Experts of the Committee on Enforced Disappearances Commend Ukraine’s Law on Missing Persons in Special Circumstances, Ask Questions on Secret Detentions and the Forced Transfer of Children to the Russian Federation

The Committee on Enforced Disappearances today concluded its consideration of the initial report of Ukraine, with Committee Experts commending the State on the adoption of the law on the legal status of persons missing in special circumstances, while asking questions on secret detentions and the forced transfer of children to the Russian Federation.

Several Committee Experts paid tribute to the courage and resilience of the people of Ukraine in the context of the ongoing war on its territory. Carmen Rosa Villa Quintana, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, said the Committee could not be indifferent to war in any circumstances. It was essential to bring about peace in line with the United Nations Charter.

Olivier de Frouville, Committee Chair and Country Rapporteur, congratulated the State party for adopting the law on the legal status of persons missing in special circumstances, and for its 2022 revision, which contributed positively to the search for missing persons. Could Ukrainian State agents be held accountable under the law?

Mr. de Frouville said there were allegations of secret detentions in Kharkiv, particularly during the period of 2014 to 2016, and that basements of buildings in Kyiv were being used as unofficial detention sites. Did the State party have information on these allegations? There did not seem to be an effective mechanism to prevent these practices from continuing.

Addressing the forced transfer of children to the Russian Federation and occupied territories, Mr. de Frouville asked how many of the 19,546 children who had been transferred were considered as victims of enforced disappearance. Was there a specific procedure for reviewing placements of children who had been illegally adopted?

Introducing the report, Leonid Tymchenko, Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs of Ukraine and head of the delegation, said that the law on the legal status of persons missing under special circumstances stipulated that the Ukrainian State was obliged to take all possible measures to trace a person missing in special circumstances. The law also established enforced disappearance as an offence in national criminal law.

Since September 2015, Mr. Tymchenko reported, law enforcement agencies had registered more than 5,000 criminal offences directly related to enforced disappearances, including the deprivation of liberty of more than 14,000 civilians.

The delegation said investigations had been carried out that had disproven allegations of incommunicado detentions. The State party investigated all such allegations.

Regarding the forced transfer of children, Mr. Tymchenko said several heads of the occupation authorities and two deputies of the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation were charged by Ukraine with committing criminal offences in this regard, while the International Criminal Court had issued an arrest warrant for President Putin and lvova-Belova, the Presidential Commissioner for Children’s Rights.

The delegation added that the State party was doing everything possible to obtain information on the missing children. It was negotiating an agreement regarding the return of around 300 children. Russian officials had not recognised the transfer and illegal adoption of Ukrainian children and had made falsified documents to hide these crimes.

In concluding remarks, Horacio Ravenna, Committee Vice-Chair and acting Chair for the dialogue, said the Committee and the State party shared a common goal: full implementation of the Convention. Ukraine had shown its commitment to this goal. He called on the State party to remain in contact with the Committee, which would support its efforts to implement the Convention. The Committee’s strong hope was that peace would be achieved in Ukraine.

Mr. Tymchenko, in his concluding remarks, said cooperation with the Committee would help the State party in its efforts to uphold its international obligations. He called on the Committee to keep in mind the current circumstances in Ukraine. Every day, aerial attacks were being carried out across the State. The State party was aware that it needed to uphold human rights, even those of its enemies.

The delegation of Ukraine consisted of the Commissioner for Persons Missing in Special Circumstances and representatives of the Office of the Prosecutor General; Security Service; Ministry of Internal Affairs; National Police; and the Permanent Mission of Ukraine to the United Nations Office at Geneva.

The Committee will issue its concluding observations on the report of Ukraine at the end of its twenty-seventh session, which concludes on 4 October. Summaries of the public meetings of the Committee can be found here, while webcasts of the public meetings can be found here. The programme of work of the Committee’s twenty-seventh session and other documents related to the session can be found here.

The Committee will next meet in public this afternoon, Tuesday 24 September, at 3 p.m. to consider the initial report of Morocco (CED/C/MAR/1).

Report

The Committee has before it the initial report of Ukraine (CED/C/UKR/1).

