Symposium on Advancing Effective and Comprehensive Reparation for Victims of the War in Ukraine: Operationalising Reparation for Human Rights Violations in Ukraine

Cristián Correa is the Head of the Reparations Praxis Hub at the Global Survivors Fund (GSF), where he helps systematise and encourage learning from practical experiences of reparation for survivors of conflict related sexual violence. He also provides guidance to GSF work in Colombia, Syria, and Ukraine, where he helped design and implement the Pilot Project on Urgent Interim Reparation for Survivors of Conflict Related Sexual Violence, and supports the definition and implementation of the Bardina Law.

Introduction

Providing reparation to victims of serious violations of international human rights law (IHRL) and international humanitarian law (IHL) is an urgent imperative in Ukraine. Victims of conflict related sexual violence, torture, abduction and enforced disappearance, killing, serious bodily harm, and other serious violations require immediate action that acknowledges the violations committed and provides adequate remedies. Making tangible their right to adequate, effective and prompt reparation demands an approach that is centred on the condition of victims and survivors, is accessible to them, and prioritises them over other harms and losses. Current efforts need to be better aligned and coordinated for making this a priority and guaranteeing timely implementation.

Reparation to Victims of Serious or Gross Violations of IHRL and IHL as Distinct from Reparation for Harms and Losses due to Aggression

The Russian Federation is undoubtedly responsible for the consequences of its aggression against Ukraine, as a violation of article 2.4 of the UN Charter. It is equally responsible for the serious violations of IHRL and IHL committed by State agents, including members of its military and security forces. The UN General Assembly has confirmed the existence of both types of violations and has called States to cooperate to address them (see resolutions A/RES/ES 11-1 and A/RES/ES 11/5, both of 2022). Nevertheless, the particularities of addressing violations of this nature are not sufficiently recognised in existing reparation efforts. Policy discussions and mechanisms tend to focus on the aggression, including all the harms and losses incurred as a result, with the risk of overlooking victims who suffered egregious violations.

This is not an isolated case. The claim of aggression carries a political weight that unfortunately human rights violations, even when committed at a large scale, do not. Claims for compensation for aggression also offer a simpler method for establishing liability and for distinguishing victim from perpetrator, without having to deal with the messiness of determining responsibility for human conduct or effective control over direct perpetrators. Additionally, it is not easy to respond to the particularities of reparation for violations of life and personal integrity in ways that truly respond to the condition and needs of victims when they are put together with claims for losses or harms of different nature, like those suffered by States and corporations. Methods for receiving statements and claims, for assessing evidence, for determining forms of reparation that are appropriate to their different character, and for allocating the overall pool of resources, cannot be the same. Two examples illustrate these problems. The United Nations Compensation Commission was mandated to address Iraq’s liability resulting from its 1990-1991 invasion and occupation of Kuwait without reference to violations of IHRL or IHL. Even if it granted compensation to families of those killed or to those who suffered other violations, there was insufficient recognition of the nature of those violations. The Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission included claims for both violations of ius ad bellum and of ius in bello, but adopted an exclusively inter-state arbitral approach without providing recognition to victims of serious violations, and the inter-state awards did not reach victims. 

Addressing serious violations of human rights requires a particular focus that responds more adequately to victims, including making them part of the process, reaching them in a way that foster trust, responding to the specific harms suffered, and doing so expediently. This cannot be an afterthought to a reparation process, but must shape the entire process.

Reparation for Gross Violations of IHRL and Serious Violations of IHL Requires Immediate Action by Ukraine and Cooperation from Other States

Serious violations to life and personal integrity, such as the violations mentioned in the introduction, are of a pervasive nature, causing severe harm and suffering, which becomes more serious if they remain unaddressed. These violations call for urgent action and for cooperation in responding to them, as reparation for such violations must be adequate, effective and prompt (UN General Assembly resolution A/RES/60/147 of 2006, para. 15).

Ukraine has a responsibility under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to guarantee victims of human rights violations an effective remedy. If that remedy cannot be provided directly and timely by those responsible for the violations, victims must not be left to bear this burden.  This is not to say that Ukraine is responsible for the violations, as if it had failed to respect or ensure the rights of victims. On the contrary, by defending itself from Russia’s aggression and the violations committed by invading and occupying forces, Ukraine is making its utmost effort to ensure that those living in its territory do not suffer these violations. Nevertheless, as the Human Rights Committee has stated (General Comment No.31[80] of 2004, para. 19), the nature of the violations and of their pervasive consequences:

may […] require States Parties to provide for and implement provisional or interim measures to avoid continuing violations and to endeavour to repair at the earliest possible opportunity any harm that may have been caused by such violations. 

Ukraine has a primary obligation to respond with promptness.

Several of these violations constitute serious breaches of obligations under peremptory norms of general international law, or ius cogens, as well as obligations owed to the international community as a whole (ILC Articles on State Responsibility, articles 41.1 and 48.1.b). The persistence of the consequences derived from violations of this nature justifies the need from members of the international community to cooperate to the extent of their means in guaranteeing a remedy, through the provision of urgent interim reparation (article 41.3), in addition to demanding that the Russian Federation be held responsible.

The Provision of Urgent Interim Reparation is Distinct from a Humanitarian Response

Victims of serious violations require more than the provision of alleviation of their physical or material needs. They have the right to be recognised as having suffered unjust and unacceptable violations of their personal integrity. They have a right to be treated not as beneficiaries of aid but as persons unlawfully attacked and harmed. Reparation for these violations requires acknowledging that victims have been wronged. To respond with fairness to the recognition of a violation, they should include all those who suffered them, not only those who can demonstrate certain kinds of needs. 

