Symposium on Advancing Effective and Comprehensive Reparation for Victims of the War in Ukraine: Administrative Reparation Schemes in Ukraine: Implementation, Gaps, and Prospects

[Albina Basysta is an Associate Professor of International law at Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, Educational and Scientific Institute of International Relations. She advises a member of Ukrainian Parliament on human rights and international humanitarian law; co-author of Law 4067 on urgent interim reparation for CRSV survivors in Ukraine, developed in consultations with survivors]

In situations where harm involves mass and serious violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law constituting international crimes, the Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation (hereinafter — Basic Principles) impose on States an obligation not only to investigate but also to establish administrative procedures ensuring: “fair, effective and prompt access to justice” (Principle 2(b)). Delayed justice may mean no justice at all for survivors and therefore Ukraine is not merely fulfilling this obligation but developing its legal content through the construction of concrete administrative schemes.

In repelling armed aggression, Ukraine is not only modernising its means of warfare but also transforming traditional transitional justice practice. It is introducing administrative reparation schemes in parallel with the conduct of the international armed conflict, forging a new practical model. The State is developing the architecture of reparation mechanisms by complementing judicial mechanisms with administrative ones. This model carries significance well beyond Ukraine, for States in similar situations, international institutions, and above all for survivors themselves.

The question of reparation has traditionally been tied to the post-conflict moment and in the vast majority of cases arose after the cessation of hostilities, when the right to reparation was often realised by survivors as a consequence of established accountability for perpetrators. Yet this is not merely a matter of procedural convenience; it reflects a conceptual link between State and individual responsibility and reparation. Ukraine is trying to find pathways to provide reparation to survivors where accountability is not yet possible. Most notably through Law 4067, Ukraine is developing administrative reparation procedures that are independent of criminal proceedings and may in some cases even reinforce them. An administrative procedure can become a survivor’s first step toward engagement with the criminal process, as evidenced by the author’s experience working with conflict-related sexual violence (CRSV) survivors in Ukraine.

Overview of Ukraine’s Administrative Reparation Schemes

Throughout the war, Ukraine has been gradually introducing separate national administrative procedures with reparative elements for defined categories of affected persons. These schemes cover individuals on the basis of either the harm suffered including pecuniary (such as damaged or destroyed housing) and non-pecuniary harm (unlawful deprivation of liberty) or their status as members of a specific category of affected persons, including internally displaced persons, survivors of conflict-related sexual violence and children affected by Russia’s armed aggression. Notably, the administrative procedure for victims of trafficking, established in 2012, is also applied in cases of CRSV where it involves trafficking for sexual exploitation, as confirmed by the author’s practice.

The compensation procedure for war-damaged or destroyed housing is implemented under the ‘eVidnovlennia’ or ‘eRecovery’ programme, established by Law 2923. The programme allows affected persons to receive compensation or a housing certificate for the purchase of new housing. In February 2025, the Government expanded the programme to cover the purchase of housing or investment in residential construction (under the ‘eOselya’ or ‘eHome’ programme) for internally displaced persons and residents of frontline areas who have no other housing. From the perspective of the Basic Principles, this scheme encompasses compensation and, partially, restitution and satisfaction (through the State’s acknowledgment of harm, given that full satisfaction can only come from the aggressor State).

Law 2010-IX established an administrative procedure for persons unlawfully deprived of liberty by Russia in the context of the armed conflict, covering prisoners of war and civilian detainees. Under the Basic Principles, this procedure encompasses several forms of reparation, namely compensation and rehabilitation. Compensation takes the form of a one-time payment and annual financial assistance of the same amount for each year spent in captivity. The right to annual assistance extends also to family members of those affected, in accordance with Principle 8 of the Basic Principles concerning indirect victims.

The rehabilitation dimension is reflected in a Government resolution setting out support measures for civilians held in captivity by the aggressor State. Reparative measures include free primary legal aid, family reunification, and the provision of necessary medical, psychological and rehabilitation assistance. These measures correspond to Principle 21 of the Basic Principles, which defines rehabilitation as encompassing “medical and psychological care as well as legal and social services.”

The world’s first administrative procedure for urgent interim reparation for CRSV survivors is established by Law 4067. The innovation lies in the legislative recognition of urgent interim reparation as a standalone form of reparation, oriented toward the immediate needs of survivors and independent of the outcome of criminal proceedings, as well as the inclusion of children born as a result of CRSV among the beneficiaries. Law 4067 provides for such forms of urgent interim reparation as rehabilitation, compensation, and partially satisfaction and restitution, in accordance with the Guidance Note of the Secretary-General on Reparations for Conflict-Related Sexual Violence. Prior to Law 4067 entering into force in June 2025, CRSV survivors received urgent compensation under a pilot project implemented by GSF in partnership with the Government of Ukraine. Over the course of one year, 1,080 persons were identified as CRSV survivors under the pilot project.

