Administrative Practice of Abduction and Transfer of Children: the Case of Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia (extracts)
Evidence relating to the relocation of children
1509. On 12 June 2014 a bus with 24 children (15 orphans or children without parental care from a care home in Snizhne and 9 children in foster care), one 18-year-old resident of the care home in Snizhne and 3 accompanying adults travelling to a respite centre in eastern Ukraine was stopped at a checkpoint in the “DPR”. The 16 residents of the care home and 2 accompanying adults then crossed the border into the Russian Federation, with a “DPR” escort, at the Dovzhanskyi border checkpoint. Once in Russia, the children were met by uniformed personnel of the Russian Ministry of Emergency Situations, who accompanied them to a tent camp. Following the grant of interim measures by the Court, they returned to Ukraine the following day.
1510. On 7 July 2014 the UN in Ukraine received an official communication from the government of Ukraine informing it of possible attempts by armed groups to forcefully transport 206 orphans from the Donetsk region to the Russian Federation. The communication said that it had informed the Embassy of the Russian Federation in Ukraine about the situation and called for the implementation of international obligations to guarantee the rights of children.
1511. The OHCHR reported in July 2014 that children faced particular hazards in the conflict zones. Orphans, many very young or with disabilities, in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions had faced particular difficulties, sometimes being used as pawns in the larger geopolitical dispute. For example, in Donetsk, the chief medical officer had reported difficulties in evacuating children from an orphanage in Kramatorsk because armed groups did not want to send Donbas children “to an enemy country, Ukraine” and wanted them to go to the Russian Federation. All 32 children had eventually been evacuated safely to the Kharkiv region on 28-29 June 2014 with the intervention of a Moscow-based NGO, the representatives of which had briefly been detained by local armed groups on 25 June.
1512. According to the OHCHR, on 13 July 2014 54 children from a Marinka orphanage had been taken to Donetsk by armed groups after attempts to transfer the children to the Russian Federation had been unsuccessful. This had been in spite of intense pressure being placed on the directors of the orphanage. The children remained in Donetsk.
1513. On 26 July 2014 61 children from an orphanage in the Luhansk region (43 of whom were under the age of five), 4 further minors and 22 adult employees of the orphanage crossed into the Russian Federation at the Izvaryne-Donetsk border checkpoint at the Ukraine-Russia border. They were accompanied to the border by “LPR” representatives. They returned to Ukraine the following day (Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia (dec.), § 95).
1514. On 8 August 2014 8 children from a care home for babies in Luhansk were transported across the Ukraine-Russia border at the Izvaryne‑Donetsk checkpoint. The children were aged between eight months and two years, and six of them had cerebral palsy. They returned to Ukraine on 13 August 2014 (ibid., § 96).
1515. In October 2014 the OSCE SMM attended a regular bi‑weekly co‑ordination meeting with the OHCHR and the UNHCR in Odesa. The OHCHR representative reported that he had been informed by the head of the Regional Administration Department of Education that orphan IDPs from Luhansk region had been receiving phone calls from their former teachers in Luhansk, enticing them back with promises of Russian citizenship. The OHCHR representative added that the head of the Regional Administration Department of Education had also said that he had received letters demanding that the children be returned.
1516. In 2015 the “DPR Committee of Ministers” passed a temporary regulation on the adoption of children in the “DPR”. The regulation established as adoptable all orphaned children in the “DPR” and children considered “abandoned” in medical facilities or in any other circumstances when the location of their parents was unknown. Only permanent residents of the “DPR” were eligible to adopt children irrespective of their nationality. The adoption decision was to be taken by a “DPR court”. In 2017, the “LPR Committee of Ministers” passed a similar temporary regulation.
1517. From 2015 to 2019, the OSCE Border Mission and SMM reported multiple instances of the movement of children in both directions across the Gukovo and Donetsk border crossing points (“BCP”).
1518. On 13 June 2015 the mission observed a white minibus and a red Gazelle crossing the BCP from the Russian Federation to Ukraine.
On the side of the minibus the words “Search and Rescue Service” were written in the Russian language. There were 10 to 12 children in both vehicles. The drivers were in dark blue uniform.
On 18 June 2015 the Border Mission observed several vehicles and workers from the Russian Federation Ministry of Emergency Situations arriving outside the Donetsk BCP entrance gate on the Russian Federation side.