Presentation of Report

LEONID TYMCHENKO, Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs of Ukraine and head of the delegation, said this dialogue was an important event that marked a new chapter in the protection of human rights and freedoms. In the midst of an unprovoked war with the Russian Federation, Ukraine remained committed to human rights principles and this dialogue was an important part of the collective struggle for justice. In 2015, Ukraine became a State party to the Convention, and thus undertook to eradicate and prevent enforced disappearances. Currently, enforced disappearances committed on Ukraine’s sovereign territory were related to the armed aggression of the Russian Federation. Despite these challenging times, Ukraine continued to comply with its international obligations.

Ukraine took measures to ensure the uniform application of the Convention within its internationally recognised borders, including in the territories controlled by the aggressor State and its occupation forces, including Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, Kherson, and Kharkiv regions, as well as the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol. It ensured that all reports of unlawful acts as defined in article two of the Convention deliberately committed by representatives of the occupation administration of the Russian Federation were promptly, thoroughly and impartially recorded and properly investigated, with all perpetrators identified and brought to justice, and, if found guilty by a court, punished in accordance with the gravity of their actions.

The law on the legal status of persons gone missing under special circumstances stipulated that the Ukrainian State was obliged to take all possible measures to trace a person missing in special circumstances. The law also established enforced disappearance as an offence in national criminal law. On 21 August 2024, the Verkhovna Rada adopted a law on the ratification of the Rome Statute. In order to implement the Rome Statute, it adopted in the first reading a draft law that would add articles to the Criminal Code on crimes against humanity, which would include enforced disappearance within the meaning of article five of the Convention.

Since September 2015, law enforcement agencies had registered more than 5,000 criminal offences directly related to enforced disappearances, including the deprivation of liberty of more than 14,000 civilians. Special attention should be paid to the results of the investigation conducted by the State into the forced transfer of Ukrainian children to the temporarily occupied territories of Ukraine from 2022 to 2024, their deportation to the Russian Federation and the Republic of Belarus and the forced granting of Russian citizenship, and their placement in Russian families and adoption.

Several heads of the occupation authorities and two deputies of the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation were charged with committing criminal offences by Ukraine in this regard, while the International Criminal Court had issued an arrest warrant for President Putin and lvova-Belova, the Presidential Commissioner for Children’s Rights, for the illegal transfer and deportation of Ukrainian children.

The Prosecutor’s Offices had served 275 persons with notices of suspicion in 137 criminal proceedings, and 119 indictments against 241 persons were sent to bring the perpetrators to justice. The State party had also established a unified register of persons gone missing under special circumstances, which had been in operation since May 2023. As of today, it contained information on 48,324 such individuals who were currently being sought to determine their fate. Around 4,700 people had been confirmed to be in captivity; the actual number could be much higher. The aggressor State was not fulfilling its international obligations under the Geneva Conventions, denying the Red Cross access to visit places of detention and holding civilian hostages. This made it impossible to exert influence on the Russian Federation, which was not a State party to the Convention.

Measures had been taken to release both captured Ukrainian defenders and illegally detained civilians. In the period before the full-scale invasion, 3,497 people were released; since the invasion, 3,669 people had been released. More than 90 per cent of persons returned from captivity reported that they were subjected to various forms of violence and torture by representatives of the aggressor State, and in the period before the full-scale invasion, all detainees without exception were subjected to psychological and physical violence.

The Constitution of Ukraine stipulated that everyone had the right to liberty and personal inviolability. No one could be arrested or held in detention, except by a reasoned court decision and only in accordance with the conditions and procedures established by law. Ukraine had established a national preventive mechanism to ensure the effective prevention and elimination of enforced disappearances. In 109 territorial units of the national police, the “Custody Records” information subsystem was implemented, designed to guarantee the safe stay of detained persons under police control.

The State ensured the police’s ability to effectively fight crime without violating human rights through the introduction of electronic recording of all actions against persons under police control, as well as a mandatory interview of the detained person and the police officer who carried out the detention. The State also ensured that there was sufficient infrastructure in the police unit; round-the-clock video surveillance; a human rights inspector; and remote oversight by authorised officials of the central police authority. In 2018, Ukraine established the State Bureau of Investigation, a State law enforcement agency responsible for preventing and investigating criminal offences committed, in particular, by law enforcement officers.

