Analytical Report: Human Rights Violations by Ukraine (Feb 2022 – May 2023)
HUMAN RIGHTS & ANALYTICAL HOUSE, INC. – 28 February 2025

Overview: Since the start of the armed conflict on 24 February 2022, numerous human rights violations committed by Ukrainian authorities against civilians have been documented. The United Nations Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine (OHCHR) recorded a significant increase in violations of the right to liberty by Ukrainian security forces, with 75 cases of arbitrary detention of civilians (men, women, and one boy) – some amounting to enforced disappearances – mostly perpetrated by law enforcement or the Armed Forces of Ukraine. These violations include arbitrary arrests and detentions, use of vague “collaboration” laws leading to unjust prosecutions, secret and incommunicado detention practices resulting in disappearances, torture and ill-treatment of detainees, inhumane detention conditions, and denial of fair trial rights.

Arbitrary Arrests and Detentions
• Martial Law and Lack of Judicial Oversight: Following the introduction of martial law, Ukrainian authorities expanded powers to detain individuals without prompt judicial review. Law No. 2111-IX (in force 1 May – 24 Aug 2022) allowed local prosecutors to authorize up to 30 days of pre-trial detention for conflict-related suspects without a court warrant, with possible extensions. OHCHR warned that detentions without timely court oversight raise serious concerns under international human rights law, as prolonged pre-trial detention without review risks becoming arbitrary.
• Warrantless Arrests for Past Activities: In the early weeks of the conflict, Ukrainian law enforcement conducted arrests without warrants under “in flagrante” provisions in situations that did not meet urgent criteria. OHCHR documented that in February–March 2022, several people were apprehended for alleged involvement with armed groups in 2014–2020 – long-past actions that did not pose an immediate threat – which did not justify bypassing the normal warrant process. Such retroactive, warrantless arrests contravened legal standards requiring an ongoing or imminent crime to use in flagrante exceptions.
• Detentions Without Court Access: Even in areas where courts were functioning (e.g., Kyiv, Dnipro), authorities at times arrested individuals without seeking a warrant. OHCHR raised concerns about the lawfulness of these arrests when judicial authorities were available to provide authorization. For example, twin brothers were seized by Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) officers in Kyiv on 2 March 2022 and held in an SBU-run facility until 5 March, when a prosecutor belatedly formalized their arrest with a 30-day detention order (later extended for another month). No judge reviewed their detention until 3 May 2022, indicating a prolonged period of custody without judicial oversight.
• Arbitrary Detention of Civilians: Ukrainian forces have detained civilians without legal basis in some instances. A notable case involved 87 civilian Russian sailors (79 men and 8 women) who were taken into custody on 24 February 2022 when their ships were docked in Izmail, Odesa region. They were prevented from disembarking and kept for about eight months without being charged with any crime. Ukrainian authorities failed to provide a legal rationale or security justification for holding these sailors, and they were not informed of reasons for their detention or allowed to challenge its legality. One detained sailor died on 23 August 2022 due to lack of adequate medical care for a chronic condition during this captivity. The remaining sailors were only released in October 2022 as part of a prisoner exchange. OHCHR highlighted that detaining civilians for potential exchange may qualify as hostage-taking under international humanitarian law.

Prosecutions under the “Collaboration” Law
• Vague Legal Definition Leading to Arbitrary Arrests: On 3 March 2022, Ukraine adopted a new law (Article 111-1 of the Criminal Code) criminalizing “collaboration” with the aggressor state. Since then, over 5,400 criminal proceedings have been opened under this provision, and by 23 May 2023 Ukrainian courts had delivered more than 500 guilty verdicts for collaboration activities. OHCHR has expressed concern that the law defines “collaboration activities” too broadly and imprecisely, making it difficult for individuals to foresee what conduct is illegal. The lack of clear definitions risks violating the principle of legality and facilitates overly broad or arbitrary enforcement, potentially leading to unjust detentions.
• Criminalizing Humanitarian Activities: Several civilians engaged in humanitarian relief in Russian-occupied areas have been arrested and prosecuted as “collaborators.” OHCHR documented cases where providing essential services under occupation was punished despite its humanitarian nature. In one case, a man in a Kharkiv region village was convicted of collaboration for assuming a local administrative role during Russian occupation. The villagers had asked him to coordinate daily life and distribute humanitarian aid; he held no formal position in the Russian-installed administration and was essentially delivering life-saving aid. Nevertheless, a court found him guilty under the collaboration law. In another instance, a mother of two in Kupiansk volunteered to distribute humanitarian assistance to residents; she was later sentenced to three years in prison and banned from public office for ten years for “collaboration”.
• Penalizing Livelihood Activities: The collaboration law also criminalizes carrying out commercial or employment activities “in cooperation” with occupying authorities, without clearly defining what that entails. This ambiguity has led to prosecutions of people for ordinary economic activities in occupied territories. For example, Ukrainian courts have issued convictions for collaboration based on actions like registering a business with the de facto authorities or paying taxes to the occupation administration. OHCHR warns that, absent clearer limits, the law could effectively treat all forms of work or business under occupation as criminal.
• Broad Prosecutorial Discretion and Pressure to Confess: The law grants prosecutors wide latitude to charge alleged collaborators under different categories with varying penalties, raising the risk of arbitrary or inconsistent application. OHCHR found instances where individuals were arrested on serious collaboration charges and kept in pre-trial detention for weeks or months, only for authorities to later reclassify the offense as a minor crime (misdemeanor) and release them. In most documented cases, this reclassification happened through plea bargains. Detainees reported that the prospect of indefinite detention pushed them to confess to lesser offenses in exchange for release. Such practices suggest that detention was used to coerce self-incriminating confessions, violating the prohibition on compelled self-incrimination.

