Criticism of Amnesty International's Recent Work in Ukraine Overlooks an Established History of Human Rights Reporting in the Region
Documenting alleged war crimes on all sides of a violent conflict isn't 'propaganda' or 'disinformation.'
Update 8/12/2022 - Protecting civilians — not militaries — should always come first in times of war. To better illustrate established records of alleged human rights violations similar to those reported by Amnesty International in the region, this article has been updated to include an additional section detailing UN human rights reports from 2017 to 2021, in addition to the 2016 reports originally cited.
A Brief Note: I’m not an expert on Eastern European politics; however, I have a formal education in political science that focused intently on international politics, political violence and human rights. In the months following the Russian invasion of Ukraine, I’ve relied on that education, and the research skills it provided me, to better understand the conflict and the region’s overall history and geopolitics. I’ve spent the last half-year poring over archived news reports and official human rights documentation spanning over half a decade. Based on that in-depth reading, when Amnesty International released its human rights report on Ukraine last week, I wasn’t surprised by its findings. I was, however, taken aback by the backlash that accompanied its release. I wrote this article to share some of the things I’ve read and learned over the last five months and also, hopefully, to inspire good-faith conversations about whether global peace and human rights should have a more prominent place in foreign policy.
On Thursday, the international human rights organization Amnesty International released a new report that raised important questions about possible human rights violations related to the conflict in Ukraine — and sparked controversy across the Western world.
The report, which the 61-year-old non-governmental organization says was based on strike site inspections; interviews with survivors, witnesses and relatives of victims of attacks; and remote-sensing and weapons analyses conducted by Amnesty International researchers between April and July, found that “Ukrainian fighting tactics endanger civilians.” Emphasizing that “such violations in no way justify Russia’s indiscriminate attacks, which have killed and injured countless civilians,” the report noted:
Most residential areas where [Ukrainian] soldiers located themselves were kilometres away from front lines. Viable alternatives were available that would not endanger civilians — such as military bases or densely wooded areas nearby, or other structures further away from residential areas. In the cases it documented, Amnesty International is not aware that the Ukrainian military who located themselves in civilian structures in residential areas asked or assisted civilians to evacuate nearby buildings — a failure to take all feasible precautions to protect civilians.1
In response to the report, Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy criticized the organization for ignoring recent shelling around a nuclear facility that he attributed to Russian forces. His criticisms were echoed by public figures and members of the general public alike.
Still, some news outlets with journalists reporting in the region made observations similar to those described in the Amnesty International report. An Aug. 4 article from the Guardian noted:
Guardian reporters have seen at least seven instances in three regions of Ukraine where schools and nurseries in residential areas were used as bases by the Ukrainian army. Five of the schools and nurseries the Guardian visited had been bombed. In each instance, several surrounding buildings were damaged in the attack.2
An Aug. 5 article from NPR detailing the report’s public responses and internal criticisms made similar observations:
Like Amnesty International, NPR's journalists also have witnessed some evidence of military presence near bombed civilian areas. Ukrainian officials have claimed that their defensive posture against Russia justifies all tactics used so far, and that the report unfairly implicates Ukraine in war crimes. One top adviser to Ukraine's president even accused the human rights group of being Russian propagandists fostering disinformation.3
If history is any guide, though, international human rights organizations that document alleged human rights violations on all sides of a violent conflict aren’t producing propaganda or disinformation. They also aren’t doing anything unusual — even when it comes to Ukraine.
A history of violence
Amnesty International officials have defended and continue to stand by the report’s findings despite criticism from Oksana Pokalchuk, Amnesty Ukraine's leader, who has since resigned and criticized the organization over its release of the report.
Despite the controversy surrounding the report, this isn’t the first time international human rights organizations have raised concerns about armed Ukrainian-aligned groups embedding themselves in populated areas during times of violent conflict in the region.
