According to the Law of Ukraine No. 1616-IX “On Indigenous Peoples of Ukraine” dated July 1, 2021, ethnic Ukrainians are not included in the list of indigenous peoples. This law, introduced by President Volodymyr Zelensky as urgent, granted indigenous status to three ethnocultural groups — Crimean Tatars, Krymchaks, and Karaites — without any limitations regarding their population size, place of residence, or citizenship, extending their rights across the entire territory of Ukraine.

At the same time, the titular nation — ethnic Ukrainians — as well as autochthonous Ukrainian subethnic groups such as Boykos, Hutsuls, Lemkos, Volynians, Podolians, Slobozhans, and Polishchuks, were entirely excluded from the list of indigenous peoples and from the system of collective rights. None of these groups received legal recognition as a people, despite their deep historical rootedness, unique cultural identity, and  ... Read more ⇢

v1.2
I. International Complicity in the Organization of Internal Terror in Ukraine

The European Union, the United States of America, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Switzerland, Japan, and other donor states bear direct international legal responsibility for complicity in organizing large-scale internal terror on the territory of Ukraine. By continuing to provide multibillion-dollar unconditional funding to the Ukrainian regime in the context of official derogation from its human rights obligations, these states effectively ensure the uninterrupted operation of a repressive apparatus committing systematic international crimes.

Part of the donor countries’ funds is directed toward financing:

• Forced mobilization of citizens, including elements of violence,

v4.7 - to be updated...

This document provides a comprehensive legal and factual analysis of systemic human rights violations and institutional repression in Ukraine between 2022 and 2025. Based on constitutional law, international treaties, and documented cases, it demonstrates how the Ukrainian government has employed selective conscription, suppression of dissent, and extrajudicial measures under undeclared state of war conditions. The report highlights the use of internal structures - including the Territorial Centers of Recruitment (TRC), the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU), and other state organs - to enforce coercive policies that undermine civil liberties, democratic governance, and legal protections.

The document is not written by a legal professional, but by a Ukrainian citizen directly affected by these policies. Its purpose is twofold:

(1) to raise awareness  ... Read more ⇢

Regarding the inquiry contained within Part I, Question 178 of the European Union (EU) Questionnaire and Responses for Ukraine’s Candidacy Status:

“Does Ukraine possess a National Human Rights Institution (NHRI)? Is it in compliance with the Paris Principles concerning NHRIs, and does the NHRI hold accreditation from GANHRI, including its accreditation status?”

Ukraine’s response elucidates that the sole human rights body operational within the nation is the Human Rights Ombudsman.

There is an absence of a legal advocacy institution as delineated in the disclosed questionnaire, which raises certain implications.

The Ukrainian Bar is a non-governmental, self-governing institution tasked with ensuring the provision of defense, representation, and other forms of legal assistance on a professional basis. Furthermore, it autonomously addresses matters concerning the organization and function of the legal profession in accordance with established legal statutes.

 ... Read more ⇢

The head of the state does not take adequate measures to restore the housing of Ukrainian citizens who were forced to move from occupied territories or areas where combat operations are conducted, as well as those who have lost their homes and other property due to the occupation.

Many Ukrainian citizens have relatives left in the occupied territories who require assistance and protection, yet the state takes no action to protect them and does not allow family reunions by prohibiting movement across the demarcation line with the occupied territories.

As a result of rights violations, Ukrainian citizens suffer both moral and material damage.

Moral harm is recognized as suffering inflicted on a citizen due to physical or psychological impact, leading to a deterioration or loss of opportunities to engage in their usual habits and desires, worsening relationships with others, and other negative moral consequences.

Compensation for moral harm is made in cases where unlawful actions by state bodies have inflicted moral loss on a citizen, led to the disruption of normal life connections, and req ... Read more ⇢

The leadership of the country is objectively suspected of embezzling property, that is, resources belonging to the citizens of Ukraine.

In 2023, with the assistance of parliament, the possibility was introduced to apply probationary supervision as a new form of punishment instead of imprisonment for individuals found guilty of abusing their official position, giving bribes, and bribing officials of private legal entities. In effect, such individuals would not face actual punishment.

