Symposium on Advancing Effective and Comprehensive Reparation for Victims of the War in Ukraine: Between Recognition and Procedure – Lessons from Colombia’s Victim Identification Commission for Ukraine’s Emerging Claims Mechanism

[Laura Posada-Orjuela is a Colombian lawyer with an LL.M. from McGill University, specializing in international human rights and transitional justice. She served as legal advisor to a commissioner at the Commission for the Verification of Identity and Kinship of Victims of the Patriotic Union (Comisión para la Constatación de Identidad y Parentesco de Víctimas de la Unión Patriótica, UP)]

Introduction

On March 31, 2026, the mandate of the Commission for the Verification of Identity and Kinship of Victims of the Unión Patriótica (CCIPVUP or « The Commission ») formally came to an end, followed shortly by the public presentation of its final report. The CCIPVUP emerged in response to one of the most extensive and complex patterns of political persecution and extermination of a political movement in recent history.

The CCIPVUP was established following the Inter-American Court of Human Rights’ (IACtHR) judgment in the case Integrantes y Militantes de la Unión Patriótica vs. Colombia. The case addressed the systematic extermination of more than 6,000 members and supporters of the Unión Patriótica, a political party that became the target of widespread violence, including killings, enforced disappearances, threats, and forced displacement (between 1984 and 2002) carried out in a context where the State was found responsible not only for failing to provide protection, but also for patterns of acquiescence and direct participation. These acts were recognized as constituting crimes against humanity by the IACtHR (para. 254).

At the same time, the international community is advancing efforts to establish a compensation mechanism for victims of the war in Ukraine, including the recent establishment of an International Claims Commission. This piece argues that the primary risk facing such mechanisms is not a lack of technical capacity, but rather the tendency of administrative processes to become overly bureaucratic, ultimately undermining their ability to recognize victims. 

While the legal foundations, scope, and context of the Colombian and Ukrainian mechanisms differ significantly, both aim to respond to a shared challenge: how to process large-scale victim claims in a way that is both administratively feasible and substantively just. Drawing on the Colombian experience, this blog identifies key lessons that may inform the design of emerging mechanisms in Ukraine.

The Colombian Experience: A Unique Institutional Response

The Unión Patriótica case presented an exceptional evidentiary challenge. Originating in the 1980s and marked by decades of limited investigative progress, only a fraction of victims had been identified during the proceedings before the IACtHR, in contrast to a universe of victims exceeding 6,000 individuals. In light of the scale of the violations and the absence of reliable records—partly attributable to institutional failures and denial—the IACtHR relied on the subset of identified victims to establish the State’s responsibility.

At the same time, as a measure of reparation, in its 2022 judgment the Court ordered the identification and compensation of the remaining victims through the creation of a specialized Commission tasked exclusively with verifying identities and kinship ties based on cross-referenced information from victims’ organizations, family members, and state institutions (paras. 533–534). Its mandate, however, was strictly limited: it was not authorized to establish facts, determine responsibility, or grant reparations, which remained under the authority of existing state institutions. As such, the CCIPVUP functioned as a technical body within a broader and fragmented reparations framework.  

Despite these constraints, the CCIPVUP was able to effectively fulfill its mandate. Its final report indicates that the annexes to the judgment initially listed 6,942 victims. In response, the CCIPVUP issued 5,038 verification decisions, verified the identity of 4,599 direct victims, and recognized 7,585 beneficiaries entitled to compensation as relatives of those killed or disappeared. In total, the CCIPVUP established the identity and kinship of 12,184 individuals as direct and indirect victims. A limited number of claims were rejected after verification, as they did not correspond to the individuals included in the Court’s annexes (pages 27-28).

Beyond these figures, the CCIPVUP’s work had a broader significance: it contributed to restoring the identity of thousands of victims who had long remained unrecognized, placing them within a process that now enables access to reparations. The CCIPVUP not only performed a technical function, but also played a critical role in making visible those who had been historically erased.

Different Designs, Shared Structural Challenges

The emerging international claims architecture for Ukraine differs in important respects from the Colombian Commission. It is not the result of a judicial ruling, but rather of international political processes, and it is designed as a multi-layered system composed of distinct institutions with differentiated mandates: a Register of Damage to record claims, a Claims Commission to assess them, and a prospective compensation fund to deliver reparations. 

However, these structural differences should not obscure key functional similarities. Both frameworks have been tasked with the identification and individualization of victims in contexts of mass violations, where evidentiary constraints and the scale of harm pose significant challenges. In both cases, the mechanisms operate as intermediaries between victims and eventual reparation processes, structuring access to recognition and compensation. They are also shaped by similarly high expectations from victims, who perceive these mechanisms not only as administrative bodies, but as pathways to delayed justice. In such settings, the imperative to process large volumes of claims efficiently risks generating standardized procedures that may overlook the complexity and diversity of victims’ experiences.

Core Lessons from the Colombian Experience

Political Will as a Determining Factor

Even when a mechanism is grounded in a binding judicial decision, implementation ultimately depends on sustained political will. In Colombia, although the CCIPVUP was created pursuant to an order of the IACtHR, its functioning did not guarantee the effectiveness of the broader reparations process. The CCIPVUP had no mandate to disburse compensation; this responsibility rested with the institution created to provide administrative reparations to victims of the Colombian armed conflict in its entirety – the Unit for the Victims. In practice, within this institution, victims have faced significant delays in receiving compensation due to insufficient budget allocations and political obstacles in securing the funding. These constraints, although outside the CCIPVUP’s mandate, have nonetheless undermined the overall reparative impact.

