Conflict-Related Sexual Violence: A Conviction Case and the Realities of Investigation

Introduction

Twelve years of imprisonment for a Russian army soldier and 500,000 UAH in moral damages awarded to a survivor of conflict-related sexual violence. 

This was the outcome of one of the cases concerning conflict-related sexual violence (CRSV), where the victim's interests were represented by ULAG advocate. Despite significant attention to such crimes in recent years, their investigation remains challenging for both the national justice system and the survivors.

The challenges that arise at various stages of criminal proceedings highlight the need not only to bring perpetrators to justice but also to fully protect the rights of victims in the process. The experience gained within this specific case demonstrates how a victim-centered approach is implemented in practice and what obstacles remain in its full adoption.

The Act of CRSV

In early April 2022, Russian armed forces took full control of several settlements in the Kherson region, where the civilian population remained. They deployed military equipment in the area, moved freely through the streets, used the property of local residents, and systematically intimidated them, controlled their movement within the settlements, and conducted raids on households to completely subdue the residents to their orders.

Following the liberation of the territory from Russian control, local residents reported numerous instances of alleged war crimes committed against them by Russian soldiers. One such case involved the rape of a local civilian girl who later found the strength to seek legal assistance from ULAG.

A criminal investigation was opened in 2022. Over this period, the suspected Russian soldier was identified, and the case against him was transferred to court, where it was considered in absentia. On January 14, 2025, the Velykooleksandrivskyi District Court of the Kherson region delivered its verdict.

The experience of ULAG advocates in this sensitive case demonstrated the importance of a comprehensive approach that considers the needs and interests of survivors. This helps prevent re-traumatization during the pursuit of justice and ensures comprehensive support for those affected.

The work of the victim's advocate is not only a way to amplify her voice in the proceedings but also influences the effectiveness of the criminal process. That is why ULAG, particularly in this case, involves international lawyers with experience working with CRSV survivors in other countries to provide mentorship to Ukrainian colleagues. The experience of this case allows for an analysis of whether Ukraine's national justice system can effectively utilize the experience of other war-torn countries, applying best practices in communication and support during investigative actions and court hearings.

A Survivor-Centered Approach: How It Should Function in Criminal Proceedings

In cases of conflict-related sexual violence, a survivor-centered approach is a key principle for effective investigation. This practical tool helps reduce the risk of re-traumatization, increase trust in communication with law enforcement agencies, and ensure the proper collection of evidence.

Applying this approach means that the interests, dignity, safety, and psycho-emotional state of the survivor must be at the center of attention at every stage of the criminal proceedings. It includes: informed consent and control for the survivor; sensitive communication and interview conditions; minimization of re-traumatization; psychological support at all stages; survivor safety; their participation in decision-making; ethical treatment; and avoidance of stigmatizing language.

Since survivors usually lack experience in legal proceedings, they do not understand their rules and what to expect. It is crucial for the survivor's representative to properly inform them and maintain constant contact throughout the criminal proceedings. The survivor must understand their right to withdraw consent to participate in investigative actions and further proceedings at any stage or to initiate changes in procedures or forms of participation, considering her psychological state or other circumstances.

Ukraine's national legislation should not only formally enshrine the rights of survivors, taking this approach into account, but also ensure effective mechanisms for their realization. The main focus at the pre-trial investigation stage is on the work of investigators and prosecutors and their interaction with survivors. However, due to the realities of war and the large number of criminal proceedings related to conflict-related crimes, law enforcement agencies often cannot ensure proper communication and information for survivors. As a result, survivors may feel that their cases are not a priority and that investigative actions are not being carried out.

Most proceedings are conducted locally, so the burden on regional investigation, prosecution, and court authorities is the greatest. Practice shows that today, among investigators and prosecutors at this level, there is a formal attitude towards new methodologies, insufficient understanding of the need to apply them, and the connection between national criminal procedural law and international law. In our opinion, it is important to pay attention to specific examples from this criminal proceeding and their impact on the effectiveness of the process.

