War Crimes Trials in Ukraine And The Pursuit Of Justice As The War Continues

As of September 1, 2025, the Prosecutor General of Ukraine had registered some 179,803 criminal offenses, considered to be war crimes, as a result of Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine. This number is expected to continue to rise, as the war rages on with little consideration for the laws of war and armed conflict, as displayed by Russia’s military. What is being done with the evidence collected so far? The last few years have seen several trials proceeding before domestic courts in Ukraine. As the trials proceed, civil society organizations monitor their progress to ensure that they are in accordance with international law standards.

On September 23, 2025, the Ukraine Bar Association (UBA), a Ukrainian non-governmental organization (NGO) of over 7,000 members uniting lawyers from all areas of the legal profession in the country, published the results of their monitoring of war crimes trials in Ukraine. The report, titled “Monitoring Court Proceedings and Analyzing Court Decisions in War Crimes Cases (under Article 438 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine),” focuses on the quality of justice in war crimes cases in response to Russia’s war of aggression in Ukraine.

Between November 2024 and June 2025, the UBA, as assisted by partners and implemented with the support of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) under the Justice for All Program and later EU Project Pravo-Justice, monitored 292 criminal proceedings across ten regions of Ukraine. The report identified good practices but also areas requiring further attention and improvement.

Among the good practices, the report found that in the vast majority of cases, monitors had free access to court hearings. The national judiciary and law enforcement agencies generally facilitated the monitoring. The courts generally facilitated the participation of the public (monitors, representatives of NGOs) and the media in war crimes proceedings. In some cases, judges clearly explained the terms of attendance and recording of the proceedings, which increased trust in the judiciary. Closed court hearings took place mainly in conflict-related sexual violence (CRSV) related proceedings, and where there were risks to the safety of participants in the proceedings.

The report further found that during the monitoring, there were no signs of bias or biased behavior of the court. The judges acted within their powers, ensured equal treatment of the parties, and did so without demonstrating favoritism. In a number of proceedings, the courts demonstrated proactivity in taking measures to establish the whereabouts of the accused and to properly notify them of the trial. Furthermore, procedural decisions made during the monitored court hearings were properly motivated and were made in compliance with the principle of adversarial proceedings. The monitoring revealed no violations of the accused’s access to a state-appointed defense counsel. In proceedings where the defendants are physically present at the court hearing, their right to defense is duly ensured. The accused have the opportunity to communicate confidentially with their defense counsels, and the court provides sufficient time for consultations, which allows for quality preparation for the trial.

The monitoring report notes several recommendations, including ensuring that there is a centralized database for criminal proceedings for war crimes. As the report stressed, “the fragmentation of sources and the lack of a unified presentation make it impossible to fully cover all hearings in this category of cases.” The report raised the issue that in a number of proceedings, there were cases of defense counsels’ participation that did not meet the standards of effective defense. It also stressed that in a number of proceedings, there was a lack of proper practical, emotional, and psychological support for victims. As the report emphasized: “Ignoring the needs of these persons, including in the context of trauma, indicates a lack of systemic implementation of a support-based approach. This does not comply with the principles of sensitive justice and may negatively affect a person’s ability to fully participate in the process.”

The monitoring report provides several recommendations for Ukraine and partners to ensure that justice initiatives are duly assisted.

Ukraine, while still fighting the aggressor and trying to stop Russia from occupying more regions of the country, has been doing the unheard of – fighting also the legal battle and taking steps to ensure that Russia’s crimes are documented, investigated and prosecuted, both domestically and internationally. Ukraine must be supported in these efforts to ensure that victims/survivors see justice and accountability being done during their lifetimes.