A 2016 human rights report from the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights observed that “in both Government and armed-group controlled areas of Donetsk and Luhansk regions, OHCHR continued to observe a disregard for the principle of distinction between civilians and those taking active part in hostilities.”4
The OHCHR report went on to note:
25. Ukrainian armed forces and armed groups maintained their positions and further embedded their weapons and forces in populated areas, in violation of their obligations under international humanitarian law. In Shyrokyne, a key location in the ‘grey zone’ between the Government-controlled city of Mariupol and the town of Novoazovsk controlled by the armed groups, OHCHR documented extensive use of civilian buildings and locations by the Ukrainian military and the Azov regiment, and looting of civilian property, leading to displacement. Prima facie civilian buildings in Donetsk city, such as residential buildings, a shelter for homeless people, and a former art gallery, continued to be used by armed groups, thereby endangering civilians. In the village of Kominternove, Donetsk region, residents reported that members of the armed groups of the ‘Donetsk between the armed groups stationed in Kominternove and Ukrainian armed forces stationed people’s republic’ took over abandoned houses. In January and February 2016, hostilities in the nearby village of Vodiane have endangered the local population.
26. Armed groups and Ukrainian armed forces also continued to position military forces in or near hospitals. In Telmanove, armed members of the ‘Donetsk people’s republic’ have occupied part of the general hospital building, which is adjacent to a maternity hospital and sustained damage from shelling. In Volnovakha, Ukrainian armed forces were stationed in close proximity to a local hospital. OHCHR recalls that hospitals are specifically protected under article 11 of Additional Protocol II to the Geneva Conventions, which are binding on the warring parties.5
As it should have, the 13th OHCHR report also critically documented alleged violations of human rights and humanitarian law by Russian-aligned armed groups in eastern Ukraine during the same period, pointing out that “civilians perceived to be affiliated with the armed groups or supporting Ukrainian armed forces were arrested, detained, and subjected to ill-treatment, in violation of the basic and binding protections of common article 3 of the Geneva Conventions,”6 among other devastating accounts.
The 14th report from the OHCHR, covering 16 February to 15 May 2016, also documented similarly disturbing allegations on both sides, highlighting a horrible situation that left civilians in danger and deadly landmines buried in the region:
13. Since 16 February 2016, the ceasefire in the east of Ukraine has slowly unravelled. The skirmishes in Avdiivka and Yasynuvata (both in Donetsk region) that erupted in the beginning of March 2016 are ongoing, affecting both towns on either side of the contact line, with populations of 35,000 each. Since mid-April, an increase in heavy weaponry use has been observed by monitors of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) near the contact line. The presence of tanks and anti-aircraft missiles in residential areas endangers civilians and indicates that the risk of a re-escalation in hostilities remains high. A renewed “cessation of fire” reached in late April (ahead of the Orthodox Easter) stymied the spike in hostilities, but remains precarious. The armed conflict between the Government of Ukraine and the armed groups of the ‘Donetsk people’s republic’ and ‘Luhansk people’s republic’ continues to be fought without due regard for civilian protection.
14. Ukrainian armed forces and armed groups continue to lay landmines, including anti-personnel mines, despite Ukraine’s obligations as a State party to the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty. Credible estimates indicate that mines contaminate large areas of agricultural land in east Ukraine, often in areas which are poorly marked, near roads and surrounding civilian areas. This has resulted in civilians being killed and maimed, often while walking to their homes and fields. These risks are particularly acute for people living in towns and settlements near the contact line, as well as the 23,000 people who cross the contact line every day.7
Alongside those findings, the OHCHR report detailed disturbing accounts of human rights violations initiated by Russian-aligned groups (as did Amnesty International’s recent report).
Throughout their contents, the 2016 OHCHR reports read like a nightmarish record of disturbing actions initiated by both Ukrainian- and Russian-aligned groups, with alleged incidents of unlawful or arbitrary detainment8, convictions based on forced confessions,9 accounts of torture10 and other horrifying actions zigzagging through the pages like a deadly ball being tossed back and forth.