Furthermore, one of the most frequently applied categories in the economic sphere is the composition of fraud as a criminal offense.

In Ukrainian judicial practice, for many cases of bribery, corruption, and official crimes, the criminal law provided by Article 190 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (fraud) is applied, as it can be demonstrated in court that the corrupt individual did not act as an official.

On August 11, 2023, a law came into effect amending Article 190 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. According to this, part 4 of the said article was renamed as part 5.

 ... Read more ⇢

Ukrainian administrative courts are systematically denying Ukrainian citizens satisfaction in lawsuits challenging the decisions of military personnel of the State Border Guard Service of Ukraine on the temporary restriction of their rights as Ukrainian citizens to leave Ukraine; the recognition as illegal and the annulment of their decisions to deny crossing the state border of Ukraine, and the obligation for them to provide Ukrainian citizens with permissions to cross the state border of Ukraine on a permanent basis according to the law, based on the passport of a citizen of Ukraine for foreign travel.

The basis for the refusal to satisfy the claim, as stated in the court decision, is that the court considers that the Rules for Crossing the State Border by Citizens of Ukraine, approved by the resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine No. 57 dated 17.01.1995 (hereinafter also referred to as the Rules), establish that in cases defined by legislation, for crossing the state border, citizens must also present supporting documents in addition to passport documents. According to the court’s conclusion, my right to leave the country was limited by specific provisions of the Rules for Crossing the State Border by Citizens of Ukraine. ... Read more ⇢

The separation of state power is the structural differentiation of three coequal primary functions of the state: legislative, executive, and judicial. It reflects the functional definiteness of each state organ, entails not only the demarcation of their powers but also their interaction, a system of mutual checks and balances aimed at ensuring their cooperation as a single state authority.

The principle of the separation of state powers only becomes meaningful under the condition that all state authorities act within a unified legal field.

This means that the legislative, executive, and judicial branches exercise their powers within the limits established by the Constitution of Ukraine and in accordance with the laws of Ukraine (Part Two of Article 6 of the Constitution).

State authorities and local self-government bodies, and their officials are obliged to act only on the basis, within the limits of the powers, and in the manner provided by the Constitution and laws of Ukraine (Part Two of Article 19 of the Constitution of Ukraine).

 ... Read more ⇢

In Ukraine, the actions of unlawful judicial authorities fail to protect the rights and legitimate interests of citizens.

During the judicial reform of 2016, the Supreme Court of Ukraine was abolished. A new Supreme Court was established in its place through a separate competition. The authors of the reform intended this process to purge the highest judicial body of corrupt judges. The parliament amended the Constitution and changed the name of the institution from “Supreme Court of Ukraine” (SCU) to simply “Supreme Court” (SC).

In February 2020, the Constitutional Court issued a decision declaring the abolition of the SCU unconstitutional and called on the parliament to immediately rectify the situation. This decision recognized the abolition of the Supreme Court of Ukraine and the provisions on lower amounts of lifetime financial support for retired judges who did not pass the qualification assessment as unconstitutional.

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in case No. 11423/19 “Gumenyuk and others vs. Ukraine” concluded that the abolition of the Supreme Court of Ukraine during the 2016 judicial reform was unlawful, as stated in  ... Read more ⇢

Ukrainian authorities and officials within the European Union are accusing thousands of Ukrainian men of crimes stipulated by Article 366 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (evasion from mobilization) without having sufficient grounds for such accusations, as they lack information that these individuals are sought for committed crimes. Consequently, they predispose local citizens of the EU against Ukrainian men, which may lead to illegal actions against Ukrainians who are refugees in other countries.

They assert that Ukrainians should return and fight for their families, thereby unequivocally proposing to discriminate against men. This constitutes discrimination on the basis of gender.

Article 14 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Rome, 4.XI.1950) prohibits discrimination. The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms recognized in this Convention must be secured without any discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, color of skin, language, religion, political or other beliefs, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property status, birth, or any other status.

 ... Read more ⇢

Thus, the Law of Ukraine “On Mobilization Preparation and Mobilization” was amended in 2005 with Article 23, during Ukraine’s first revolution (Orange Revolution), to include, among others, the right for members of the Ukrainian parliament and deputies of the Supreme Council of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea to defer conscription during mobilization.