Unofficial Detention and Enforced Disappearances
• Secret and Incommunicado Detention Sites: Ukrainian security forces have held detainees in unofficial facilities – undisclosed locations not authorized for detention – for extended periods. OHCHR documented 65 cases of conflict-related detainees confined in places like apartments, basements of buildings, hotels, or unofficial rooms within law enforcement offices for anywhere from several hours up to 135 days. Holding individuals in secret detention sites, without acknowledging their whereabouts, contravenes Ukraine’s obligation to prevent enforced disappearances. Incommunicado detention in unofficial locations effectively removes detainees from legal protection and oversight, placing them at risk of mistreatment or disappearance.
• Kyiv SBU Secret Detention Facility: One prominent unofficial detention site was in Kyiv’s central SBU (Security Service) building, where a gymnasium and basement were used to detain civilians. Reports indicate up to 70 people (mostly men, and some women) were held there between February and at least November 2022. Detainees were kept under harsh conditions – sleeping on mattresses on the floor and forbidden from moving around or talking. They had limited access to toilets (three times a day) and were fed only once or twice daily, with minimal water. Several detainees said they were blindfolded for the entire duration of detention (in some cases, up to one month). In one case, a man from Kyiv was held in this facility for 135 days without any formal arrest: SBU agents arrested him at home on 2 March 2022, also detaining his wife and 85-year-old father (who were released after a few days). The man remained secretly jailed in the SBU gym until 16 July 2022, when officers finally brought him before a court, and a judge then formalized his detention with a remand order.
• Coerced Confessions and Fear Tactics: The use of unofficial, incommunicado detention appeared aimed at extracting confessions or compliance through intimidation. OHCHR observed that keeping detainees entirely isolated and in fear for their lives was used to pressure them into self-incriminating statements. Detainees described how the stress and fear of secret detention led some to confess to acts they had not committed, simply to escape the situation.
• Incommunicado Detention and Missing Persons: Detention in these secret facilities was often accompanied by complete isolation from the outside world. In 18 cases (12 men and 6 women), individuals were held incommunicado for periods ranging from 4 to 135 days. During such detentions, victims had no access to lawyers or communication, and their families were not informed of their fate. Many underwent repeated interrogations involving torture or ill-treatment, without ever being formally charged or brought before a judge. For example, a man from Kharkiv region was apprehended at a checkpoint in March 2022 and kept in a basement for two days, then moved to a facility in Dnipro. He was only permitted to phone his family on the 24th day of captivity, was never officially charged with any crime, never saw a lawyer, and never had a court hearing. He was eventually released in June 2022 after he agreed to record video “confessions” falsely admitting to aiding Russian forces.
• Examples of Torture in Secret Detention: OHCHR gathered testimony of severe abuse in unofficial detention sites. One civilian detained at the SBU office in Kryvyi Rih in May 2022 was tortured over three days: after a forced polygraph test, SBU officers beat him on the head, ribs, and legs. They stripped him naked and threatened to cut off his genitals and rape him, even saying they would send a video of the abuse to his children. In another incident, four men and two women were held incommunicado for up to a week in a repurposed police station in Lviv used by the SBU; their arrests were not officially registered, and they were kept without information or legal counsel during that time.
• Ongoing Pattern of Secret Detention: These practices are not isolated. OHCHR noted that Ukrainian authorities have used unofficial detention and incommunicado holding of conflict-related detainees before, indicating a continuing pattern of such violations. By removing detainees from the protection of the law in this manner, authorities create conditions for enforced disappearances – where individuals are effectively “disappeared” with no official trace.
• Unresolved Enforced Disappearance Cases: In at least two cases documented during this period, civilians detained by Ukrainian agents remain missing as of the report’s publication, their fate unknown. In one case, a young journalist (previously involved in a 2017 conflict-related court case and himself a prior torture victim) was seized off the street in Kramatorsk on 27 March 2022 by men in what appeared to be police uniforms. The assailants took away his walking stick (the journalist has a disability) and forced him into a car. Despite his family’s attempts, no agency acknowledged holding him. The police opened an investigation into kidnapping, but authorities did not recognize it as an enforced disappearance, and little progress had been made as of May 2023. In a second case, the former head of Novoluhanske village was abducted on 10 April 2022 in front of his six-year-old son by five armed men in uniform. He was driven away and vanished; his relatives have received no information on his whereabouts. The police investigation considered theories of abduction by armed groups or a staged kidnapping by the victim, but have not examined the possibility that Ukrainian state agents were responsible, and the man’s fate remains unknown.

