Russia has committed flagrant human rights abuses in Ukraine since 2014, rules ECHR
The court's grand chamber unanimously held that between 11 May 2014 and 16 September 2022, when Russia ceased to be a party to the European convention on human rights it had committed 'manifestly unlawful conduct … on a massive scale'.
Pro-Russia armed groups entered the Donetsk and Luhansk regions of eastern Ukraine in 2014 and Russia began its full-scale invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022.
In its judgment, published on Wednesday, the court said there was evidence of widespread and systemic use of sexual violence, accompanied by acts of torture, such as beatings, strangling or electric shocks. Civilians and prisoners of war were subjected to mock executions, the severing of body parts and electric shocks, including to intimate areas of their bodies, the court said.
Finding repeated violations of the convention, many of which had taken place over a period of more than eight years, the court said: 'These actions seek to undermine the very fabric of the democracy on which the Council of Europe and its member states are founded by their destruction of individual freedoms, their suppression of political liberties and their blatant disregard for the rule of law.
'In none of the conflicts previously before the court has there been such near universal condemnation of the 'flagrant' disregard by the respondent state for the foundations of the international legal order established after the second world war.'
Ukraine hailed the judgment as 'historic and unprecedented', saying it was an 'undeniable victory'. Russia did not participate in the proceedings and said it would ignore the judgment.
Violations identified by the court included:
Indiscriminate military attacks.
Summary executions of civilians and Ukrainian military personnel.
Torture, including the use of rape as a weapon of war.
Unlawful and arbitrary detention of civilians.
Unjustified displacement and transfer of civilians.
Intimidation, harassment and persecution of all religious groups other than adherents of the historically Moscow-aligned Ukrainian Orthodox church.
Intimidation and violence against journalists and new laws prohibiting and penalising the dissemination of information in support of Ukraine.
Forcible dispersal by the Russian military of peaceful protests in occupied towns and cities.
Destruction, looting and expropriation of property.
Suppression of the Ukrainian language in schools and indoctrination of Ukrainian schoolchildren.
Transfer to Russia, and in many cases, the adoption there of Ukrainian children.
The court said: 'The prevalence of sexual violence and rape by Russian soldiers in occupied territory is especially abhorrent. The evidence shows the extreme violence of the circumstances in which women were raped or sexually assaulted and the intent to terrorise, humiliate and debase them … In addition to the impact on the direct victims, the raping of women and girls in the context of an armed conflict has also been described as a means for the aggressor to symbolically and physically humiliate the defeated men.
'Rape or the threat of rape is also used to drive communities off lands or to heighten terror during attacks. The evidence also attests to the horrific sexual violence frequently perpetrated upon male detainees. The sexual abuse, torture and mutilation of male detainees is often carried out to attack and destroy their sense of masculinity or manhood.'
Sign up to This is Europe
The most pressing stories and debates for Europeans – from identity to economics to the environment
after newsletter promotion
The judges said that sexual violence and rape were deployed in Ukraine after the February 2022 invasion 'as part of a military strategy to dehumanise, humiliate and break the morale of the Ukrainian population, as individuals and as a community, and to assert dominance over Ukrainian sovereign territory'.
The court will decide on whether to order compensation at a later date. However, Russia has previously told the court of its intention not to enforce judgments or pay damages.
A total of 26 signatory states to the convention intervened as third parties in the case and expressed their support for making Russia accountable for violations of human rights arising from its invasion of Ukraine.