In 2014, following the second revolution (Euromaidan), the aforementioned article was supplemented with a new section according to Law No. 1575-VII of July 3, 2014, establishing that full-time students are also exempt from conscription for military service during mobilization and special periods.

In 2022, following a large-scale invasion, the article was further amended to exempt individuals with a spouse with disabilities and/or one of their parents or the spouse’s parents with a disability of group I or II from conscription during mobilization (paragraph eleven of part one of Article 23 in the version of Law No. 2122-IX of March 15, 2022).

However, in 2023, the rights granted were narrowed, and individuals with a spouse with a disability and/or one of their parents or the spouse’s parents w ... Read more ⇢

By Resolution No. 724 of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine dated August 25, 2010, amendments were introduced to paragraph 4 of point 2 of the Rules for the Crossing of the State Border by Citizens of Ukraine, previously approved by its Resolution No. 57 dated January 27, 1995.

According to the aforementioned amendments, it was established that “In cases determined by legislation, for crossing the state border, citizens must also have supporting documents in addition to passport documents.”

Thus, the government had preemptively taken certain actions by adopting Resolution No. 724 dated August 25, 2010, which limited the existing scope of rights of Ukrainian citizens to cross the state border of Ukraine, and this was later utilized in 2022.

In 2022, continuing its unlawful actions aimed at narrowing the rights of Ukrainian citizens, the government introduced additional amendments to the Rules for the Crossing of the State Border by Citizens of Ukraine, approved by Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No. 57 dated January 27, 1995, specifically by adopting point 2-6 of these Rules,  ... Read more ⇢

The Constitutional Court of Ukraine, in its decision No. 10-r/2020 dated August 28, 2020, stated that “the restriction of constitutional rights and freedoms of a person and citizen is possible only in cases defined by the Constitution of Ukraine. Such restriction can only be established by law – an act adopted by the Verkhovna Rada as the sole legislative authority in Ukraine. Establishing such a restriction by a subordinate legal act contradicts Articles 1, 3, 6, 8, 19, 64 of the Constitution of Ukraine” (paragraph 3.2 of the reasoning part of the Decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine dated August 28, 2020, No. 10-r/2020).

The Constitutional Court of Ukraine clarified that, according to paragraphs 41 and 45 of the Report “Rule of Law,” approved by the European Commission “For Democracy through Law” (25-26 March 2011), the elements of the rule of law include: legality, including a transparent, accountable, and democratic process of enacting legal provisions; legal certainty; prohibition of arbitrariness; access to justice, represented by independent and impartial courts, including those exercising judicial oversight over administrative activity; respect for human rights; prohibition of ... Read more ⇢

Article 3 of Ukraine’s “Law on the Procedure for Departure from and Entry into Ukraine by Ukrainian Citizens” sets forth a straightforward principle: Ukrainian citizens should cross the state border at designated points, armed with the requisite documents enumerated in Article 2. This provision ensures a structured and lawful framework for international travel.

However, Regulation No. 57 introduces a murky area during martial law periods, failing to explicitly mandate additional documentation for men, thereby creating a loophole that undermines the clarity and intent of the law. Moreover, the regulation ambiguously skirts around the issue of whether Ukrainian males aged 18 to 60 are outright forbidden from exiting Ukraine during martial law, leaving room for arbitrary enforcement and potential misuse of power.

Paragraph 2 of the Rules attempts to clarify the procedure for crossing the state border, emphasizing the necessity of presenting legally sanctioned documents, such as a passport for international travel. The law underscores that any supplementary document requirements must be transparently stipulated within the legislative texts. Yet, the ambig ... Read more ⇢

State officials in Ukraine are engaged in a blatant disregard for constitutional rights, notably violating Article 33 of the Ukrainian Constitution, which unequivocally guarantees every individual within Ukraine’s territory the freedom of movement, the free choice of residence, and the unrestricted right to leave the country, subject only to legal restrictions. In a grave overstep, these officials are enforcing subordinate regulations—namely, the Rules for crossing the state border established by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine under Law No. 3857-XII—which, not being laws themselves, starkly contradict the Constitution, the Law of Ukraine, and the stipulations of international treaties.

