In a landmark opinion released last week, the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (WGAD) found that the detention of six Ukrainian nationals by Russian authorities following the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, as well as their transfer to Russia, violated binding international human rights and humanitarian law (Opinion No. 34/2025, adopted by the WGAD at its 102nd session).
The case was brought by EPLN and Protection for Prisoners of Ukraine (PPU). It concerned six Ukrainian nationals who were serving criminal sentences in Kherson Oblast, imposed lawfully by Ukrainian courts prior to Russia’s full-scale invasion and occupation of the region.
Following the invasion and the occupation of their penitentiary facilities, the six victims – along with about 1,800 other prisoners – spent months under Russian control. In early November 2022, Russian authorities forcibly transferred them from facilities in Kherson to penal colonies in Russia. They were also held incommunicado for extended periods and some of them had their sentence, handed down by Ukrainian tribunals, “converted” under Russian law.
Incommunicado Detention, Coercive Transfer, Discriminatory Pattern
The WGAD specifically found that the victims’ detention was arbitrary due to:
- The incommunicado nature of their detention by the Russian authorities, which prevented the victims from challenging the lawfulness of their deprivation of liberty.
- Their forcible transfer from occupied Ukraine to Russia, which had a “deleterious impact on the detainees’ rights” (§ 82), including on their ability to to challenge the basis for their detention, access to legal assistance, and family life.
- The “conversion” of the sentence of three out of six victims under Russian law, which breached the principle of non-retroactivity, and which the victims were not able to challenge.
- The discriminatory nature of their detention, as the differential treatment they endured on account of their Ukrainian nationality, fit “within a larger pattern directed against Ukrainian detainees” (§ 90).
The WGAD also took serious note of the allegations of ill-treatment, torture, and forced labour against the victims, and urged Russia to “cease engaging in torture of detainees and investigate and punish incidents of torture committed against detainees” (§ 92) .
The Working Group called on the Russian authorities to:
- Immediately release the three applicants still in detention;
- Ensure an enforceable right to compensation for all six victims;
- Conduct a full and independent investigation into the victims’ detention and to take appropriate measures against those responsible.
Strengthening the Human Rights Framework in Conflict, While Avoiding a Clear Position on Forced Transfers
This case is important as it:
- Highlights the particular vulnerability of civilian prisoners in situations of armed conflict and occupation, due to their situation of captivity and dependence on occupying forces.
- Contributes to the emerging body of international legal responses to the war in Ukraine, and specifically reinforces protections for Ukrainian civilian prisoners targeted by Russia’s unlawful policies and practices.[1]
- Strengthens the international consensus that international human rights law, including the prohibition of arbitrary detention “continues to apply during times of armed conflict in parallel to international humanitarian law” (§ 65).
The WGAD did not explicitly qualify the forced transfer of detainees by the occupying power to its own territory as a stand-alone violation. While it cited both international human rights and humanitarian law provisions prohibiting such transfers, it ultimately treated the transfer as a factor that exacerbated the arbitrariness of the detention.[2]
Occupation-Induced Legal Disruption Overlooked
The WGAD rejected EPLN and PPU’s argument that the applicants’ detention lost its legal basis and became arbitrary as soon as they came under occupation of the Russian forces. We maintained that the Russian authorities’ policies and practices in occupied Ukraine contradict the law of occupation (in particular Article 43 of the Fourth Hague Convention and Article 64 of the Fourth Geneva Convention).
Contrary to their obligation to maintain, as far as possible, the legal order existing prior to the occupation – including the functioning of tribunals and prison institutions – Russia has disrupted and dismantled the legal and administrative order in occupied Ukrainian territories.[3]
These circumstances, as well as the systemic torture and ill-treatment of inmates in the occupied Ukrainian prisons, in our view, do not permit characterising the continuing detention of Ukrainian prisoners under Russian occupation as a legitimate enforcement of the Ukrainian legal order by the occupying power. Accordingly, we contend that the detention of prisoners under the occupation is arbitrary and unlawful in view of the disruption of the legal order in occupied Ukraine.
Read the full Opinion >>
[1] At the United Nations level, see in particular: Human Rights Committee, Bratsylo, Golovko, and Konyukhov v. Russia, no. CCPR/C/140/D/3022/2017, 27 March 2024. At the Council of Europe level, see ECtHR, Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia [GC], nos. 8019/16 and 3 others, 9 July 2025 and ECtHR, Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea) [GC], nos. 20958/14 and 38334/18, 25 June 2024.
[2] See § 82: after describing the impact of transfers to remote locations on access to family visits and legal assistance, the WGAD noted that “to the extent international humanitarian law applies to these civilians who were detained for reasons unconnected to the conflict, it would also not permit their transfer” (emphasis added). Quoting Article 76 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, it stressed that protected persons “accused of offences shall be detained in the occupied country” and serve their sentence there. It further argued that this protection is “consistent with the fundamental principle forbidding deportations” (ibid.).
[3] See in this regard, OHCHR, Human Rights Situation during the Russian Occupation of Territory of Ukraine and its Aftermath, 24 February 2022 – 31 December 2023, 24 March 2024, in particular Section Section VI (C).