Torture and Ill-Treatment of Detainees
• Physical Abuse to Extract Confessions: Dozens of conflict-related detainees have reported being subjected to torture or other ill-treatment by Ukrainian security personnel. OHCHR interviewed detainees who provided credible accounts of torture at the hands of law enforcement officers, soldiers, or guards, particularly in unofficial detention sites (and to a lesser extent in official pre-trial facilities). At least 40 detainees described being tortured or abused during interrogation in the initial period after arrest, before they were brought before a court or placed in an official detention center. Common methods included severe beatings (with fists, batons, or other objects), electric shocks using tasers, and sexual violence such as forced nudity and targeting of genital organs. Detainees also faced threats of extreme harm: interrogators threatened to mutilate or rape them or their family members, to execute them, or to take them to the frontline and abandon them there.
• Purposes of Torture: Victims reported that these torture methods were used for various purposes – chiefly to coerce confessions or intelligence, to compel cooperation (for example, agreeing to spy or inform), to extort money or property, as well as to punish and intimidate those deemed traitors. The abuse was often accompanied by derogatory insults; for instance, detainees recounted being called slurs like “traitors,” “prostitutes” (towards women), or homophobic epithets by their captors.
• Abuse in Official Custody: Ill-treatment was not confined to secret jails. OHCHR documented at least 9 cases where guards in official pre-trial detention centers (such as a SIZO in Dnipro) beat newly-arrived detainees during intake procedures or during daily cell inspections in spring 2022. Four detainees held in Dnipro’s pre-trial facility reported being beaten with fists and batons by guards upon admission. Such practices appeared to be routine humiliation or punishment for those accused of conflict-related offenses, further violating detainees’ rights even in formal custody.

Inhumane Detention Conditions
• Overcrowding and Lack of Basic Needs: Some conflict-related detainees endured substandard conditions in official detention facilities, especially in the initial phase of the war. Of the detainees held in official jails whom OHCHR interviewed, eight (5 men and 3 women) reported suffering poor conditions for days or weeks. They described having no beds or mattresses (forcing them to sleep on bare floors), inadequate food rations, cold temperatures due to lack of heating or blankets, and shortages of basic hygiene items. These hardships typically lasted from 2 to 16 days and were most common in the first months after the February 2022 invasion, when facilities were likely overwhelmed by a surge of detainees.
• Conditions in Unofficial Detention: Treatment in the secret detention sites was often even worse. Out of 65 people held in unofficial locations, 17 described extremely poor conditions. Detainees were frequently forced to sleep on floors or sit on chairs, sometimes with their hands bound or even tied to radiators overnight. They were given insufficient quantities of food and water. Sanitation was minimal or non-existent, with some cells lacking running water or functioning toilets – one woman detainee recalled a clogged toilet, no toilet paper, and an unbearable stench that made her vomit. OHCHR noted that in some instances the conditions of confinement themselves could amount to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment (and even torture), in violation of international law.

Violations of Fair Trial Rights and Due Process
• Denial of Fair Trial Guarantees: Arbitrary detentions by Ukrainian authorities were often accompanied by violations of fair trial rights. In 17 of the 75 arbitrary detention cases documented, OHCHR identified concerns related to the fairness of legal proceedings. Detainees frequently did not enjoy their full rights to defense and due process during the investigative and pre-trial phases of their cases.
• Limited Access to Legal Counsel: A common issue was the lack of prompt or effective legal representation. In at least 15 cases, conflict-related detainees reported that state-appointed lawyers (public defenders) provided little genuine assistance and sometimes displayed bias against them. Many detainees who were initially taken to SBU offices or other unofficial sites were interrogated without a lawyer present while being subjected to threats or violence. Often, legal aid lawyers only appeared when officers needed a detainee to sign paperwork that legally required the presence of a lawyer, rather than to actually defend the suspect. In one extreme example, a legal aid attorney outright refused to defend a detainee suspected of treason, calling the detainee a “traitor”.
• Lack of Challenge to Illegal Detention or Abuse: Few if any legal aid lawyers took steps to challenge the fact that their clients had been held arbitrarily or mistreated. OHCHR notes that ineffective representation hindered detainees from contesting their detention or reporting torture. One detainee observed that although a free legal aid lawyer was present during his interrogation at a temporary detention facility, the lawyer did not attempt to speak with him confidentially or intervene. The detainee felt the lawyer’s presence was purely formal and that the lawyer did not intend to actively defend him.
• Procedural Irregularities by Investigators: There were also reports of law enforcement violating procedure in gathering evidence. In several cases, SBU officers searched homes and seized objects (like laptops and cell phones) without court authorization or a formal notice of suspicion. After several days or weeks, officers returned with official warrants to “seize” the items that were already in their possession, apparently to retroactively legalize the initial seizure. Some interviewees reported that SBU officers planted evidence during searches, including at checkpoints when people were entering or leaving the country. Such actions undermine the integrity of the legal process and violate the right to a fair investigation.

HUMAN RIGHTS & ANALYTICAL HOUSE, INC. – 28 February 2025