Survivors at the Heart of Transitional Justice: What UHHRU’s Research Revealed

The Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union has published an analytical study providing a comprehensive examination of access to guarantees for two of the most vulnerable categories of persons affected by Russia’s armed aggression: those deprived of liberty and those whose housing has been damaged or destroyed. The full text of the study is available below.

War is not only a front line. It is millions of people whose rights have been violated and whose paths to redress either do not function or remain out of reach.

Despite Russia’s systematic violations of international humanitarian law — from the deliberate destruction of infrastructure to the unlawful imprisonment of civilians — Ukraine has yet to establish a coherent transitional justice framework. Instead, survivors face bureaucratic barriers, legislative gaps, and the absence of meaningful mechanisms for obtaining assistance.

It is precisely this gap between declared rights and lived reality that UHHRU’s analytical team set out to examine.

Ukrainian version: Постраждалі особи у фокусі перехідного правосуддя: що показало дослідження УГСПЛ?

Who Conducted the Research and How

The study was carried out by a team of lawyers and analysts from the Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union: Olena Semorkina, Aksana Filipishyna, and Vladlena Padun, with Natalia Kozhyna and Natalia Voinova contributing the sections on practical tools for civil servants.

Data collection ran from April to June 2026 and combined several methods:

• analysis of legislation and international standards;
• an online survey of 244 respondents, including survivors, lawyers, human rights defenders, and civil servants;
• three focus groups (71 participants) on the topics of destroyed property and civilian hostages;
• an expert discussion with 41 specialists (June 23, 2026);
• official information requests to the Ministry of Communities Development, the Office of the Prosecutor General, and the Secretariat of the Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights.

What the Research Found

Reparations for Destroyed Housing: A Mechanism That Exists but Falls Short

The national reparations mechanism is built on modern digital infrastructure — and that is one of its strengths. In practice, however, it does not deliver a meaningful right to housing recovery.

The main problems identified include:

• excessive evidentiary requirements for proof of ownership, particularly for those who lost documents as a result of the war;
• the absence of individual support for vulnerable groups;
• the effective exclusion of residents of temporarily occupied territories and those affected between 2014 and 2021;
• inconsistent practices among local commissions and limited opportunities to appeal their decisions;
• low awareness of the Register of Damages for Ukraine among both survivors and civil servants.

Civilian Hostages: A Fragmented System Unfit for Purpose

Civilians deprived of liberty on temporarily occupied territories or in Russia itself face serious barriers at the very first stage — obtaining official status.

Documented problems include unjustified refusals to establish the fact of deprivation of liberty, requirements to provide documents that are physically impossible to obtain under conditions of occupation or incommunicado detention, and the absence of systematic medical, psychological, and social support following release.

The current system remains fragmented and fails to ensure equal, continuous access to assistance for all affected persons.

Key Recommendations

The study sets out concrete recommendations for the state — both legislative and practical.

On housing reparations: move from rigid administrative evidentiary requirements to a flexible approach that reflects the realities of war; scale up successful local practices; strengthen methodological support for communities; and introduce an integrated approach to delivering guarantees.

On civilian hostages: improve legislation on the protection of the rights of civilians deprived of liberty; simplify the procedure for establishing the fact of deprivation of liberty; eliminate grey areas in payments and reparations; and transition the relevant Commission to a permanent professional basis with transparent selection and clear standards for reasoned decision-making.

Overarching recommendation: develop and adopt a national transitional justice framework — without it, individual measures will remain reactive fixes rather than systemic rights protection.

Context: Where Ukraine Stands

The study also documents that Ukraine has already begun implementing certain elements of transitional justice: the Register of Damages for Ukraine under the Council of Europe is operational, a Compensation Commission is being established, standards for investigating war crimes are being developed, and a Law on State Policy of National Memory was adopted in 2025.

These remain, however, situational responses without a unifying architecture. Most have been initiated by civil society organizations rather than emerging from a coherent state strategy. The opacity of decision-making on categories of survivors and types of support deepens social tensions and intensifies what the study describes as “competition among survivors”.

Authors and Acknowledgements

The authors extend their gratitude to the Ministry of Communities and Territories Development of Ukraine, the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine, the Coordination Headquarters for the Treatment of Prisoners of War, the Coordination Center for Victims and Witnesses Support of the Office of the Prosecutor General, the Secretariat of the Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights, the Higher School of Public Governance, the Coordination Center for Legal Aid Provision, the All-Ukrainian Association of Administrative Service Centers, and UHHRU’s public reception offices.

This study was prepared as part of a project implemented by the International Organization for Migration (IOM) with the support of the U.S. Department of State. The views expressed in the materials are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. Department of State or IOM.