Crimes Against Humanity: Prospects for the Classifying the Consequences of the War in Ukraine

The wide-ranging consequences of the armed conflict on the territory of Ukraine since 2014 continue to raise numerous questions about how best to assess them through the lens of justice processes. War crimes have remained the primary avenue for the legal classification of such acts at the national level. At the same time, the International Criminal Court has highlighted the potential for crimes against humanity, particularly with regard to persecution and torture in occupied Crimea since 2014, as well as inhumane acts such as systematic shelling following the full-scale invasion by the Russian Federation in 2022. The introduction in 2024 of Article 442-1, “Crimes Against Humanity,” into Ukraine’s Criminal Code not only opened a new avenue for the classification of such acts at the national level, but also created an opportunity to take into account assessments by various international mechanisms and organisations in the pursuit of justice.

Torture in Occupied Territories as an Expression of Systemic Policy

Since 2014, beginning with the occupation of the Crimean Peninsula, international and non-governmental organisations have documented cases of the detention of civilians, followed by the use of torture and other forms of ill-treatment. This practice continued and further developed in areas of Donetsk and Luhansk regions controlled by the self-proclaimed “DPR” and “LPR,” whose functioning is also the responsibility of the Russian Federation. Following the full-scale invasion of Ukraine by the Russian Federation, similar incidents were observed in 2022 in territories under its control in Kyiv, Chernihiv, and Sumy regions, as well as in the occupied territories of Kharkiv, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson regions.

Everywhere, the treatment of detained civilians followed a fairly similar pattern. Places of detention were established on a mass scale, often located in buildings of state institutions, schools, basements, and even private homes. Over time, as the occupation persisted, the number of civilian detentions grew, carried out under various pretexts, including:

• expressing a pro-Ukrainian stance (including online or in private conversations);
• using Ukrainian online platforms, media, or other portals;
• suspected contacts with Ukrainian military or intelligence services;
• banking transactions in support of the Armed Forces of Ukraine;
• displaying Ukrainian national symbols (including on electronic devices);
• participating in pro-Ukrainian rallies and demonstrations;
• living near or being present near locations of Russian troop deployments;
• lacking identification documents;
• using the Ukrainian language;
• refusing to cooperate with the occupying authorities or military forces, among others.

The reasons for such detentions varied, making it difficult to provide an exhaustive list. Nevertheless, a general pattern can be observed across all occupied territories: individuals who did not support the occupation regime and held pro-Ukrainian views were targeted.

Almost all detainees were subsequently subjected to torture or other forms of cruel treatment. Victims were subjected to various forms of physical violence, psychological pressure, and, in some cases, sexual violence. The overall conditions of detention can be classified as inhuman and degrading.

An analysis of events across different unlawful places of detention often reveals the repetition of similar methods of torture, treatment of victims, and grounds for detention. Practices documented in Kherson region were also observed in Kharkiv region at the beginning of the full-scale invasion in 2022, as well as in Donetsk and Luhansk regions since 2014. This indicates the formation of behavioural patterns — an organised approach or policy that is implemented systematically.

Crimes Against Humanity: The Experience of Syria

International precedent includes a fairly detailed assessment of unlawful detentions and the ill-treatment of civilians in the context of armed conflict. However, for analysing the events in Ukraine, particular attention should be paid to cases concerning the situation in Syria, which were heard by German courts under the principle of universal jurisdiction.

In January 2022, a German court found Colonel Anwar Raslan guilty of committing crimes against humanity in Syria and sentenced him to life imprisonment. He was responsible for operations at the Al-Khatib prison in Damascus, where civilians opposing the ruling regime were held. Raslan’s indictment included, among other things, 27 murders, 3 cases of rape, and the torture of approximately 4,000 detainees between 2011 and 2012.

Since at least 2011, the Syrian regime actively persecuted individuals for their opposition to the government. Intelligence services were used to suppress the protest movement and intimidate the civilian population. Part of this policy involved the establishment of a state-organised system of detention facilities where detainees were subjected to ill-treatment.

In 2011, the German Federal Prosecutor's Office launched an investigation into crimes committed in Syria, applying the principle of universal jurisdiction. As part of the case, testimonies were collected from victims of unlawful detention, torture, sexual violence, and other forms of ill-treatment at Al-Khatib prison.

In 2019, Raslan was arrested in Germany after having successfully obtained asylum, and was brought to trial. That same year, Eyad Al-Gharib was also arrested. He had worked alongside Raslan in Syria’s General Intelligence Directorate, specifically in Branch 251, which was responsible for the Damascus region. During the proceedings against him, Eyad testified against Raslan, who had been his superior officer in the intelligence service.

The trials of Eyad Al-Gharib and Anwar Raslan attracted considerable attention from the international community. First, these cases became the first real examples of justice being delivered for the most serious international crimes committed in Syria. The large number of refugees in Europe created a demand for action by the international community. As a result, not only were victims present in Germany, but the perpetrators could also be identified and apprehended.

Second, the classification of large-scale violations against civilians as crimes against humanity confirmed the existence of a systematic government policy aimed at persecuting citizens for their beliefs and activism. The approaches to detention, the creation of a sprawling state-supported system of places of detention, and the use of various methods of ill-treatment for intimidation all point to the implementation of an organised policy and the commission of large-scale crimes.

Lessons for Ukraine

Every precedent related to grave international crimes can not only become an important part of ensuring justice for a specific situation but also influence international justice more broadly. Over 11 years of armed conflict on Ukrainian territory, various documented violations have been examined through the lens of the classification of such crimes and established precedent. The experience of Syria should be regarded as an opportunity to draw conclusions and apply them in justice processes concerning the events in Ukraine.

Every victim’s story matters. Testimonies of victims and witnesses remain one of the main sources of information about large-scale crimes committed during the conflict. Details about the reasons for detention, treatment specifics, methods of torture, and conditions of confinement — all these circumstances can help form a complete picture of events in a particular territory as part of the larger puzzle. The more comprehensively the justice process reconstructs these events, the greater the chances for their legal assessment.

Crimes against humanity remain a promising classification of acts. After 11 years of conflict, the potential for such classification in Ukraine remains an underexplored area. Despite limitations in national legislation, the growing number of testimonies and victim accounts is increasing the attention of international mechanisms toward assessing facts as crimes against humanity. Detention and ill-treatment of civilians in occupied territories could become an example of large-scale crimes where this legal classification allows consideration of international practice and evaluation of Russia’s policy toward Ukraine before and after 2022.

Systematic facts matter not only for the legal classification of acts but also for restoring justice in individual cases of violations. The scale of violations committed during the armed conflict in Ukraine makes it impossible to examine every single crime. No justice mechanism can handle such a workload, especially at the national level. Instead, investigating established patterns of violations and manifestations of systematic policy — even through individual examples — allows not only for reviewing specific stories but also answering questions about why these events happened, who planned them, and how the large-scale practice of persecuting civilians in occupied territories was implemented.