Symposium on Advancing Effective and Comprehensive Reparation for Victims of the War in Ukraine: Putting Victims at the Centre of the Reparations Process for Ukraine

[Kostiantyn Davydenko lived in Donetsk and worked in property valuation before the war. He was detained by officers of the FSB in Simferopol and accused of espionage. He remained in captivity from February 11, 2018, until August 24, 2025, after being released through an exchange procedure. After his release, he co-founded the Charitable Foundation “Civilians in Captivity”, and he continues to take an active part in the civic movement supporting civilian captives]

The Russian Federation’s full-scale aggression against Ukraine has brought about violations of international humanitarian law and human rights on an unprecedented scale. Millions of people have suffered in various ways, from the destruction of their homes and the loss of their livelihoods to unlawful detention, torture, forced displacement and the severing of family ties. Among these people are those who have endured unlawful detention and ill-treatment — an experience that I, too, know first-hand.

In response to these violations, the international community has embarked on creating a new framework for reparations mechanisms. Key steps in this process have included establishing the International Register of Damages for Ukraine and the future Claims Commission, which is set to become a key element of the compensation system. Alongside this, Ukraine is also developing national mechanisms to support victims, thus shaping a broader institutional framework for the future reparations system.

These institutions stand to play a crucial role in restoring justice. However, international experience indicates that merely establishing formal compensation mechanisms does not in itself ensure their effectiveness. Reparations systems often face difficulties related to the scale of the damage caused, the complexity of assessing losses and the need to accommodate the diverse experiences of those affected.

Therefore, the key principle underpinning the establishment of a reparations system for Ukraine must be its focus on those affected. In this context, an approach that centres victims in the policy-making process is of key importance. The core idea is that a reparations system should be built on more than just legal procedures or institutional mechanisms; above all, it should be grounded in the experiences of those who have suffered harm. An effective reparations system for Ukraine must be structured around this victim-centred principle, as the harm caused by the war is multifaceted and cannot be adequately repaired by universal compensation mechanisms.

International experience suggests that reparations systems are most effective when they are devised with the involvement of those affected. This approach is also consistent with current developments in international law, including the UN Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims.

For example, in Colombia, the engagement of survivors’ organisations in shaping reparations policies has become one of the key elements of programmes supporting victims of armed conflict. This meant that not only physical damage but also the social and psychological effects of the conflict could be taken into account.

In the Western Balkans, the process of developing policies to support those affected by the wars of the 1990s has also gradually come to include consultation with organisations representing war victims. Although these processes were complex and often politicised, the involvement of those affected helped to shape support programmes that were more responsive to their needs.

These examples illustrate that engaging victims in the policy-making process strengthens the legitimacy of reparations mechanisms and makes them more effective.

Experiences of Civilians Who Have Been Unlawfully Deprived of Their Liberty

One of the categories of victims whose experiences are crucial to address in the reparations process is civilians who have been unlawfully deprived of their liberty during the war.

The Russian invasion has seen thousands of Ukrainian civilians detained in the occupied territories or taken to Russia. Many of them were held in detention centres without access to legal counsel, often subjected to torture, psychological pressure and other forms of ill-treatment.

These experiences have long-lasting consequences. After their release, people often face physical and psychological trauma, difficulties with social reintegration, unemployment and economic instability. Their families are also under tremendous mental and financial strain.

I am all too familiar with this experience, having spent years in unlawful detention myself, which is why the question of what form reparations should take for people who have survived these kinds of violations matters to me not only professionally, but also on a deeply personal level.

What Reparations Mean for the Victims Themselves

In international law, reparations are traditionally regarded as a means of redressing harm caused by breaches of international law. However, for the victims themselves, reparations often hold much broader significance.

Those who have been subjected to unlawful deprivation of liberty, torture or other forms of ill-treatment often speak of losses that cannot be fully compensated. They talk about years spent in captivity, broken families, lost businesses or careers, as well as the physical and psychological damage that can stay with a person for the rest of their life.

This experience also shows that reparations cannot be limited to financial payments alone. For many victims, reparations should mean the chance to regain their health, social connections and livelihoods that were lost as a result of the violations. In this sense, reparations mean, above all, the restoration of justice.

From this perspective, reparations are not viewed merely as financial compensation. They are seen as a way to partially make up for what has been lost:

• to receive the much-needed medical care or compensation in cases where irreversible damage has been done to a person’s health,
• to support the family and rebuild family ties, as families are often torn apart by captivity and hostilities,
• to re-establish financial stability, recover lost property and rebuild lost businesses or careers.

Ultimately, the victim’s goal is to return to an active and independent life alongside their loved ones.

Furthermore, a victim-centred approach implies that their experiences are reflected not only in the compensation process, but also in the very design of the reparations system. This entails the meaningful participation of victims and the organisations representing them in consultations, working groups and other policy-making mechanisms.

At the same time, for many victims, holding the perpetrators to account is a key aspect of justice. The actions of those who carried out unlawful detentions, torture or other abuses must not go unnoticed or unpunished.

Victim-Centred Approach as a Fundamental Principle of the Reparations System

First and foremost, we must acknowledge a self-evident yet often neglected truth: the reparations system exists to serve the victims. Therefore, its procedures, criteria and institutional framework must be as accessible, clear and easy to use as possible for those who have experienced violations.

In other words, victims should not be forced to navigate complex bureaucratic hurdles or endure cumbersome formalities in order to receive compensation. Rather, the system should be set up to make it as easy as possible for them to access justice and compensation.