All vehicles bore the inscription “Search and Rescue Service” written on their side in Russian. It was observed that the team from the Russian Ministry of Emergency Situations had set up a camp consisting of two large bright orange-coloured tents and related equipment.
On several occasions during the week, the mission observed buses with children coming from Ukraine towards the tents.
On one occasion on 23 June 2014, the Border Mission observed approximately 20 buses with children crossing the border crossing point from Ukraine and stopping at the tents. All the children got out of the buses and went inside the tents.
After some time, the children got into other buses and continued their journey towards the Russian Federation.
On 23 June in the afternoon, Ministry of Emergency Situations staff removed the tents and left towards the Russian Federation.
1519. At the end of June and in early July 2015, the Border Mission observed the movement of buses with children crossing the border in both directions. On 1 July 2015 the mission observed a Ukrainian car entering the BCP from Ukraine. The car was driven by a male dressed in military-style and wearing a Kubanka (a traditional Cossack headdress). He was accompanied by a female. The car had a sign displayed on its doors and hood saying “Комендатура Всевеликое Войско Донское” (Command of the Almighty Army of the Don). The car appeared to be escorting a bus with 15-17 children on board. The bus displayed a Cossack flag and also a sign stating “children on board.” Both vehicles later crossed into the Russian Federation. On 15 July 2015 the mission noted the arrival at the BCP of 12 buses from the Russian Federation. The buses were carrying a large group of children aged from six to ten years old and they were accompanied by a police escort. A short time later a convoy of 16 empty buses entered the BCP from Ukraine and exited to the Russian Federation. The children then boarded the Ukrainian buses and crossed into Ukraine. On 22 July 2015 the mission noted the arrival at the Donetsk BCP of a Ukrainian‑registered bus. The bus was carrying approximately 30 children and they were accompanied by a number of adults. All of the children were carrying some documents in their hands and, after having been checked by the Russian Federation Border Guard and Customs Service, the group had proceeded into the Russian Federation on foot. The bus on which they had arrived returned to Ukraine. On 29 July 2015 the mission noted the arrival at the BCP of 21 Ukrainian registered buses from Ukraine carrying approximately 900 children. The children went to the Ministry of Emergency Situations tents that had been set up on the Russian Federation side. There, the children boarded other buses which departed into the Russian Federation. The buses on which they had arrived returned to Ukraine. On 31 July 2015, the mission observed a number of empty buses entering the BCP from Ukraine; a little later 7 buses carrying children arrived from the Russian Federation side. Shortly afterwards, 14 buses crossed into Ukraine. On 20, 22 and 24 August the mission observed buses transporting children from Ukraine to the tents erected near the BCP gate on the Russian Federation side. Once at the tents, the children boarded other buses which left the BCP to the Russian Federation.
1520. In 2016 a similar pattern of movement was seen. In February 2016 the Border Mission observed two buses with the sign “children” transporting children aged around ten years old and some adults. Throughout the summer of 2016 the mission reported on multiple occasions buses with children on board crossing the border in both directions. On 11 June 2016 the mission in Donetsk observed a bus with Ukrainian Ministry of Emergency Situation registration plates carrying children from the Russian Federation to Ukraine. The bus bore the inscription “Search and Rescue Service” in Russian. On 21 July 2016 at the Donetsk BCP the mission observed the arrival of 10 small buses which parked at the BCP’s customs control area. Approximately twenty minutes later 6 buses full of children arrived at the BCP from the Russian Federation side. After the children had been transferred from one bus to another, the buses had returned in the direction from which they had come. On 23 July 2016 the mission observed Russian Ministry of Emergency Situations personnel setting up tents at the entrance gate of the border crossing point on the Russian Federation side. The next day, the mission observed 8 buses with children coming from Ukraine and parking near the camp. The children boarded other buses and travelled to the Russian Federation. Later in the day, the tents were disassembled.
1521. In August and September 2016 the Border Mission reported on several occasions that it had observed at the Donetsk BCP numerous buses with children likely travelling to/from summer camps. In these cases, representatives of the Russian Ministry of Emergency Situations had installed tents in the vicinity of the BCP for carrying out medical checks of children leaving and entering the Russian Federation. Later, on several occasions the mission had observed groups of buses with children that likely travelled back to Ukraine from summer camps in Russia. Movement of buses with children from Ukraine to the Russian Federation and back were also reported in October 2016.