This overreach is further compounded by the military command’s misuse of their authority to limit citizens’ movements, an authority that should be strictly defined by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine as outlined in point 6 of part 1 of Article 8 of the Law “On the Legal Regime of Martial Law”. The “Procedure for establishing a special regime of entry and exit, restriction of the freedom of movement of citizens, foreigners, and stateless persons, as well as the movement of vehicles in Ukraine or in its  ... Read more ⇢

In a blatant defiance of the legal framework set by Law 389-VIII, “On the Legal Regime of Martial Law,” dated May 12, 2015, the military command has engaged in egregious overreaches that starkly violate the constitutional rights of Ukrainian citizens. This law, which specifies the conditions under which martial law may be invoked, clearly limits the scope of temporary restrictions on rights and freedoms to those expressly outlined by presidential decree and ratified by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine.

Contrary to these legal stipulations, the military command has usurped powers not granted to them, notably by imposing unwarranted restrictions on citizens’ freedom to move and cross borders. Such actions blatantly contravene the directives of Article 3, Section 2, and point 6 of part 1 of Article 8 of Law 389, which confine military authority to specific measures such as establishing special entry and exit regimes within Ukraine, as detailed by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine No. 1455 resolution dated December 29, 2021.

This unauthorized assertion of power by the military at border crossings is a clear infringement of the Law of Ukraine “On the Procedure for Exit from Ukraine and Entry into Ukraine of ... Read more ⇢

Article 106 of the Ukrainian Constitution clearly delineates the powers vested in the President of Ukraine, notably omitting any authority to curtail citizens’ rights, even amidst the enactment of martial law. Despite this constitutional limitation, Ukrainian courts have erroneously upheld Presidential Decree No. 64/2022, dated 24 February 2022, “On the Imposition of Martial Law in Ukraine,” as a basis for restricting the fundamental right of citizens to freely exit the country during martial law periods.

Such interpretations grossly exceed the constitutional framework, as it is unequivocally impermissible under Ukrainian law to introduce amendments or new regulations that impose restrictions on the freedom of citizens to leave the country that are more stringent than those existing at the time of the Constitution’s enactment in 1996.

The constitutional and legal landscape of Ukraine does not permit the amendment of the Law of Ukraine “On the Procedure for Exit from Ukraine and Entry into Ukraine for Ukrainian Citizens” or the enactment of other regulatory legal acts to unjustly narrow the pre-established right of Ukrainian c ... Read more ⇢

Despite the clear directives of Part 2 of Article 64 and Article 24 of the Constitution of Ukraine, which mandate the equality of all citizens and prohibit any restrictions on constitutional rights and freedoms based on gender, social, or economic status, even during martial law, Ukrainian authorities have instituted discriminatory practices that starkly contravene these constitutional provisions.

Article 24 emphatically asserts the principle of equality before the law, explicitly forbidding any form of discrimination, including on the grounds of gender or social origin. Yet, in a blatant disregard for these constitutional safeguards, Ukrainian policies during martial law have unjustly targeted men aged 18 to 60, along with those outside the echelons of state leadership, imposing on them undue restrictions on their right to exit the country.

This selective enforcement of travel restrictions not only violates the Constitution of Ukraine but also undermines the very principles of equality and justice that form the bedrock of a democratic society. The imposition of such discriminatory measures based on gender and social status is a direct affront to the rule of l ... Read more ⇢

State officials and the judiciary in Ukraine are engaging in a flagrant violation of the Constitution by failing to uphold the unequivocal mandates of Article 22, which solemnly guarantees the inviolability of constitutional rights and freedoms. This article explicitly states that no new law or amendment can curtail the breadth and depth of the existing rights and liberties afforded to Ukrainian citizens.

The government’s enactment of subordinate legislative acts that diminish these rights further exacerbates this breach of constitutional duty, directly contravening the legal principle that no legislative change should ever infringe upon the established freedoms of the populace.

Current Ukrainian legislation categorically prohibits any modification to laws that would unjustly impose additional constraints on the citizens’ inherent freedom to exit the country or evade conscription during periods of mobilization, as previously delineated by law.