During this time of crisis for Ukraine, the country had a special responsibility to take strict measures to prevent and eliminate enforced disappearances in accordance with the requirements of the Convention. The end of the aggressive war of the Russian Federation would prevent enforced disappearances in Ukraine. Ukraine’s strategic goal was a comprehensive, just and sustainable peace in the State for the security of the whole world, which it hoped to achieve through the Ukrainian peace formula initiative put forward by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

Questions by Committee Experts

OLIVIER DE FROUVILLE, Committee Chair and Country Rapporteur, said the Committee acknowledged that Ukraine had a situation of armed conflict in its territory which affected the implementation of the Convention. This was particularly true in the context of the large-scale invasion conducted since February 2022. Mr. de Frouville paid tribute to the resilience of the Ukrainian people. Despite the difficult situation, Ukraine continued to exert efforts to comply with its international obligations. It was acting to search for victims of enforced disappearance on its territory and uphold the rights of families. He expressed hope that the dialogue would help the State party to better apply the Convention.

The report was drafted by the national Ukrainian police in collaboration with other State agencies. Were victims’ associations or other civil society organizations involved in drafting the report? Had the State party made any response to communications sent to it under the urgent actions procedure? Were there any examples of courts directly invoking the Convention? The Ukrainian Human Rights Commission had contact with the Russian Human Rights Commission. Had the sharing of information between these bodies led to the identification of missing persons? What efforts had been made to increase the financing and human resources of the Human Rights Commission and to implement its recommendations?

Mr. de Frouville congratulated the State party for adopting the law on the legal status of persons missing in special circumstances, and for its 2022 revision, which contributed positively to the search for missing persons. The law covered some cases of enforced disappearance, but not cases that did not have a link to the armed conflict or other special circumstances. The law also potentially excluded enforced disappearance committed by the Ukrainian State. Could Ukrainian State agents be held accountable under the law?

The Committee welcomed the unified register of missing persons. The register was limited to cases of special circumstances leading to disappearances. The clear category of enforced disappearance was not included in the register; would this be done in future? When would DNA data be included in the register, and was the DNA data of relatives of disappeared persons being collected? The State party had several different databases related to human rights violations; were these connected to the register of missing persons? The Prosecution Service had identified over 1,000 victims of enforced disappearance. Could this data be included in the missing persons register?

What risks had the State party identified related to martial law declared as part of Ukraine’s state of emergency? Had the State party taken steps to prevent violations in the context of the state of emergency?

CARMEN ROSA VILLA QUINTANA, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, paid tribute to the courage of the people of Ukraine. The Committee could not be indifferent to war in any circumstances. It was essential to bring about peace in line with the United Nations Charter.

The State party had reported that it had not identified any facts implying that Ukrainian authorities were involved in any cases of enforced disappearance. However, the Ukrainian Security Service was investigating several cases of violations of the laws and customs of war. Were there any cases that could fall into the category of enforced disappearance? Third party information indicated that there were individuals or groups involved in cases of enforced disappearance. In one case, two police officers had been found to have committed crimes of enforced disappearance and torture in 2021. There was information about the enforced disappearance of 30 journalists. What investigations had been carried out into these cases? Had perpetrators been held accountable? How was the State party implementing the Istanbul Protocol?

There were cases of Russian officials being prosecuted without being informed of the charges against them. Would the State party make informing accused persons of the charges against them a legal requirement? Did judges have the ability to define crimes as enforced disappearances? How did the State party address violations of the Convention in the territories occupied by the Russian Federation?

What institutions were involved in investigating the disappearance of two members of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church? How was the State party investigating cases of enforced disappearance in the context of human trafficking, migration or forced displacement due to armed conflict and working to prevent this phenomenon? Did the State party intend to define the forced transfer of children to the Russian Federation as acts of enforced disappearance? Could information be provided on the outcomes of investigations into these cases?

Ms. Villa Quintana welcomed planned amendments to the Criminal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure. Did the State party plan to increase the penalty for the crime of enforced disappearance, which was currently not commensurate with the seriousness of the crime? When would the amendments to the two Codes be adopted? Was enforced disappearance being considered as a stand-alone crime in these amendments, and were aggravating circumstances being considered?