The court also found that the shooting down of flight MH17 using a missile supplied and transported to eastern Ukraine by the Russian Federation, resulting in the deaths of all 298 civilians onboard, was in breach of the convention.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
7 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Trump expected to deliver weapons to Ukraine through Nato allies
Donald Trump appears poised to deliver weapons to Ukraine by selling them first to Nato allies in a major policy shift for his administration amid frustrations with Vladimir Putin over stalling negotiations to end the war in Ukraine. During an interview with NBC News, Trump said he will probably have a 'major announcement' on Russia on Monday and confirmed he had struck a deal with Nato leaders to supply weapons to Ukraine. Trump's Ukraine envoy, Keith Kellogg, is scheduled to arrive in Kyiv on the same day for a week-long trip that comes after the US temporarily halted weapons shipments to Ukraine as part of a Pentagon review of dwindling stockpiles of crucial munitions including Patriot air defense missiles. The White House has now sought to distance itself from the decision, and Trump has suggested he is ready to greenlight a major military aid package for Ukraine via Nato, reversing a previous policy of reducing support to the Ukrainian government to force Kyiv to sue for peace. 'I think I'll have a major statement to make on Russia on Monday,' Trump said during the interview with NBC News, which aired on Thursday evening. 'I'm disappointed in Russia, but we'll see what happens over the next couple of weeks.' During the interview, Trump laid out a plan by which the US could sell weapons to Nato and then they could be sent on to Ukraine. Trump has not previously approved packages of military aid to Ukraine. 'So what we're doing is the weapons that are going out are going to Nato, and then Nato is going to be giving those weapons [to Ukraine], and Nato is paying for those weapons,' Trump said, probably indicating that they would be purchased by countries that are members of the Nato security bloc. Administration officials have said this would be different from the US supplying Ukraine directly, as Nato and not Washington would be making the decision to arm Kyiv. Germany and other member states of the security bloc had spoken publicly about ongoing negotiations to purchase weapons from the United States to transfer to Ukraine. Ukraine is producing more modern weaponry including drones, but still relies on the US to supply everything from Patriot missiles to defend from nightly Russian missile and drone attacks, Himars long-range missiles to strike behind Russian lines, 155mm artillery shells and other munitions. The Axios news website said that some officials had said the US would only sell Ukraine 'defensive' weapons, while others said the package could also include 'offensive' weapons such as the Himars missiles. Yet a key stumbling block remains US military production. The US only has about 25% of the Patriot missile interceptors it needs for all of the Pentagon's military plans, the Guardian revealed this month, and fulfilling new orders can take years depending on the priority level given to the contract. Kellogg is expected to address the US weapons shipments during his visit to Kyiv, the first since shortly after Trump's inauguration. During the interview, Trump also endorsed the Sanctioning Russia Act of 2025, a bill introduced by Senator Lindsey Graham, a Trump ally seen as a leader of Russia hawks in the legislature. Graham has said that the bill would impose 'bone-breaking sanctions' on Putin and a 500% tariff on goods imported from countries that buy Russian oil and other goods, potentially targeting China and India. Sign up to This Week in Trumpland A deep dive into the policies, controversies and oddities surrounding the Trump administration after newsletter promotion Congressional insiders have told the Guardian that there is strong support for Ukraine in both the House of Representatives and the Senate but that they would require Trump's political backing in order to pass the bill. 'They're going to pass a very major and very biting sanctions bill, but it's up to the president as to whether or not he wants to exercise it,' Trump said during the interview, his first explicit endorsement of the bill. Experts have said that the bill would give Trump new methods to target Russia, but that he could also tighten enforcement or issue other sanctions unilaterally without waiting for authorization from Congress. Trump has said in the past that he admires Putin but he increasingly has vented frustration over the lack of progress in peace talks and the continued airstrikes against Ukrainian cities. On Wednesday night, Russia launched almost 400 Shahed drones and decoys, as well as ballistic and cruise missiles, in strikes against Kyiv that killed two and caused fires across the Ukrainian capital. 'We get a lot of bullshit thrown at us by Putin, if you want to know the truth,' Trump said during a cabinet meeting this week. 'He's very nice all the time, but it turns out to be meaningless.'