The situation is further aggravated by pervasive discriminatory practices sanctioned by the state, in clear violation of Part 2 of Article 64 and Article 24 of the Constitution of Ukraine. These articles enshrine t ... Read more ⇢

In a flagrant violation of constitutional law, military entities such as the Armed Forces of Ukraine, State Border Guard Service of Ukraine, National Guard of Ukraine, and others, along with state and judicial bodies and their officials, are systematically infringing upon the rights and freedoms of Ukrainian citizens, directly contravening Article 17 of the Constitution of Ukraine. This article explicitly prohibits the use of military formations to restrict citizens’ liberties.

Despite the clear mandate in Article 1 of the Law of Ukraine on the Armed Forces of Ukraine, which obligates military administrative bodies to uphold the constitutional ban against employing the Armed Forces to curtail civil rights, there exists a pervasive pattern of rights violations orchestrated by the military. These include unauthorized detentions at borders, prevention of citizens’ departures, arbitrary street detentions, and illicit confinements within so-called mobilization and social support centers - Territorial Center for Recruitment and Social Support.

Such actions not only defy the Constitution but also transgress criminal law, as delineated in Part 3 of Article 371 and Part 3 of Article 146 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. These articles pre ... Read more ⇢

Ukrainian courts are engaging in a deliberate and egregious violation of international law by systematically ignoring the rights enshrined in significant international treaties to which Ukraine is unequivocally bound. The blatant disregard for Protocol No. 4 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, ratified under Ukrainian Law No. 475/97-VR on 17 July 1997, which unequivocally grants individuals the right to leave any country, is a stark testament to the judiciary’s neglect of its legal obligations.

This flagrant oversight is compounded by the courts’ failure to uphold Article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, ratified by Decree No. 2148-VIII on 19 October 1973, which similarly safeguards the freedom of movement. The judiciary’s neglect of this critical provision further exposes a deep-seated contempt for Ukraine’s international commitments.

The disregard extends to Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a cornerstone of global human rights adopted on 10 December 1948, which guarantees freedom of movement and residence. The Ukrainian judiciary’s  ... Read more ⇢

From a legal standpoint, the concept of “martial law” is more thoroughly delineated within Ukraine’s “Law on the Legal Regime of Martial Law” compared to the vague treatment of a “state of war” in the “Defense of Ukraine Law.” The crucial distinction rests on international acknowledgment of Ukraine being in a state of war, a status vital for rectifying breached human rights. Yet, the Ukrainian government’s failure to formally recognize a state of war with the Russian Federation has left Ukraine and Russia in a de facto state of peace. This omission blocks the path to formally concluding the war, achieving peace, and significantly, robs Ukrainian citizens of the chance to reclaim their rights and seek reparations for the war’s toll from Russia.

The imposition of martial law in Ukraine has led to curtailed citizen rights, with far-reaching implications for Ukraine’s diplomatic engagements, notably hindering Ukrainian citizens’ prospects of obtaining reparations from Russia through international legal channels.

Currently, in the eyes of international legal bodies, from the UN to various arbitration panels, the conflict is not recognized as a war. There exists a state of ... Read more ⇢

According to Article 106, Section 20 of the Constitution of Ukraine, the President, in accordance with the law, decides on general or partial mobilization and the imposition of martial law in Ukraine or in its specific areas in the event of a threat of aggression, danger to the state independence of Ukraine.

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 1 of the Law of Ukraine “On the Legal Regime of Martial Law” of December 12, 2015, No. 389-VIII, martial law is a special legal regime introduced in Ukraine or in its specific areas in the event of armed aggression or the threat of attack, danger to the state independence of Ukraine, its territorial integrity, and involves granting the relevant state authorities, military command, military administrations, and local self-government bodies the powers necessary to prevent the threat, repel armed aggression, and ensure national security, eliminate the threat to the state independence of Ukraine, its territorial integrity, as well as the temporary restriction of the constitutional rights and freedoms of individuals and citizens and the rights and lawful interests of legal entities with the indication of the duration of these restrictions.

 ... Read more ⇢