Legal provisions on hierarchical responsibility were not in line with international standards. What progress had been made to adopt draft legislation on hierarchical responsibility? What was the statute of limitations for enforced disappearance? When did it start? The provisions on the statute of limitations in the Convention had not been incorporated in national law. Could foreigners responsible for enforced disappearance who were not residing in Ukraine be tried in Ukraine? Were accused persons given access to a lawyer, and appointed a lawyer if they could not afford them? What measures were in place to notify accused persons from Russia to guarantee their active participation in trials? What was the procedure for the appointment and removal of judges and prosecutors, particularly those charged with corruption?

Which authorities were responsible for searching for missing and disappeared persons? How did the State party ensure that they cooperated and carried out their mandates effectively? The Code on Criminal Procedures established that persons charged with a crime could be suspended from their positions. How rigorously was suspension applied; could the State party provide examples?

A Committee Expert paid tribute to the courage and resilience of Ukraine. Were the 5,000 cases of enforced disappearance registered by Ukraine cases of disappearance carried out by State agents against non-State actors?

Responses by the Delegation

The delegation said the State party had established a database of persons who went missing in special circumstances to address disappearances related to the Russian Federation’s invasion of Ukraine. However, the national police collected biological material and DNA of persons who went missing in all contexts and registered it in relevant databases. Authorities could also collect the DNA of the relatives of missing persons. Data in State databases on enforced disappearances was unified. In future, Ukraine planned to add DNA data collected by the International Commission on Missing Persons to its databases to help identify missing persons. The Commissioner for Persons Missing in Special Circumstances and relatives of victims, including those who lived abroad, had access to the information in registries of missing persons.

Judges could apply the Convention directly and there were examples of cases in which judges had done so. The State party did not have access to occupied territories and could not conduct investigations there. However, it had identified two mass graves in liberated regions, in which around 125 bodies were buried, and around 400 bodies buried in other graves in these regions. It predicted that there were many more such graves in the occupied territories.

Victims of human rights violations committed by Ukrainian authorities had the right to seek redress. All persons had the right to a lawyer. Persons who could not hire a lawyer were provided one by the State. In cases where authorities were not able to arrest suspects residing in the Russian Federation, trials could be held in absentia. After the State party had ratified the Rome Statute, it would be required to investigate hierarchical responsibility. Prosecutors who were suspended for corruption or other violations were no longer able to work on cases; they were replaced immediately.

There was a clear division between trafficking in persons and enforced disappearance in the Criminal Code. The State party had registered cases of the trafficking of persons to the occupied territories. Seven minors had been identified as victims in these cases and four perpetrators had been identified. All cases of disappearance of children by Russian authorities qualified as war crimes. Investigations into such crimes were being carried out in cooperation with non-governmental organizations to determine the fate of these children.

When authorities received allegations that State agents had committed a crime, the State Bureau of Investigation investigated these allegations independently.

The law on the legal status of persons missing in special circumstances did not define the precise characteristics of the victims of enforced disappearance. The State party welcomed the Committee’s advice concerning the revision of the law in this regard.

Questions by Committee Experts

CARMEN ROSA VILLA QUINTANA, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, asked for information on regions where large numbers of enforced disappearances were reported, and how the State party obtained information on these cases. Was there a specialised unit within the Security Service for investigating enforced disappearance? Were there investigations being carried out into disappearances of activists? What protection mechanisms were in place for persons involved in investigations of enforced disappearances and family members of victims? Had specialised protection been provided to such persons?

What conditions were applied regarding extradition agreements? Had there been applications for extraditions of persons allegedly involved in enforced disappearance? How did the State party uphold international standards in the investigation of missing persons and exhumations? Were there any cases of intimidation or reprisals against witnesses of enforced disappearance? How were prosecutors nominated?

OLIVIER DE FROUVILLE, Committee Chair and Country Rapporteur, asked about the mandate of the Commissioner for Persons Missing in Special Circumstances. How was Ukrainian law that addressed hierarchic responsibility adapted to the provisions of the Rome Statute? What follow-up was carried out regarding urgent actions, particularly when protection measures were requested? Was cooperation between the Ukrainian Human Rights Commission and the Russian Human Rights Commission effective? Did the Ukrainian Commission promote the provisions of the Convention? How did the State party prevent prolonged detention and arbitrary arrests in the context of the state of emergency?