Correct Classification of the Offense

Currently, Article 438 of the Criminal Code contains only a blanket reference to the norms of international law, which leads to a lack of understanding of the grounds and procedure for their application alongside national legislation. However, IHL norms are part of national legislation, and for their effective application today, it is necessary to clearly detail the elements of the crime "conflict-related sexual violence" in Article 438 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. The current wording of this article does not contain a clear classification of the acts that fall under this crime, as reflected, in particular, in the Rome Statute.

Interviewing the Survivor and Related Risks

Interviewing the survivor is the primary source of information in the investigation of CRSV cases. However, the complexity of such cases makes the common practice of conducting multiple interviews of survivors unacceptable. Therefore, investigative bodies should plan investigations, considering the balance between protecting the survivor from re-trauma and the rights of the accused. It is also important to remember the need for direct examination of evidence by the court, which implies the active participation of the survivor in the judicial process.

An example is a case where an investigator conducted lengthy interviews of a survivor in a regular office without a psychologist or preparation. Questions were often repeated and accusatory, leading to the survivor's severe emotional distress and her refusal to participate further. In such cases, investigators often believe that "special procedures" are not needed because they are acting "in accordance with the law."

In this case, a video recording of the survivor's interview, made at the pre-trial investigation stage under Article 225 of the Criminal Procedure Code, was used in the court hearing. This helped prevent the re-traumatization of the survivor, which could have been caused by the need to recount the traumatic experience in the courtroom in the presence of third parties.

Repeated questioning of a CRSV survivor in court can cause additional suffering, especially in cases of violence or humiliation. Therefore, it is important to conduct the interview in the safest and most controlled environment possible with the necessary participants: a judge, investigator, defense attorney, and, if necessary, a psychologist. It is also important that the initial interview is informative and provides a complete understanding of the events; otherwise, there will be a need to clarify information in court, taking into account the positions of all participants.

Realization of the Survivor's Rights

The survivor was not properly informed of her rights in the process, including the right to legal assistance, the presence of a lawyer, the participation of a psychologist, the filing of a civil lawsuit, and others. She was formally handed an interview protocol and a memorandum of her rights to sign. However, these rights were not explained to her in an understandable form, with an explanation of how to exercise them.

Survivors of CRSV often experience deep and prolonged psychological trauma. In the context of criminal proceedings, this can affect their ability to participate in the process, make consistent decisions, and interact with representatives of the justice system. In practice, this can manifest as refusal to participate, changes in decisions, avoidance of meetings, or, conversely, sudden active participation that lacks a stable emotional basis. For example, a survivor who previously agreed to testify may refuse a few days before the interview. The reason may not be a change in position but emotional overload or a trigger reaction to a specific element of the process.

The refusal of a survivor to participate in criminal proceedings due to psychological trauma complicates the establishment of the circumstances of the case and can significantly affect the completeness of the evidence base. For the survivor, such a refusal is often a consequence of re-traumatization, loss of trust in law enforcement agencies, and exacerbation of post-traumatic disorders. In addition, it deprives her of the opportunity to be heard, to have the violation of her rights recognized, and to access recovery mechanisms.

These situations should not be seen as a sign of insincerity or a desire to harm the progress of the case. This is part of the process of internal recovery and overcoming the consequences of trauma. Representatives of survivors must be prepared for this and work taking into account the principles of a trauma-informed approach, which international practice recognizes as key in working with individuals who have experienced sexual violence.

At the same time, justice authorities must apply effective mechanisms within criminal proceedings aimed at supporting the stable participation of survivors in the process, and the tools for this must be enshrined at the legislative level. Otherwise, this may create a risk of impunity, lack of accountability, and unfair court verdicts.

Engaging the Assistance of Psychologists

The psychological state after trauma is a significant challenge for survivors in the justice system. In addition to the primary trauma, justice procedures (investigative actions, interviews, court hearings) cause additional stress, so qualified psychological support is necessary.