This experience is particularly relevant in the context of Ukraine, where the absence of commitment from the responsible state further complicates the scenario. Without clear political backing, even the most carefully designed institutional frameworks risk becoming symbolic rather than effective.

Risk of Over-Bureaucratization

One of the main challenges in the Colombian experience was procedural rigidity. As an administrative body, the CCIPVUP developed detailed processes and evidentiary standards to ensure accuracy and consistency. In practice, however, these standards often proved difficult to meet, given the profound gaps in documentation resulting from decades of violence and institutional failure.

This became so pronounced that, in the context of its monitoring of compliance, the IACtHR expressly called on the CCIPVUP  to avoid excessive formalism and employ more flexible evidentiary approaches, noting that rigid requirements were hindering, rather than facilitating, the identification of victims (para. 22).

A concrete example illustrates this tension: in one case, the name included in the annex of the judgment corresponded to a nickname rather than the victim’s legal identity. Although family members provided multiple sworn testimonies confirming the person’s identity, the absence of formal documentation led to prolonged internal debates. The victim was ultimately identified, but only after significant delay, demonstrating how rigid evidentiary standards can undermine the very purpose of such mechanisms.

A related difficulty was that some individuals in the annexes were identified only by a first name and surname, without identification numbers or additional data. This limited the ability to verify claimants against other state databases and forced the CCIPVUP to balance flexibility against the risk of misidentification.

These challenging examples were not isolated. In contexts of mass violence, where documentation is often incomplete or nonexistent, strict evidentiary requirements risk excluding precisely those cases most affected by historical neglect. This challenge extended beyond individual identification to the recognition of family relationships. In cases involving de facto partners, kinship could often only be established through sworn testimonies, requiring a flexible approach to reflect lived realities. Similarly, situations involving de facto or “social” parenthood, such as children raised by persons who were later subjected to extrajudicial executions or enforced disappearance without formal legal recognition, did not fit within civil registry frameworks, yet excluding them would have disregarded the actual family structures affected by the violence.

Notably, despite these evidentiary constraints, the CCIPVUP rejected very few claims. Rather than resulting in exclusion, high evidentiary thresholds translated into significant delays. In many cases, draft decisions were returned multiple times due to perceived evidentiary gaps, requiring additional documentation from victims. This generated institutional strain toward the end of the mandate, as pending cases had to be processed under increasingly limited timeframes. 

Taken together, these examples reveal a structural limitation: mechanisms grounded in formal legal categories often struggle to accommodate the social realities of victims in contexts of mass violence. 

The experience of the Colombian Commission ultimately points to a central challenge for future mechanisms such as the one envisaged for Ukraine: the need to reconcile flexibility with legal certainty. In contexts of mass violence, strict evidentiary frameworks risk excluding victims whose experiences were never formally documented. At the same time, overly flexible approaches may lead to inconsistency, undermining both fairness and institutional credibility.

The challenge, therefore, lies in designing mechanisms that are accessible, context-sensitive, and centered on the rights of victims, while maintaining clear procedures and coherent evidentiary standards. Striking this balance is not merely a technical question, but a normative one: it determines whether such mechanisms can deliver meaningful, equitable, and legitimate forms of reparation.

Victim-Centered Design Beyond Formal Recognition

The effectiveness of any claims mechanism depends not only on its formal procedures, but also on its accessibility. In Colombia, victims’ organizations repeatedly emphasized the importance of direct engagement, including territorial outreach, clear communication, personalized support, and the integration of psychosocial assistance. 

Complex administrative processes can be difficult to navigate, particularly for individuals who have already experienced significant harm. Engaging with reparations mechanisms often requires victims to revisit traumatic experiences, which can generate additional emotional distress and affect their ability to participate effectively. In this regard, psychosocial assistance and accessibility are conditions for meaningful participation and legitimacy.

Ensuring that mechanisms are understandable, responsive, supported by adequate psychosocial services, and accessible through multiple channels is therefore essential to their effectiveness and credibility.

The Hidden Complexities of Reparations Processes

Victim identification is only one component of a broader reparations framework. In Colombia, fragmentation between institutions has led to concrete delays and uncertainties, particularly in cases involving deceased victims and their heirs. This has been especially evident in relation to inheritance and the distribution of compensation, where multiple layers of institutional responsibility have complicated the process.

One example concerns the treatment of beneficiaries in cases involving violations such as forced displacement, torture, threats, and violations of judicial guarantees. The IACtHR determined that the identification of heirs in these cases would fall outside the mandate of the CCIPVUP and instead required the Unit for the Victims to establish a separate mechanism for their recognition (para. 628). However, such a mechanism has yet to be fully developed, resulting in prolonged delays and continued uncertainty for victims’ families.

These challenges highlight the importance of anticipating legal and administrative complexities from the outset. For Ukraine, this includes designing clear, coordinated, and fully operational procedures for handling claims involving deceased victims, multiple beneficiaries, and evolving family structures, in order to avoid fragmentation that can ultimately undermine the reparative process.

Conclusion

The Colombian experience shows that claims mechanisms should prioritize flexibility, coordination, and accessibility over procedural perfection, ensuring that safeguards against fraud are necessary, but should not exclude legitimate victims. Ukraine has an opportunity to design a context-specific framework that balances efficiency with inclusivity, avoiding over-bureaucratization while ensuring that claims can be processed in a timely and effective manner.

At the same time, institutional legitimacy must remain central. Transparency, clear communication, and sustained engagement with affected communities are essential to building trust. These mechanisms are not merely administrative tools, but instruments of recognition operating within complex political and social environments. The challenge is therefore not only to process claims efficiently, but to do so in a way that acknowledges the lived realities of victims and delivers not only compensation, but recognition and justice.