A Committee Expert asked whether the 5,000 enforced disappearances reported by the delegation included cases carried out against Ukrainian forces. These should not be considered enforced disappearances. Did the State party investigate Ukrainian citizens who were accomplices in acts of enforced disappearance?

Responses by the Delegation

The delegation said the State party worked together with the Commissioner for Persons Missing in Special Circumstances and the Ukrainian Human Rights Commission to provide truth for the families and loved ones of victims.

The State party had qualified 438 war crimes involving enforced disappearance. At least 14,000 Ukrainian civilians were being detained by the Russian Federation. The Government had given the Human Rights Commission the power to work on liberating Ukrainian prisoners of war; this had led to cooperation with the Russian Human Rights Commission. The Prosecution Service had a war crimes department, which conducted investigations into war crimes.

Ukraine had ratified bilateral agreements with five countries that addressed extraditions. The State did not extradite persons unless it received guarantees that the safety and fair trial rights of the person involved would be respected. Judicial registries were open to the public.

The 5,000 cases of enforced disappearance recorded by Ukraine mainly concerned detained citizens held by Russian authorities. The State party did not have statistics on journalists and the occupations of detained persons; Russian authorities often classified civilian prisoners as combatants. Prosecutors were faced with a large workload and their work was hindered by ongoing attacks. Some investigators had been killed while carrying out investigations.

The Commissioner for Persons Missing in Special Circumstances was empowered to cooperate with relevant national and international institutions, including the Ombudsman and law enforcement personnel, in investigations. The Commissioner provided family members and relatives with information on the outcomes of investigations, and determined whether disappearances were committed by military personnel.

Complaints of enforced disappearance against Ukrainian State agents could be taken to civilian courts, whereas complaints of enforced disappearances carried out by Russian authorities needed to be submitted to the dedicated Commission. The Government provided protection measures for victims of enforced disappearance such as name changes; however, it did not have a sufficient budget to provide measures such as safehouses.

In 2023, responsibility for searching for missing persons in special circumstances was transferred to the Ministry of Internal Affairs. Special circumstances included armed conflicts and natural or man-made emergencies. In October 2023, a hotline was established within the Commission for Persons Missing in Special Circumstances, which relatives of missing and detained persons could use to file reports. The Commissioner had met with more than 5,000 family members and held meetings with several non-governmental organizations.

The armed forces participated in searches for missing persons. They removed bodies and documented deceased persons. Around 55,000 people had been given “missing” status. This number included both military personnel and civilians. Around 5,000 cases had been discontinued due to the discovery of the body.

Questions by Committee Experts

OLIVIER DE FROUVILLE, Committee Chair and Country Rapporteur, asked whether the State party planned to incorporate the risk of enforced disappearance into its legislation on extraditions? There was an agreement with Sweden regarding the confidential exchange of information towards locating missing persons. Could more information be provided about this positive practice?

There were allegations of secret detentions in Kharkiv, particularly during the period of 2014 to 2016, and that basements of buildings in Kyiv were being used as unofficial detention sites. There were also credible allegations that around 240 prisoners of war were being held in unofficial detention sites after a drone attack on a detention centre. Did the State party have information on these allegations? Rulings had been made on incommunicado detention conducted by the police, but there did not seem to be an effective mechanism to prevent these practices from continuing.

The Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture had reported that not all persons deprived of liberty were given the right to contact family members and lawyers. This right needed to be respected. How was the right to habeas corpus implemented? Had there been complaints of delays in the registration of deprivation of liberty, or gaps in registration? What follow-up was made? There were reports of difficulties in registering the transfer of detainees. This could lead to enforced disappearance. How was the State addressing this? What training on enforced disappearance and international human rights law was provided for State agents, judges, prosecutors, civilians and family members?

It was positive that Ukraine was addressing legal difficulties created by disappearances. How was the State party working to resolve overlaps between the laws that addressed enforced disappearance? There was criticism that legislation related to enforced disappearance was complicated and that the compensation it provided was not sufficient. Did the State party plan to expand protection to all civilian victims of enforced disappearance, rather than only civilian prisoners?

