and primarily based on reports of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian
Federation. 140 These are the verdicts verifiable through the Russian Federation court registry. OHCHR has been able
to verify three such verdicts in 2017. 141 OHCHR interview, 15 January 2019. 142 Article 51 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
A/HRC/40/CRP.3
29
VIII. Technical cooperation and capacity-building
115. OHCHR engages in technical cooperation and capacity-building activities to assist
the Government of Ukraine and civil society to protect and promote human rights.
116. OHCHR carried out 334 specific follow-up activities to facilitate the protection of
human rights connected with the cases documented, including trial monitoring, detention
visits, referrals to State institutions, humanitarian organizations and non-governmental
organizations (NGOs), and cooperation with United Nations human rights mechanisms.
OHCHR referred 34 allegations of human rights violations to specific duty-bearers; to the
Government of Ukraine, 19 allegations were raised with two fully and seven partially
addressed; to the ‘ombudsperson’ of ‘Donetsk people’s republic’ seven allegations were
raised with one fully and one partially addressed; and to ‘Luhansk people’s republic’ seven
allegations were raised with three partially addressed.
117. On 30 November, OHCHR, the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian
Law and Human Rights and the Age and Disability Technical Working Group organized a
joint capacity-building training session on the Protection of the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities (PwD) in the armed conflict in Ukraine. Participants included Government
officials and local authorities, staff of international and national organizations, civil society
activists and persons with disabilities. The main purpose of the training was to strengthen
the protection of persons with disabilities affected by the conflict in Ukraine through raising
awareness of international standards, identifying challenges and needs related to protection
of PwD and establishing stronger cooperation between key stakeholders.
IX. Conclusions and recommendations
118. OHCHR welcomes the significant decrease in civilian casualties, however, the
armed conflict in eastern Ukraine continues, affecting lives and livelihoods not only of
more than five million civilians on both sides of the contact line, but the entire country. All
parties to the conflict need to fully implement the ceasefire and disengagement provisions
of the Minsk agreements to protect civilians, civilian property and infrastructure, and lessen
their daily hardships. The Government of Ukraine needs to step up efforts for protection of
conflict-affected civilians, including IDPs, regardless of where they reside in Ukraine, as
well as for the realization of their economic and social rights to pave the way for a durable
reconciliation between communities and restoring peace and stability in eastern Ukraine.
119. The Government must act to protect space for civic expression ahead of Ukraine’s
presidential, parliamentary and local elections in 2019 and 2020. Impunity for attacks on
media professionals, civil society activists, lawyers and political opponents weakens
Ukraine’s democratic institutions and fuels further intolerance, discrimination and violence,
and could compromise the integrity of the upcoming elections.
120. As in the previous reporting periods, OHCHR regrets the absence of the meaningful
progress in investigations and prosecutions of those responsible for the killings during the
Maidan protests and the violence that took place on 2 May 2014 in Odesa.
121. The human rights situation in Crimea continues to deteriorate as a direct result of the
Russian Federation authorities applying its laws against residents of Crimea in violation of
their obligations as an occupying power under the Fourth Geneva Convention, and other
violations of international humanitarian law affecting the protected population. The Russian
Federation must address pervasive human rights violations such as restrictions on freedoms
of religion, opinion and expression and association, as well as the intimidation and
harassment of human rights defenders, disproportionately affecting Crimean Tatars.
122. Most recommendations made in the previous OHCHR reports on the human rights
situation in Ukraine have not yet been implemented and remain valid. OHCHR further
recommends the following, based on the issues identified from 16 November 2018 to 15
February 2019.
A/HRC/40/CRP.3
30
1. To the Ukrainian authorities:
Parliament of Ukraine
(a) adopt and harmonize the legislation to serve as a base for developing a
comprehensive mechanism for restitution and compensation for property, damaged
and destroyed during the armed conflict in eastern Ukraine, as well as property,
currently in military use;
(b) revise the Law on War Veterans so that all civilians who acquired a
disability as a result of hostilities in eastern Ukraine in 2014-2019 can be eligible for
receiving status of war veterans and appropriate social protection.
