Domicide in Ukraine: Destruction of Homes During Armed Conflict and the Case of Ukraine and the Netherlands v Russia

[Anna Maria Puigderrajols Triadó is a PhD candidate at the Europa Law Institute of Leiden University, where she previously completed the Advanced LL.M. in European and international human rights law]

In July 2025, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), in its landmark judgement in Ukraine and the Netherlands v Russia, was given a unique opportunity to deal with the damage and destruction of Ukrainian homes over the more than eight-year period from the annexation of Crimea in 2014 to the start of the full-scale invasion of Ukraine by Russia in 2022.

The decision resulted from the joining of four separate applications, in which the Court found multiple and flagrant violations of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) by Russia in the context of the declaration of independence in Donetsk and Lugansk in eastern Ukraine, the downing of flight MH17, and the full-scale invasion of Ukraine by Russia since 2022.

This post focuses on the specific issue of home destruction as addressed by the ECtHR. It delves into the multiple forms of home destruction taking place during armed conflict, while highlighting the special nature and status of homes as foundational elements of societies and personhood. It concludes by introducing the concept of ‘Domicide’ into the discussion and addressing its potential to encapsulate the multifaceted harm and profound suffering inherent to the loss of home.

The Destruction of Homes During Armed Conflict and the European Court of Human Rights

Multiplicity of Forms of Home Destruction During Armed Conflict

The case of Ukraine and the Netherlands v Russia reflects the multiplicity of ways through which homes can be destroyed in armed conflict situations. These can be broken down to forcible transfer and deportation of civilians, involuntary displacement of civilians and prevention of their return to their homes, theft and pillage, and, ultimately, their physical destruction. All these practices were assessed by the Court in light of Article 8 ECHR, Article 1 Protocol 1, and international humanitarian law (IHL).

Bombardment and shelling constitute paradigmatic methods through which homes are directly destroyed during armed conflict. The Court affirmed that the destruction of civilian homes and their contents by state agents constitutes a serious interference with the rights protected under Article 8 and Article 1 Protocol 1 (para. 746). Since Russia failed to comply with IHL, and the measure lacked a domestic legal basis, the Court found a breach of both provisions, without separately engaging with Article 8 (paras. 767-769).

The Court also dealt with the looting and destruction of residential real property in an occupation context under Article 1 Protocol 1. It found that the large-scale expropriation, nationalization, destruction and significant damage to civilian property in the occupied territory against IHL rules and without a national legal basis, amounted to a breach of the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions under Article 1 (para. 1445). Moreover, the Court clearly provided that pillage and wanton destruction of homes are devoid of justification and prohibited (para. 1447). A breach of Article 8 was also found for the destruction and looting of homes and personal possessions after February 2022 (para. 1451). 

However, homes can be indirectly destroyed through displacement or denaturalization of the living environment.  The fact that the Court dealt with displacement of civilians under Article 8, linking it to notions of home and private life, illustrates that breaches under the provision are not confined to the material destruction of homes but also encompass the experience of dispossession and uprootedness caused by displacement. The Court weighed the lack of reasons from Russia as well as contextual factors such as the creation of a coercive environment depriving individuals of a genuine choice between remaining or fleeing for safety to find a breach of Article 8, regardless of the absence of direct physical force (paras. 1168 and 1176). In cases of return denial, the Court directly reaffirmed that they amounted to an unjustified interference with Article 8 (para. 1151).

Overall, the time is yet to arrive in which the Court explicitly states that destruction of homes is so grave that no justification whatsoever is possible. In fact, it has acknowledged the possibility to limit the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions or the right under Article 8 during armed conflict as long as the limitation is provided by law, has a legitimate aim and is proportionate to the aim sought.  Even so, on a case-by-case basis, the Court has seemingly expressed a strong rejection toward certain forms of home destruction. For instance, it has found that home destruction (by burning) is devoid of justification (Menteş v Turkey) or that pillage (including expropriation through looting or thefts) and destruction of homes during armed conflict when no imperative military necessity is present are prohibited (Ukraine and the Netherlands v Russia, para 1447).

Home and the Loss of Home: Relevance of the Inquiry

‘Home’ is a complex concept with deep implications. Beyond the legal realm, some have argued that ‘homes’ are not mere physical dwellings but places where people form emotional attachments, social and cultural bonds providing the basis for the right to live in security, peace and dignity. Thus, losing one’s home entails a particular form of loss and trauma.