The State party needed to adopt specific legislation to address crimes listed in article 25 of the Convention. How many of the 19,546 children who had been transferred to the Russian Federation were considered as “disappeared”? How were the best interests of the child and the rights of children to express their opinions respected regarding the return of children to their families? Was there a specific procedure related to the revision and review of a placement of a child who had been illegally adopted?

CARMEN ROSA VILLA QUINTANA, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, asked whether persons who were not relatives of victims but were under their guardianship could be categorised as victims. How were the rights established in the Criminal Procedural Code and the Criminal Code regarding truth, reparation and compensation provided to victims? Could the crime of enforced disappearance be subject to a reconciliation measure?

Damages for crimes of enforced disappearance could be obtained through a civil case in some cases, but the State was responsible for reparation in other cases. In what cases were perpetrators responsible for providing reparations? What amount was paid by the State? Did the State party plan to make amendments to legislation in this regard? Was access to compensation subject to a conviction, and was there a deadline by which compensation needed to be provided? How many victims of enforced disappearance had received reparation? What was the standard of proof for the granting of reparation?

What measures were in place related to medical, social and educational support for persons deprived of liberty? Did the State party adopt a differentiated approach for different categories of victims?

The Human Rights Commission and the Office of Persons Missing in Special Circumstances, as well as the Ukrainian police and other State and international bodies were involved in searches for disappeared persons. How did the State party coordinate these efforts and what resources were available in this regard? What outcomes had these activities achieved; how many disappeared persons had been identified overall? Were investigations being carried out by sea and water? Had sentences for enforced disappearance been handed down that were commensurate with the severity of the crime?

Were the two separate registries on missing persons interconnected and how did they contribute to the identification of deceased persons? How were places of burial registered? In how many cases had deceased persons been identified? There were allegations that State authorities had refused to provide information to relatives of victims regarding the whereabouts of disappeared persons. How would the State party prevent this?

In which registry were persons who had been transferred to the Russian Federation registered? How did the State party conduct searches for such persons? How many burial sites was the State party aware of that had not been exhumed? How many exhumed bodies had been returned to relatives? Had the State party mapped mass burial and common grave sites and taken measures to protect them?

The inclusion of missing persons in State registers could take around 48 hours. Did search activities begin before registration had finished? Did the State party follow the Committee’s guidelines on search practices? Were tools such as photographs and fingerprints used to identify missing persons? What organization was responsible for keeping human remains? Did relatives of victims have access to the State registry on human genomic information? Biological material was taken on a compulsory basis from State agents in cases of martial law. Was this information included in the registry on human genomic information? Who could access this information? In which registries were unidentified bodies registered?

Responses by the Delegation

The delegation said the Ministry of Reintegration was responsible for collecting information about persons relocated within the country. It maintained a registry of reintegrated persons. To identify persons, the State party used facial recognition systems, tattoos, personal documents and fingerprints. When these methods were unsuccessful, DNA tests were conducted. The biological material of military personnel was collected by each military division, which held this material while the person was under their charge. When military personnel went missing, this data was registered in the missing persons registry. There was a DNA database that would soon be integrated with the registry of missing persons.

As of today, Ukraine had registered over 55,000 missing persons, including around 48,000 persons who had gone missing under special circumstances. The State had located around 2,500 unidentified bodies. Around 4,000 bodies had been identified through cooperation between State bodies and a procedure for identification had been developed.

Relatives of persons who went missing in special circumstances had the right to a comprehensive investigation of those persons’ whereabouts. Their property was subject to protection and marriages were valid until investigations were closed or the missing person was declared dead. Searches were not stopped until the person or their remains were located.

The family members of persons who went missing in military service were provided with payments by the State in line with the missing person’s salary. Families had the right to social protection. Guardianship for dependents of persons who went missing was established in accordance with domestic law. Persons whose family members had died or gone missing were not subject to conscriptions.

Investigation had been carried out that had disproven allegations of incommunicado detentions. The State party investigated all allegations of incommunicado detentions.

Training was provided to prosecutors and investigators, including by international experts. Seven training sessions were held for over 400 prosecutors and investigators on torture and enforced disappearance. Staff of the national police’s missing persons unit received special training on international humanitarian law.