The provision of interim reparation, following a rigorous but  victim-sensitive identification process, can serve as base for a reparation claim. It could allow for Ukraine and other States contributing to this effort to demand reimbursement from the Russian Federation once the International Claims Commission is operational. In this way, the responsibility would remain with the wrongdoer, but victims would no longer have to carry the weight of the wrongdoer’s default or delinquency.

Reparation Must be Adequate to the Condition of Victims

It is not easy to provide reparation to victims of human rights violations. Even if some victims often become vocal advocates for their rights, showing great courage and leadership, many others naturally tend to silence and isolation. Fear of not being understood, of being judged or blamed; fear of social exclusion or family rejection; and psychological trauma or health consequences that make it difficult to obtain evidence to substantiate claims are all significant obstacles, which add to the challenges of dealing with institutions and bureaucracies that can feel distant and unfamiliar. In cases of conflict related sexual violence, these obstacles are greater, as prejudices, misconceptions, and tendencies to blame victims or internalised feelings of shame increase the propensity for self- or community-imposed silence.

In addition, the consequences of these violations cannot be fully addressed by a monetary payment. No amount is equivalent to the life of a loved one, and no amount can erase the suffering caused to the survivor or her family. Compensation payments can help victims and survivors to get back on their feet, seek the support they need, and show themselves and others that they were not destroyed by the violation suffered but remain resilient agents of their own lives. However, compensation payments alone cannot be sufficient for many who need additional and sustained support. Psychosocial or health consequences remain for years or their entire lives, or become more serious with aging; trauma or tendency to isolation cannot be solved by a cash payment. As illustrated in a study from the Aboriginal Healing Foundation of Canada, examining the consequences of cash awards received by survivors of so-called Indian Residential Schools, the impact of compensation payments can vary dramatically depending on the presence of other support mechanisms, including family, community, and adequate services, as well as on the degree of social acknowledgment of the wrongs committed .

Similarly, the registration of victims requires an approach that is sensitive to their condition and accessible, despite the obstacles victims and survivors face. Reparation needs to be accessible precisely to those most affected by the conditions mentioned above. It requires a system for registering and receiving reparation that is attainable and friendly, not retraumatising, without sacrificing the rigour and credibility required of such a registry. To many victims and survivors of serious human rights violations, filling claims through written forms can wrongly communicate that their suffering is merely a matter of bureaucratic procedure, where only its material dimension is relevant, overlooking the most serious consequences they face. Registration should be done by trained practitioners who will listen attentively, show care, and provide immediate support to victims as an essential part of the process. Such an approach was successfully demonstrated by the Urgent Interim Reparation pilot project for survivors of conflict-related sexual violence implemented by the Global Survivors Fund in Ukraine. If the process for registering and receiving reparation is designed to recognise victims as rights-holders, this will not only improve victims’ experience of this process and ensure its effectiveness, but the experience of having their stories heard and their rights respected may also encourage victims to exercise other rights, such as pursuing justice and accountability. 

The Need for Integration and Coordination Across Interim Domestic Mechanisms and International Mechanisms, Under Clear Ukrainian Leadership

Addressing the rights and needs of victims of gross violations of human rights and serious violations of international humanitarian law requires urgent action. That action needs to be led by the Ukrainian government, given its proximity to victims and responsibility for providing reparation. Law 4067-X on Legal and Social Protection of the Rights of Survivors of Sexual Violence Related to the Aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine and provision of Urgent Interim Reparations to Them (known as the Bardina Law) provides the legal framework for this. The implementation of the Bardina Law is not only an obligation of Ukraine since the law was adopted, but it could pave the way for it expansion to cover victims of other violations, including other forms of  torture, enforced disappearance, killings, abduction, severe harms, and others, who are entitled to similar rights and who could benefit from the same victim-centred approach. 

Ukraine is not alone for complying with this obligation. The provision of interim reparation to victims of serious human rights violations is needed for Ukraine to recover from the consequences of the war. The Ukraine Recovery Conference offers a significant opportunity for cooperation between the government of Ukraine, the EU, and other States. The implementation of the Bardina Law and of its potential expansion to cover other violations need to be understood as part of the thematic dimensions of the 2026 Conference, particularly the human dimension and of guaranteeing human rights under the EU dimension. It is also consistent with the aim of the EU Ukraine Facility to help address the social consequences of the war. However, this needs to be made more explicit. The Government of Ukraine requires to define a clear path for implementation of the Law, on how it could be funded, and what would be the role of international cooperation. These definitions cannot wait, as needs of victims are urgent.

Implementation of domestic interim reparation polices can complement the mechanisms being established by the Council of Europe for victims to claim reparation from the Russian Federation, including the Register of Damage for Ukraine and the International Claims Commission. By preceding the international reparation mechanisms in the implementation timeline, interim domestic reparation policies can help victims of these violations have a more accessible and immediate pathway to reparation, to later be complemented by international mechanisms, as are likely to take significantly longer to provide any redress.

None of the above diminishes the responsibility of the Russian Federation to pay reparation for the violations committed and the harms caused. An integrated and coordinated process between interim domestic mechanisms and international mechanisms, supported as part of the Ukraine Recovery Plan, offers a prompt victim-centred approach to responding to an unprecedented situation. In addition, the international mechanisms could learn from the domestic ones and be adapted to better respond to the experiences and needs of victims and survivors of serious violations. 

Photo attribution: “A yellow field with a blue sky in the background” is by “Wolfgang Hasslemann”