In October 2024, a legislative framework for an administrative procedure concerning children affected by Russia’s armed aggression against Ukraine was adopted through Law 3999. Under the Basic Principles, the Law provides for the following forms of reparation: compensation and urgent interim compensation for physical and psychological harm, rehabilitation (medical, psychological, legal and social), and partially restitution and satisfaction. With respect to children affected by CRSV, Law 3999 conceptually overlaps with Law 4067, however it does not extend to children born as a result of CRSV.

A distinct element of the administrative reparation architecture is Law 1706-VII on ensuring the rights and freedoms of internally displaced persons, which provides for the granting of IDP status, targeted payments, and access to medical, social and educational services. While these measures contain certain elements of compensation and rehabilitation within the meaning of the Basic Principles, they are provided by Ukraine primarily as social protection rather than as reparation for harm caused by Russia’s armed aggression. Their reparative character therefore remains a matter of debate.

Taken together, these administrative procedures differ in scope, categories of beneficiaries, legal bases, and functional characteristics. At the same time, they lay the foundation of Ukraine’s reparation architecture, which would benefit from a more comprehensive and a unified legal framework.

Limits and Structural Gaps of the Current Administrative Reparation Framework

One of the most significant gaps at this stage of the development of the Ukrainian administrative reparation system is the fragmentation of administrative schemes and the absence of a unified overarching legal framework. The existing schemes have been designed for specific categories of persons or specific types of harm and do not cover all categories of victims or harm, creating a risk of unequal access for those who fall outside any of the established schemes. Implementation of Law 4071, which catalogues harm, would improve the situation. Similarly to the Council of Europe Register of Damages, through this Law Ukraine has adopted a legislative framework for a System of Records of Information on Harm Caused to Personal Non-Property Rights of Individuals as a Result of Russia’s Armed Aggression, however it remains unimplemented in practice due to the absence of secondary legislation or bylaws. The Law also obliges the Government to develop draft legislation on support for victims of Russia’s armed aggression.

International law identifies five forms of reparation. Principle 18 of the Basic Principles lists restitution, compensation, rehabilitation, satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition. Most Ukrainian administrative schemes are limited to one or a combination of several of these forms. Compensation is provided under all existing schemes; some combine partial elements of rehabilitation, restitution and satisfaction. Full satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition are systemically absent, as their realisation is objectively constrained by the conditions of active armed conflict.

A further structural gap is the delay in the practical implementation of the legislative frameworks of several administrative procedures, namely for CRSV survivors, children affected by Russia’s armed aggression, and the system for recording harm to non-property rights (Laws 4067, 3999, 4071). Approximately one year after entering into force, the implementation of the relevant administrative procedures remains at the stage of drafting secondary legislation. CRSV survivors who participated in the pilot project (a separate Government-GSF partnership through which they received interim financial compensation) are, following Law 4067’s entry into force in June 2025, still awaiting the launch of the administrative procedure, under the Law. As the relevant bylaws remains under development, it is not yet possible to submit applications under Law 4067, meaning these survivors cannot yet access the urgent reparation mechanism established by the Law.

It should be noted that Ukraine’s reparation schemes are, in doctrinal terms, “interim” in nature, as they are created and implemented by Ukraine in cooperation with international partners (organisations and States), rather than by Russia directly as the subject of international legal responsibility. Under the established principle of international law codified in Article 31 of the Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, Russia as the responsible State is under an obligation to make full reparation for the injury caused by its internationally wrongful acts.

Prospects for a Coherent Administrative Reparation System

The transition from fragmented programmes to a coherent national reparation system for all categories of war victims requires several steps from Ukraine: the development of a unified State policy on reparation; the expansion of existing administrative procedures to cover additional categories of victims; and the launch of a system for recording persons affected by the armed aggression. At the same time, administrative reparation programmes must be integrated into a broader transitional justice strategy, complementing mechanisms of criminal justice and institutional transformation. Ukraine has demonstrated capacity for rapid legislative response, donor coordination and the deployment of digital platforms.

Achieving these steps requires not only Ukraine’s political will but also sustained institutional, expert and financial support from the international community, as is already taking place through cooperation with the Global Survivors Fund (GSF), UN Women, UNDP, the Council of Europe and the EU.

The administrative reparation model that Ukraine is currently developing will largely determine whether this experience becomes a point of reference for other States seeking to develop effective tools in situations of mass violations. Ukraine has already demonstrated the capacity to build a reparation architecture – the question is how effective these mechanisms will prove to be for survivors.

Photo attribution: by “Wolfgang Hasselmann” on Unsplash