There was no statute of limitations currently on the crime of enforced disappearance. Judges decided on the sum of money granted for compensation to victims by the State in civilian court cases. The Government was working to make the compensation process easier for civilians. Debate was ongoing about the amount and source of compensation funds. Under the Criminal Procedure Code, non-relatives who were close to victims could be recognised as victims.

A draft law was being prepared that would provide compensation for victims of illegal activities conducted by Russian authorities. The Register of Damage for Ukraine, which recorded claims and evidence on damage, loss or injury caused by the Russian Federation’s acts in or against Ukraine, had been established in the Netherlands, supported by the Council of Europe.

The Prosecutor General’s Office coordinated investigations involving a range of State bodies. It convened roundtables on investigations that included United Nations agencies and non-governmental organizations. It was open to revising its processes. All identified bodies from mass graves were returned to families and buried in accordance with the family’s religion.

Ukraine had no bilateral agreement with Sweden. Its relationship with Sweden was governed by the Association Agreement between the European Union and Ukraine.

The Commissioner for Persons Missing in Special Circumstances was appointed and dismissed by the Cabinet of Ministers and the term of their office was not specified by law.

Questions by Committee Experts

CARMEN ROSA VILLA QUINTANA, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, asked whether the Register of Damage for Ukraine was a physical register. Was there a single register of victims that allowed the State to assess the scale of compensation? Was the State party providing measures promoting non-recurrence? Almost all court cases held in absentia had led to guilty verdicts. Were the persons subject to trials properly notified? There were allegations that conscientious objectors had been held in police stations, sometimes in incommunicado detention. Had investigations identified State agents who had carried out incommunicado detentions?

A Committee Expert asked about the criteria that judges used to decide whether to provide compensation in criminal proceedings or whether to refer the case to civil proceedings. Was there a State fund that provided compensation when perpetrators were unable to provide compensation?

OLIVIER DE FROUVILLE, Committee Chair and Country Rapporteur, asked about measures to improve the monitoring of deprivation of liberty. Were there cases of the transfer of Ukrainian children that had been classified as cases of enforced disappearance? Was there legislation that allowed for the review of adoption procedures that had arisen out of enforced disappearance?

Responses by the Delegation

The delegation said a specific compensation mechanism was being created for persons who were victims of serious crimes to support these persons to integrate back into society. Many returned Ukrainian soldiers had suffered torture. If Ukrainian State agents were found to be guilty of enforced disappearance, the State provided compensation to victims. Judges assessed the nature of the crimes to determine compensation amounts.

The State party was doing everything possible to obtain information on the missing children. It was negotiating an agreement regarding the return of around 300 children. Russian officials had not recognised the transfer and illegal adoption of Ukrainian children and had made falsified documents to hide these crimes. There were specific rules regarding investigations of crimes involving children. Special child-friendly rooms were used for interviews with child victims to prevent traumatisation.

Closing Remarks

HORACIO RAVENNA, Committee Vice-Chair and Acting Chairperson for the review of Ukraine, said the Committee and the State party shared a common goal: full implementation of the Convention. Ukraine had shown its commitment to this goal. He called on the State party to remain in contact with the Committee, which would support its efforts to implement the Convention. The Committee praised the efforts exerted by civil society partners and the Ukrainian Human Rights Commission to prevent enforced disappearance. Its strong hope was that peace would be achieved in Ukraine. Humanity had been deeply shaken by the horrors that were unfolding in the war. The Committee was aware that the aid that it could provide the State party in this situation was limited. It wished for a swift end to the dreadful war.

LEONID TYMCHENKO, Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs of Ukraine and head of the delegation, said the dialogue had been fruitful. The presence of the high-level Ukrainian delegation demonstrated the importance that Ukraine attached to the issue of enforced disappearance. Cooperation with the Committee would help the State party in its efforts to uphold its international obligations. Mr. Tymchenko called on the Committee to keep in mind the current circumstances in Ukraine. Every day, bombs could be heard, and aerial attacks were being carried out across the State. The State party was aware that it needed to uphold human rights, even those of its enemies. Both State agents and citizens had had very difficult experiences over the past few years. The war had made the citizens of Ukraine aware of the price of freedom, independence, and the territory of their country.

Produced by the United Nations Information Service in Geneva for use of the information media; not an official record.
English and French versions of our releases are different as they are the product of two separate coverage teams that work independently.