Telegraph
28 minutes ago
- Telegraph
How Trump is torpedoing Ukraine's reconstruction efforts
When it comes to the outlook for post-war Ukraine, hope springs eternal among the international community. Last week, scores of Western leaders, along with an army of NGOs, and thousands of businesses from around the world descended on Rome for the ambitiously named 'Ukraine Recovery Conference'. In the words of the organisers, the purpose of the summit was to devise a roadmap that will lead to 'the swift recovery and long-term reconstruction of Ukraine'. Hosted by Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, high-profile attendees included Donald Trump's special envoy to Ukraine Keith Kellogg, Volodymyr Zelensky, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz. In the build-up, the illustrious think tank Chatham House released an upbeat survey of what so-called 'civil society organisations' wanted from post-war reconstruction. Anti-corruption measures and assistance for young people in overcoming the trauma of war featured heavily on a wish list of the Ukrainian people, the report said. Over two packed days, there were sessions on how to repair Ukraine's crippled energy infrastructure, attract investment in the country's critical minerals, and ways to revitalise its shattered manufacturing industry. One panel, attended by foreign ministers from across Europe, was entitled: 'Ukraine's path to the EU'. Zelensky said the pacts that would be forged in the Italian capital would 'make Ukraine stronger'. But no amount of warm words and well-intentioned diplomacy can disguise the fact that Ukraine's future continues to be dictated by the whims of one man: Donald J Trump. A false start The reconstruction of a country that has suffered more than three years of relentless bombardment, will mostly come down to the generosity of strangers – mainly in the West. Without significant outside funding – much of it from private investors – Ukraine is destined to remain a hollowed-out husk for a generation or more. Yet in the days leading up to the Rome pow-wow, hopes for Ukraine's resurrection suffered a major setback after it emerged that Wall Street asset management giant BlackRock, a linchpin of efforts to raise tens of billions for the post-war rebuild, was no longer involved. Even more alarming for Ukraine, reports claim that it was ultimately Trump's election that prompted BlackRock to get cold feet and pull out. In the aftermath of Russia's invasion, the investment powerhouse was pivotal in the creation of something called 'The Ukraine Recovery Fund'. Described as Ukraine's 'Marshall Plan' – a nod to the US economic aid that paid for the reconstruction of Europe following the Second World War – the project was the brainchild of Australian billionaire Andrew 'Twiggy' Forrest. Yet having made his fortune amid the dirt and dust of Australia's frontier mining towns, Forrest needed someone with the heft to bring together global investors willing to pledge serious money to the fund. After a meeting between Zelensky and BlackRock chief Larry Fink, the Ukrainian government proudly announced that the Wall Street titan had agreed to coordinate 'the efforts of all potential investors and participants in the reconstruction of our country'. Weeks later, BlackRock confirmed it would 'advise the MoE [Ukraine's ministry of economy] on establishing a roadmap for the investment framework's implementation'. Forrest predicted that Ukraine would 'enter a golden era'. Fast forward to 2024, and Philipp Hildebrand, vice chairman of BlackRock, was confident that his firm had managed to raise in the region of $2.5bn (£1.8bn) from a club of Western allies, development banks, and private investors. The figure could eventually top $15bn, he thought. Yet even at the upper end of Hildebrand's estimates, it still would only have been a small fraction of the $525bn that the World Bank and others believe it will take to piece Ukraine back together. Forrest was even more optimistic – he envisaged the fund eventually having $100bn at its disposal. Such sums now look wildly overstated with the future of the fund undoubtedly hanging in the balance. Forrest had already expressed his reluctance to remain involved while the US president was talking about enforcing a peace deal on Ukraine that didn't have the blessing of the Ukrainian people. The expectation in Rome was that BlackRock would be in a position to unveil a big commitment from a consortium of investors. With it gone, who will coordinate fundraising from the capital markets now? Reports suggest France had been working on an alternative proposal but without heavyweight American backers, there are doubts about whether it would get off the ground. BlackRock's loss will be felt hard in Kyiv and beyond – but the way that Trump continues to cast a shadow over its sovereignty will be felt harder. It is indicative of a figure whose attitude towards Ukraine has flittered between indifference and outright hostility – in front of the world's media at the White House, no less – only for his stance to soften after repeated humiliations at the hands of a defiant Vladimir Putin. Such inconsistency appears to have ultimately been the catalyst for BlackRock's change of heart. Reports suggest that it was forced into an about-turn because Trump's flip-flopping had spooked the investors it was trying to round up. 