Despite documenting countless instances where armed groups and government forces aligned with both Russia and Ukraine have allegedly endangered civilians over the last half-decade, the purpose of the OHCHR country reports on Ukraine have not been to disseminate “disinformation” or “propaganda” in favor of one government or the other. Rather, those reports have been prepared to ensure international humanitarian laws are respected amid violent conflict to protect civilians, including children, caught in or around dangerous regions. The same is true of Amnesty International’s extensive human rights research in Ukraine, which dates back to 1992.
Established patterns
While the details of the 2016 human rights reports from the UN were disturbing, subsequent reports between 2017 and 2021 show that similar alleged violations continued for years across the small country. An OHCHR report from the next year, 2017, observed:
26. Firstly, the placement of military objectives in densely populated areas, through military occupation and use of civilian property, continued, heightening the risk to civilian lives on both sides of the contact line. In a reversal of a positive development previously reported, OHCHR documented the return of Ukrainian Armed Forces to Kamianka village (Yasynuvata district of Donetsk region) and use of civilian property from April 2017. As a likely consequence of renewed military use, HRMMU noted increased shelling of the village in May, and the injury of a boy by shelling in June. In Lopaskyne (Luhansk region), following advocacy by OHCHR, the Ukrainian Armed Forces vacated a private residential building, enabling its rightful owner to return.11
Despite that improvement, military occupation of residential homes allegedly continued, as noted in a 2018 UN report:
38. During the reporting period, OHCHR continued to document cases of military use of private homes without consultation with, or restitution/compensation for, the owner. Assurances had been given by the Government that such military use would occur only in strict compliance with the law, however interlocutors informed OHCHR that established procedures were not followed. OHCHR notes that the right to housing, land and property restitution and compensation is essential to conflict resolution and to post-conflict peace-building.12
Another OHCHR report, this time from 2020, documented similar patterns:
42. OHCHR continued to document the extended military use of civilian property without lease agreements and/or compensation. Residents of Government-controlled Avdiivka, Krasnohorivka, Marinka and Novotroitske (all in Donetsk region) informed OHCHR that their housing was being used by the military without compensation, and that some continued to receive utility bills generated by the military.13
A 2021 OCHCR report noted that alleged human rights violations continued to be committed by all sides of the ongoing conflict throughout the nation:
116. Added to the hardships caused by the ongoing pandemic and related restrictions, human rights violations continued to be committed across the entirety of Ukraine, in Government-controlled territory, territory controlled by self-proclaimed ‘republics’, and Crimea.
117. In Government-controlled territory, key issues include continued cases of torture and ill-treatment, notably due to police violence, as well as a general lack of accountability. The administration of justice continued to be flawed, while national minorities, notably Roma, and LGBTI persons, were subjected to hate speech. Human rights defenders, including women human rights defenders, continued to be targeted, notably by extreme right-wing groups, who also harassed and attacked those considered to be “pro-Russian”, for example members of political parties. Much more needs to be done to ensure the population’s economic and social rights, notably those of the most vulnerable, such as homeless persons and persons with intellectual disabilities who are deprived of legal capacity.14
With long-established patterns of alleged human rights violations documented by credible human rights observers over a long period, it has been interesting, if not alarming, to see news outlets and public figures dismiss similar recent human rights reports while defending a military over the safety of civilians caught in a conflict zone.
Investigating without fear or favor
When evaluating information about wars and violent conflicts, it’s helpful to remember that we don’t live in a Hollywood movie or a comic book. In the real world, the expectation that the people fighting on one side of a violent conflict are all heroes and those fighting on the opposite side are all villains is generally unrealistic. This is true even in conflicts between nations or regions of the world that share long, impossibly complicated and violently intertwined geopolitical histories. Acknowledging that fact does not mean you support one side over another — instead, it means you value the basic principles underlying the concept of human rights.
None of the human rights violations described in any of the reports published by the OHCHR or Amnesty International over the last two decades can justify or excuse Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine earlier this year. The reports’ contents do, however, illustrate the region’s complex history of geopolitical violence and highlight the importance of peace as a global priority. Dismissing human rights reports as “disinformation” threatens to undermine the legitimacy of future human rights investigations, even in regions where violations have been documented for years — potentially leaving victims without recourse.