Cabinet of Ministers:
(c) develop and adopt a national policy framework that establishes clear
institutional authorities and responsibilities for the protection of civilians and civilian
objects in hostilities, as recommended in the 2018 United Nations Secretary General’s
report on protection of civilians in armed conflict (S/2018/462);
(d) develop a comprehensive mechanism, including an administrative
procedure, for restitution of property and compensation for any damages and
destruction of civilian property in the armed conflict in eastern Ukraine;
(e) develop a non-discriminatory and accessible mechanism for restitution
and compensation for property, which is in military use, including keeping records of
civilian property and infrastructure in military use;
(f) allocate financial support to local authorities in order to provide safe and
adequate housing to the conflict-affected population and IDPs;
(g) ensure swift and full implementation of the law ‘On the legal status of
missing persons’, in particular by providing sufficient resources for effective
realization of mandate of the Commission on Missing Persons;
(h) ensure that the right to freedom to manifest religion or belief is protected
including at premises of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, in accordance with Article
18(3) of the ICCPR.
Ministry of Social Policy:
(i) adopt a non-discriminatory policy to provide equal access for all citizens
of Ukraine to pensions and social benefits, regardless of their place of residence or
IDP registration.
Ministry of Defence:
(j) finalize the draft Resolution regulating movement of individuals and
transfer of goods through the EECPs in line with international standards and in
consultation with the international community and civil society.
JFO Command:
(k) build up the capacity of the Working Group for Collection and
Consolidation of Information on Injuries and Deaths of Civilian Population;
(l) facilitate documentation of damages and destruction of civilian property
caused by hostilities in eastern Ukraine;
(m) facilitate documentation (i.e. signing of lease agreements) and ensure
compensation for the military use of civilian homes and other property, including
when such use caused damage to property.
Military-Civil Administrations of Donetsk and Luhansk regions and local authorities:
(n) develop, in cooperation with the JFO Command, a response mechanism
guaranteeing affected population adequate alternative housing and compensation for
damages caused by hostilities or due to the military use of housing, land and property.
Ministry of Justice:
(o) establish an electronic registry of detained persons, including those who
were held in detention facilities in territory controlled by the self-proclaimed ‘Donetsk
people’s republic’ and self-proclaimed ‘Luhansk people’s republic’, before the
outbreak of the armed conflict in eastern Ukraine.
Judges and court administration:
A/HRC/40/CRP.3
31
(p) conduct rigorous review of all plea bargains and refuse to accept them,
when there are reasonable grounds to believe that pleas bargains were obtained by
coercion or under psychological pressure due to prolonged pre-trial detention and
when no evidence of guilt is presented;
(q) ensure that there is sufficient number of judges in local courts to
administer justice promptly and effectively.
Office of the Prosecutor General and law enforcement agencies:
(r) ensure prompt, impartial and effective investigation of all alleged
incidents of arbitrary detention, torture, ill-treatment and enforced disappearance,
including those allegedly committed by State actors or individuals acting with State
authorization, support or acquiescence, in line with international standards, including
Istanbul Protocol;
(s) act to stop and effectively prosecute any acts of interference into
activities of legal professionals, attacks on defence lawyers, and attempts to exert
pressure on judges;
(t) facilitate prompt trial proceedings in conflict-related criminal cases
through, inter alia, requesting courts to ensure the presence of all parties and
witnesses during trials;
(u) condemn all acts of violence and promptly, impartially and efficiently
investigate all violent attacks against media professionals, civic and political activists,
human rights defenders, political parties, and defence lawyers. Motives of
perpetrators and other aggravating circumstances should be considered during initial
criminal classification and investigations into these attacks;
(v) ensure adequate and effective security for all peaceful public assemblies,
prevent and stop all acts of violence, while facilitating the exercise of freedom of
peaceful assembly without discrimination;
2. To all parties involved in the hostilities in Donetsk and Luhansk regions,
including the Ukrainian Armed Forces, and armed groups of the self-proclaimed
‘Donetsk people’s republic’ and self-proclaimed ‘Luhansk people’s republic’:
(a) strictly adhere to the ceasefire and disengagement provisions of the
Minsk agreements;
(b) ensure full compliance with international humanitarian law rules of
distinction, proportionality and precaution, including by immediately ceasing the use
of weapons with indiscriminate effect in populated areas, particularly weapons with
wide impact area;
(c) take all possible measures to minimize harm to the civilian population,
including by positioning military objects outside of densely populated areas, and
refraining from deliberately targeting civilians or civilian infrastructure, such as
water facilities and power lines;
(d) create conditions for safe and quick crossing of the contact line by
civilians, including an improved access to the first medical aid at EECPs and
near them.