'The only conversations that drive our decision-making are those with our clients,' a spokesman said. Failure to communicate Washington's chaotic approach is encapsulated in the debacle surrounding the Pentagon's recent decision to halt weapons deliveries to Ukraine. The move blindsided even those who are usually closely briefed on such matters, including members of Congress, State Department officials and key European allies, Politico reports. According to CNN, the list of people that Pete Hegseth, the US defence secretary failed to inform before authorising a pause on shipments included the president himself. With the White House seemingly unable to make up its mind on where it stands on Ukraine, it leaves the country's ability to determine its own destiny more uncertain than ever. The US is, by some margin, the largest single donor to Ukraine. It is also the biggest provider of military support. Kyiv is facing a deficit of as much as $19bn this year, largely driven by declining US assistance. The Kiel Institute for the World Economy, a German think tank, calculates that the US has provided just over €115bn (£99bn) of support to Ukraine – €3.4bn in humanitarian aid, €47bn in financial assistance, and €65bn in military funding. The country that has provided the next largest amount of aid is the UK, at €19bn. Some experts believe renewed US backing could change the course of the war. Some observers believe a different approach is required altogether. 'Past Ukraine Recovery Conferences have convened thousands of experts and produced grand ideas, with zero follow-through,' American diplomat Kurt Volker wrote in a piece for the Centre for European Policy Analysis, a Washington-based think tank. There are several obstacles to genuine progress, in his view. First, 'no one has taken charge of supporting Ukraine's economic recovery,' and secondly, 'war risk' – with the Kremlin's bombs still raining down on Ukraine 'major private investment has stayed on the sidelines', Volker, a former US ambassador to Nato, said. Victory on the battlefield has to come first, and that can only happen if Western funding increases dramatically to around $150bn from roughly $100bn a year, Timothy Ash, strategist at RBC Bluebay Asset Management, said. With the US looking to do the opposite and reduce its share, European leaders should bankroll the war effort with the $330bn of Russian central bank assets that are frozen in bank accounts across the continent, he said. Yet, concerns about the possible violation of international law, the destabilisation of financial markets, and possible Russian reprisals against Western companies that still have assets in Russia, have ensured the funds remain untouched. 'It's Russian taxpayer money, so we are spending our taxpayers' money to protect theirs. We're imbeciles and there can be no recovery and reconstruction unless you win the war,' Ash said.
Telegraph
28 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Sacred Mysteries: A daily sonnet cycle that strives to open the curtain
Sir Edward Leigh has been an independent-minded Conservative MP for a Lincolnshire constituency since 1983, making him Father of the House. In 2003 he voted against military intervention in Iraq. In 2024 he joined with Diane Abbott, the Mother of the House, in writing an article in the Guardian opposing the assisted suicide Bill. Now he has published Another Country, a verse celebration of every Sunday and saint's day in the church year. The approach is openly devotional and personal, a brave piece of transparency, perhaps, for a public figure. 'Daily Mass is a marvellous unfolding of the Old and New Testament readings and Psalms,' he explains. 'My aim was to try and achieve a kind of meditative lectio divina within the discipline of the sonnet form.' The discipline is loose, for though Sir Edward uses the favourite Elizabethan structure of three quatrains and a couplet, rhyming ABAB CDCD EFEF GG, the metre is free. There is some sound experience in the sonnets. I try my best at mindfulness. But on its own it seems a dead end. And I am prone to restlessness. I worry if my worries really are on the mend. I prefer to meditate with a purpose And with the help of Scripture. Each line of the sonnets ends with a full stop. Each sonnet is followed by what the author calls a haiku, with no punctuation. These are summary stanzas. After the sonnet quoted, one says : Be mindful surely But not just of your breathing But of eternity I was sorry to see some of the poems anxious about faith. 'Did I truly believe or not?' he asks on St Bridget of Sweden's day. I'd judge that he does believe firmly, as his daily practice of going to Mass suggests. On the feast of Sts Peter and Paul he hears the words 'Behold the Lamb of God'. He writes 'It was at this moment in the Mass. / That at these words I believed. ... And then the moment passes.' But surely what he feels is a religious experience consequent on faith. Faith is a supernatural virtue of believing a thing to be true because God has revealed it. It can't attain full comprehension of mysteries such as the inner life of God, nor need it provide feelings of pleasure in taking unseen truths on trust. Still, Sir Edward's instinct to grapple with mysteries is right. He considers 'How to resolve Christianity and Aristotelianism,' in a line from a sonnet for St Thomas Aquinas's day. The saint 'had a vision that made all his writings seem like straw. /And he wrote no more.' In the final sextet of the sonnet Sir Edward declares: 'We have the right to enter the sanctuary by a new way, /A living opening through the curtain.' This is a reference to the Epistle to the Hebrews (Chapter 10), which says that Jesus opened up 'a way through the curtain (that is, through his flesh)'. There, the curtain or veil is the entrance to the Holy of Holies in the Temple, or mystically to heaven. Still, to the poet, All questions seem unresolvable, no road could I lay. And then in a dream I saw a great sun-yellowed lake, I was no longer uncertain. The lake was undiluted love in the World. Occasionally the plain voice adopted may remind the reader of William McGonagall but the thought remains: No doubt the stable was draughty, the straw was itchy. But what divine light-giving redemption from someone so titchy. Another Country has 200 sonnets. Hundreds more are at