The ECtHR has reiterated the autonomous legal definition of ‘home’ under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) on the right to respect for private and family life. In Ukraine and the Netherlands v Russia, the Court addressed home destruction under both Article 8 ECHR, and Article 1 Protocol 1 concerning the right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions. Under Article 8, the core definitional element of a home is the existence of a sufficient and continuous link between a person and a specific place, requiring the consideration of contextual and sentimental elements. Under Article 1 Protocol 1 homes are protected as property or economic assets. It is notable how definitions of ‘home’ vary depending on the provisions engaged. This divergence was reflected in Ukraine and the Netherlands v Russia. While the Court found a breach of Article 1 Protocol 1 for the looting and destruction of residential real property (including homes), it also found a breach of Article 8 concerning the looting of homes specifically, implicitly acknowledging their particular nature by linking home destruction to Article 8 and its broader definition thereof.

Not only has the ECtHR treated homes as more than mere property, but it has also acknowledged the particular suffering associated with the loss of home by finding, in certain circumstances, a breach of Article 3 ECHR for inhumane treatment related to the witnessing of the destruction of the victim’s home (Yöyler v. Turkey or Bilgin v Turkey). In Ukraine and the Netherlands v Russia, the Court took into consideration the fear and terror generated among the population of the targeted or besieged cities in Ukraine, including the destruction of homes due to the failure to respect International Humanitarian Law (IHL), to find a breach of the same provision.

Domicide in Ukraine? – (Re)focusing the Discussion

Within the first 10 days of Russia’s aggression against Ukraine in 2022, thousands of homes across the country were deliberately targeted, resulting in severe damage or complete destruction. By May 2022, 90% of apartment buildings in Mariupol had been reported damaged or destroyed. This widespread destruction in Ukraine provides further confirmation and reflection of the urbanization of war, leading, inter alia, to the systematic violation of housing rights, which has often been banalized.

Considering this is not an isolated but increasingly prevalent trend -we all have witnessed similar patterns of home destruction in Palestine or Sudan- and in light of the fact that existing international regimes have not necessarily prevented deliberate home destruction, there is a need to take a pause and (re)examine the mentioned regimes and the way they deal with deliberate home destruction and the suffering it entails. 

In 2001, Porteous and Smith, used the term ‘domicide’ to refer to deliberate destruction of homes against the will of the dweller and regretted how it is too often set aside. However, it was the UN Special Rapporteur on Adequate Housing who, in 2022, opened the door to using the concept in the legal realm.

Destruction of homes during armed conflicts is seldom collateral or incidental to the hostilities. Rather, it seems to be part of military strategies wherein military power on the battlefields is accompanied by the destruction of the core units upon which a society is built: homes as places of safety for civilians and where identities and social bonds are formed. Targeting, destroying and denaturalizing these places, destroys the way of life of the targeted populations and can ultimately facilitate the imposition of a social order envisioned by the victor. Furthermore, the increased use of artificial intelligence in military decision-making as well as the reliance on autonomous weapons systems, jeopardises careful and moral human judgement in military decision-making, creates an accountability gap, and paves the way for destructive spirals. 

Overall, in light of current developments and the increased targeting of homes despite existing guarantees, domicide has the potential to encapsulate and expose the multifaceted harm and profound suffering associated with the loss of home, also in Ukraine. It does so by exposing the deliberateness behind the destruction of homes as a form of violence in its own right and not as a peripheral or secondary element embedded in broader violent scenarios.

Conclusion

The ECtHR in Ukraine and the Netherlands v Russia has affirmed that home destruction during armed conflicts can constitute a serious human rights violation. In Ukraine, the devastating and large-scale nature of the destruction led the Court to find a breach of Article 8 ECHR and Article 1 Protocol 1, illustrating the gravity of the devastation. 

In this context, domicide provides a starting point to reexamine current regimes engaging with deliberate home destruction, including human rights law, IHL and international criminal law. A different question is whether home destruction in Ukraine could or should be legally categorized as domicide. Such a statement raises deeper and broader questions on whether domicide should even be construed as an international crime, which remain beyond the scope of this post, but with which I engage through my PhD.