This issue is of special importance to Ukraine. The scale of the violations, the sheer variety of harm caused and the long-term consequences of the war mean that one-size-fits-all or overly formalised approaches to compensation may prove inadequate. Building an effective reparations system calls for a deeper understanding of what constitutes fair redress from the victims’ perspectives, and how compensation mechanisms can reflect the diversity of their experiences. This approach is a way to put together compensation mechanisms that truly meet the real needs of those affected, whilst also boosting trust in the overall reparations system.

Wide Range of Harm Suffered by the Victims

One of the greatest challenges facing the reparations system is the wide range of harm suffered by the victims. Even among people who have experienced similar traumas, the extent of the harm can vary significantly. In a broader sense, the harm suffered by victims can manifest itself in several interrelated dimensions: physical, mental, financial and professional.

Length of harm. For instance, in cases of unlawful deprivation of liberty, the length of captivity can vary considerably. Some people may have spent several weeks or months in captivity, whilst others remained prisoners for years.

Health implications. In many cases, the detention was accompanied by torture, sexual violence, grievous bodily harm or long-term mental harm. For some victims, the main consequences may be physical injuries or disability. Others may suffer severe psychological trauma or long-term mental health conditions that have a significant impact on the rest of their lives.

Financial implications. Many of those affected have lost their businesses or livelihoods. In some cases, these losses may involve not only direct financial costs, but also long-term indirect damages, such as the loss of market share, customers, professional reputation or future business prospects.

Loss of professional capacity. Similar challenges arise with regard to professional skills. After spending years in unlawful detention, a person may lose not only career opportunities but also the physical or cognitive abilities required to carry out their work. For example, a doctor or surgeon who has been subjected to torture or physical injury may be unable to return to their job.

In all the cases listed, the damage extends far beyond short-term financial losses. It can have a lasting impact on a person’s entire future life. Hence, one of the greatest challenges facing the reparations system is determining the fair forms, amounts and duration of compensation. A one-size-fits-all approach to compensation will inevitably fail to reflect the full extent of the damage. With this in mind, the reparations system should provide flexible mechanisms for assessing harm that allow for different types of loss to be considered: physical, mental, social and economic.

Key Challenges for the Reparations System in Ukraine

Developing a reparations system for Ukraine poses a number of complex challenges.

Extent of the damage caused

The number of people affected by the war is extremely high. It includes people who have lost their homes, internally displaced persons, victims of unlawful detention, families of missing persons, as well as people who have survived torture or other serious human rights violations.

The sheer scale of this presents serious administrative and financial challenges for any reparations mechanism.

Difficulty of proving harm

Many victims lack access to the documents or evidence needed to file a claim. This is particularly relevant for people in occupied territories or those who have been illegally detained.

Reparations mechanisms must therefore be sensitive to these circumstances and provide for flexible approaches to the assessment of evidence.

Lasting consequences of violations

Many violations have lasting consequences for the physical and mental health of those affected. The reparations system should therefore provide not only for one-off compensation payments, but also for long-term support programmes.

How to Ensure Reparations are Meaningful and Supportive

Analysing the challenges posed by the scale of the damage inflicted and the diversity of the victims’ experiences yields several important conclusions for the design of a future reparations system for Ukraine. For the reparations system for Ukraine to be truly effective, it must include several key elements.

Holistic nature of reparations

Reparations should encompass various forms of support, such as financial compensation, medical assistance, psychological rehabilitation, social support and economic capacity-building programmes.

Not only does this approach compensate for the harm caused, but it also helps to rebuild the lives of those affected.

Accessibility of procedures

Claims procedures should be as clear and accessible as possible for people. Excessive bureaucratic red tape can create additional barriers for victims.

It is therefore important to ensure access to information and support during the application process.

Meaningful participation of victims

Involving victims in the policy-making process is key to an effective reparations system. This may include consultations with victims’ organisations, involving their representatives in working groups and ongoing dialogue between international institutions and victims’ communities.

Need for a flexible approach to assessing harm

The reparations system must acknowledge the diversity of the victims’ experiences. In cases of unlawful deprivation of liberty, torture or other grave violations, the harm caused may vary significantly depending on the duration of detention, the nature of the violence and the lasting effects on physical and mental health.

Hence, mechanisms for assessing harm must be sufficiently flexible to address both material and non-material losses, as well as the lasting consequences of violations.

Integrating financial compensation with support programmes

While financial compensation is an important element of reparations, it cannot be the only form of redress. Many victims require lengthy support, including medical care, psychological rehabilitation and social reintegration.

The reparations system should therefore combine financial compensation with support programmes aimed at restoring the victims’ livelihoods.

Accounting for financial and professional losses

For many of those affected, the war meant the loss of their businesses, jobs or career prospects. In some cases, people have lost not only their current source of income but also the ability to continue working due to physical injuries or long-term mental health issues.

Reparation mechanisms must factor in these financial and professional losses, including both direct financial losses and the lasting effects on the economic capacity of affected individuals.

Conclusion

Creating a system of reparations for those affected by Russia’s aggression against Ukraine is a complex and unprecedented task. New international institutions, such as the International Register of Damages and the future Claims Commission, offer significant opportunities to restore justice.

However, the effectiveness of these mechanisms will depend to a large extent on how well they are tailored to the needs of those affected.

Putting victims at the centre of the reparations policy-making process is not only about providing access to compensation; it is also about recognising the diverse experiences of survivors of war. This includes acknowledging the harm caused, a fair assessment of losses, long-term support and the involvement of those affected in decision-making.

This is the only way the reparations system can fulfil its primary function: not only to compensate for the harm caused, but also to help restore justice, dignity and life prospects for victims of war.