Despite the relevance of the issue and the availability of a significant number of psychologists, there are significant shortcomings in state regulation of this area. In particular, there is absent or outdated legislation regarding the qualification of psychologists and a register of certified specialists. Their status, rights, and obligations in criminal proceedings are also insufficiently regulated. This complicates quality work with survivors.

For example, during the preparation for the interview of the survivor whose interests we represented, a psychologist involved in the case to provide support interfered with the work of the lawyer and investigators, asked questions about the circumstances of the case, commented on the strategy of representing the survivor's interests, and expressed his own opinion about the client's behavior. Thus, he did not adhere to the principles of ethical communication, confidentiality, non-interference in the work of the lawyer and prosecutor, or the procedures for communication between participants in the process. Subsequently, he shared some details of this conversation with the investigator, justifying this by the "need to protect the survivor." This undermined the survivor's trust in the participants of the process and forced her to refuse further participation in interviews. This case illustrates how the lack of a clear legal status for psychologists can harm survivors and the investigation.

Such gaps lead to the involvement of unqualified specialists, ethical violations, the dissemination of confidential data, and interference in the work of other participants in the process.

The Need to Establish Effective Cooperation

Competition among Ukrainian human rights organisations for the representation of CRSV survivors often leads to negative consequences. Unethical client poaching approaches in this case resulted in the survivor's refusal to give important testimony during the court proceedings, which affected the quality of the case consideration.

Instead of joining forces for the comprehensive protection of survivors, organisations compete for cases, donor resources, and publicity. This harms the effectiveness of human rights work and the survivors themselves, who need support and justice. It is important to recognize that the real focus should not be on organisational achievements but on the dignity, safety, and recovery of people who have experienced violence.

For effective assistance, it is necessary to establish close cooperation between specialized organisations with clear referral mechanisms. This requires the creation of a register of qualified specialists and regulated procedures. It is important to adhere to common standards: a focus on survivors, the "do no harm" principle, and ensuring confidentiality.

A systemic problem is the chaotic referral of survivors between state structures and public organisations without a coordinated plan. This leads to duplication of requests and a decrease in trust. In most regions, there are no unified guidelines for referral that respect confidentiality. Therefore, it is necessary to define and assign the function of creating and controlling or coordinating the referral system to a specific state body.

The Coordination Centre for Victim Support under the OGP has a victim referral function. According to the experience of ULAG clients, the Centre's assistance needs to be improved to avoid referrals to non-core organisations and to ensure client follow-up and feedback.

Prospects for Enforcement of the Verdict

The lack of effective enforcement of verdicts and difficulties in obtaining compensation for moral damages hinder the restoration of justice for survivors of violence. Currently, Ukrainian legislation does not provide for automatic compensation for victims of war crimes, so legal mechanisms are needed: a civil lawsuit, the ECHR, or within the framework of future interstate mechanisms (e.g., a hybrid mechanism or a tribunal on Russia's aggression against Ukraine). However, due to Russia's refusal to pay under decisions of international courts, the chances of compensation are currently minimal, although these decisions create precedents for the future.

As of 2025, the Russian Federation does not recognize the jurisdiction of Ukrainian courts over war crimes committed by its military personnel, does not extradite its citizens, and does not cooperate with Interpol. Thus, extradition of criminals is currently impossible, but they are placed on the international wanted list. In the context of war, the enforcement of verdicts against Russian citizens is also complicated by the lack of mechanisms for the transfer of persons and agreement on the enforcement of verdicts by international structures.

Recommendations

To improve the situation, it is necessary to develop and implement changes to criminal legislation that will detail the application of international standards in CRSV proceedings. In parallel, a system of state certification and registration of psychologists working with CRSV survivors should be introduced, and clear rules and protocols should be developed for specialists involved in criminal proceedings.

An important area of reform is the improvement of in absentia justice mechanisms to ensure greater effectiveness of verdicts and guarantee fair satisfaction for survivors. Equally important is the introduction of mandatory training programs for investigators, prosecutors, and judges on ethical communication with CRSV survivors, which will minimize secondary traumatization and increase the effectiveness of the investigation of this category of crimes.