The fog of war leaves nothing but confusion in its wake. In a time of globally increasing political violence, eroding public trust in media and declining trust in public institutions, allowing human rights workers the freedom to fairly and independently document, verify, and report on human rights issues without interference or intimidation — including accusations of spreading “propaganda” or “disinformation” — should be of the highest importance.
Amnesty International. “Ukraine: Ukrainian fighting tactics endanger civilians.” Aug. 4, 2022. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/08/ukraine-ukrainian-fighting-tactics-endanger-civilians (retrieved Aug. 7, 2022).
The Guardian. “Ukraine ‘endangers civilians’ with army bases in residential areas, says Amnesty.” Aug. 4, 2022. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/aug/04/ukraine-civilians-army-bases-amnesty-russia-war (retrieved Aug. 7, 2022).
NPR. “Amnesty International's report criticizing Ukraine is dividing the rights group.” Aug. 5, 2022. https://www.npr.org/2022/08/05/1115767497/amnesty-international-ukraine-military-civilians-war-crimes (retrieved Aug. 7, 2022).
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. “Report on the human rights situation in Ukraine, 16 November 2015 to 15 February 2016.” 10. https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Countries/UA/Ukraine_13th_HRMMU_Report_3March2016.pdf (retrieved Aug. 7, 2022).
OHCHR. “Report on the human rights situation in Ukraine 16 November 2015 to 15 February 2016.” 11. https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Countries/UA/Ukraine_13th_HRMMU_Report_3March2016.pdf (retrieved Aug. 7, 2022).
OHCHR. “Report on the human rights situation in Ukraine 16 November 2015 to 15 February 2016.” 10. https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Countries/UA/Ukraine_13th_HRMMU_Report_3March2016.pdf (retrieved Aug. 7, 2022).
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. “Report on the human rights situation in Ukraine 16 February to 15 May 2016.” 9. https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Countries/UA/Ukraine_14th_HRMMU_Report.pdf (retrieved Aug. 7, 2022).
OHCHR. “Report on the human rights situation in Ukraine, 16 November 2015 to 15 February 2016.” 10, 15-19, 20, 22-25, 27-29, 33, 35, 36, 39, 45, 50. https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Countries/UA/Ukraine_13th_HRMMU_Report_3March2016.pdf (retrieved Aug. 7, 2022).
OHCHR. “Report on the human rights situation in Ukraine, 16 November 2015 to 15 February 2016.” 18, 16, 25. https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Countries/UA/Ukraine_13th_HRMMU_Report_3March2016.pdf (retrieved Aug. 7, 2022).
OHCHR. “Report on the human rights situation in Ukraine, 16 November 2015 to 15 February 2016.” 8, 15-16, 17-19, 21, 23, 25, 27-29, 50. https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Countries/UA/Ukraine_13th_HRMMU_Report_3March2016.pdf (retrieved Aug. 7, 2022).
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. “Report on the human rights situation in Ukraine 16 May to 15 August 2017.” 4-5. https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Countries/UA/UAReport19th_EN.pdf (retrieved Aug. 12, 2022).
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. “Report on the human rights situation in Ukraine 16 February to 15 May 2018.” 10. https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Countries/UA/ReportUkraineFev-May2018_EN.pdf (retrieved Aug. 12, 2022).
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. “Report on the human rights situation in Ukraine 16 November 2019 to 15 February 2020.” 10. https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Countries/UA/29thReportUkraine_EN.pdf (retrieved Aug. 12, 2022).
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. “Report on the human rights situation in Ukraine, 1 August 2020 – 31 January 2021.” 29-30. https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Countries/UA/31stReportUkraine-en.pdf (retrieved Aug. 12, 2022).
Note: In the event that any of the links above are broken or do not work, they have been archived at Archive.ph on the date they were retrieved and can be viewed there by copying and pasting the desired link into the search bar.