3. To the self-proclaimed ‘Donetsk people’s republic’ and self-proclaimed
‘Luhansk people’s republic’:
(a) ensure unimpeded and confidential access by OHCHR and other
international organisations to all places of deprivation of liberty and allow private,
confidential interviews with detainees in accordance with international standards;
(b) refrain from practice of ‘preventive arrest’ and ‘administrative arrest’,
which may amount to incommunicado detention and provide information on
detainees’ whereabouts to their families;
(c) treat all persons in detention humanely in all circumstances and
ensure conditions of detention are in accordance with international standards;
(d) continue transfers of prisoners to the government-controlled territory
and in doing so prioritize the transfer of those individuals, who had been held in pre-
trial custody at the time when the armed conflict broke out.
A/HRC/40/CRP.3
32
4. In the context of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of
Sevastopol, Ukraine, temporarily occupied by the Russian Federation, to the
Government of the Russian Federation:
(a) implement General Assembly Resolution 73/263 of 22 December 2018,
including by ensuring proper and unimpeded access of international human rights
monitoring missions and human rights non-governmental organizations to Crimea;
(b) respect the laws in place in Crimea in 2014 before the beginning of the
occupation, in particular by refraining from enforcing Russian Federation legislation
in Crimea;
(c) ensure unimpeded freedom of movement between Crimea and mainland
Ukraine; end the practice of apprehension of protected persons at the ABL and in the
territorial waters adjacent to Crimea;
(d) ensure humane treatment, appropriate medical care, unrestricted access
of Ukrainian consular officers and defence counsels to 24 Ukrainian crew members
detained by the Russian Federation following the naval incident near the Kerch strait
on 25 November 2018;
(e) take all necessary steps to ensure that freedoms of expression, peaceful
assembly, association, thought, conscience and religion or belief can be exercised by
all in Crimea, without discrimination on any grounds;
(f) enable a safe environment for independent and pluralistic media outlets
and civil society organizations; ensure unimpeded access of Ukrainian and foreign
journalists, human rights defenders and other civil society actors to Crimea;
(g) end the practice of applying legislation on extremism, terrorism and
separatism to criminalize free speech and peaceful conduct; stop prosecuting Crimean
residents for possession of publications or sharing of social media content that does
not constitute calls for discrimination or violence;
(h) take all necessary measures to ensure the independence of the legal
profession and to enable lawyers and human rights defenders in Crimea, including
Emil Kurbedinov, to perform their professional functions freely and without any
intimidation, threat, harassment or interference;
(i) refrain from compelling residents of Crimea to serve in the armed forces
of the Russian Federation;
(j) end the practice of deportations and forcible transfers of protected
persons, including detainees, outside the occupied territory.
5. In the context of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of
Sevastopol, Ukraine, temporarily occupied by the Russian Federation, to the
Government of Ukraine:
(a) respect human rights obligations in relation to Crimean residents; use all
legal and diplomatic means available to this end.
6. To the international community:
(a) continue using all diplomatic means to press all parties to immediately
end hostilities and implement all obligations foreseen in the Minsk agreements,
emphasizing how the active armed conflict causes suffering of civilians and hampers
prospects for stability, peace and reconciliation;
(b) use all influence possible to ensure unimpeded access and operation of
OHCHR in territory controlled by ‘Donetsk people’s republic’ and ‘Luhansk people’s
republic’, and in Crimea;
(c) urge the Russian Federation to comply with its obligations as an
occupying power under international human rights and humanitarian law;
(d) continue advocacy for the respect of human rights, including by
condemning human rights violations committed by State agents of the Russian
Federation in Crimea at bilateral and multilateral forums; conduct, within practical
limits, trial monitoring in the Russian Federation in cases involving Ukrainian
detainees transferred from Crimea.