1522. In 2017 this pattern of movement continued. In June 2017 the mission reported a few buses with children on board crossing the border in both directions at the Gukovo BCP. In August 2017 the mission reported observing more buses with children on board crossing the border. Throughout the week of 15 August 2017, the mission observed buses (with “School Bus” signs in Ukrainian) with children on board, crossing the border at the Donetsk BCP. The children were being brought to the recently erected tents within the BCP area and from there, after going through formalities, were boarded on other passenger buses and proceeded towards the Russian Federation. On 28 August 2017 an organised bus convoy with approximately 450 children was observed at the Donetsk BCP. The children were travelling to Ukraine from a Russian summer camp. Another bus convoy with approximately 250 children travelled the next day from Ukraine to the Russian Federation.
1523. On 30 August and 1 September 2017 organised bus convoys (35 buses in total) were observed at Donetsk BCP transporting children to Ukraine from Russian summer camps. Another bus convoy (19 buses) was observed on 4 September transporting children from Ukraine to the Russian Federation. In all cases the border crossings were supported with food and medical assistance by Russian Ministry of Emergency Situations teams in specially installed tents inside the technical area of the BCP. On 18 September 2017 a convoy of 4 buses was observed at the Donetsk border crossing point transporting children to Ukraine from the Russian Federation. On 24 September 2017 a convoy of 26 buses arrived from Ukraine at Donetsk BCP. All buses were empty and with “LPR” plates or Ukrainian licence plates issued in the Luhansk region. All buses bore the inscription “school children” (in Russian). Two convoys of 8 buses each (16 in total) with children on board then arrived from the Russian Federation at the Donetsk BCP. After delivering the children to the BCP, the buses returned empty to the Russian Federation. All children underwent individual checks, after which they were taken to the 26 empty buses. By early afternoon, all buses had left for Ukraine.
1524. The OSCE Border Mission reports from 2018 to 2021 do not report on any movement of children through the monitored border crossings as had been observed in the preceding years. However, on 26 August 2018 while at a border crossing point near Izvaryne, south-east of Luhansk, the OSCE SMM saw a bus with “LPR” plates and a group of children on board entering Ukraine.
1525. In 2019 the OSCE Border Mission reported on 1 October that it had observed at the Donetsk BCP 10 empty minibuses without licence plates crossing in a group from the Russian Federation into Ukraine. The minibuses bore the inscription “children” (in Russian) on the windscreen. On 1 November 2019 the mission at the Donetsk BCP observed a group of 10 small buses entering the BCP from the Russian Federation. The buses were yellow in colour and had the word “children” printed in Russian on the windshields and on the sides of the vehicles. The buses did not have any licence plates and were empty except for the driver and one passenger in each. All buses subsequently crossed the BCP into Ukraine.
1526. The OSCE Border Mission discontinued its operations on 30 September 2021.
1527. The OSCE Moscow Mechanism mission experts reported accounts that Russia had begun to transfer children from the occupied territories of Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk regions in 2014. In particular, the mission experts cited a statement of the Ukrainian Ombudsperson to the effect that only two dozen out of 4,323 orphans and children deprived of parental care residing in social care institutions on the Crimean Peninsula at the time of its occupation and annexation had reportedly been able to return to mainland Ukraine. While the OSCE experts were not in a position to confirm that statement, they shared the concern that “a practice and pattern of unlawful transfer and assimilation of various categories of unaccompanied Ukrainian children into Russia dating back to 2014 ha[d] multiplied and gained substantial traction” in 2022.
1528. Governments, international, regional and local organisations and the media have reported on transfers and removals of Ukrainian children by the Russian authorities several days before the start of the invasion on 24 February 2022, from about 18-19 February 2022.
1529. International reports have noted the absence of reliable data from the Russian Federation about the transfer of children, the absence of a mechanism for the return of transferred children and the absence of a Russian National Information Bureau concerning civilians and of children, in line with the requirements of international humanitarian law. In July 2022 the OSCE Moscow Mechanism experts noted that around 2,000 children from institutions in Ukraine had been transferred to Russia “even though they ha[d] living relatives and were in the institutions only for medical care”. Other reports said that at least 6,000 children had been concerned by the said practice. A portal operated by the Ukrainian government (childrenofwar.gov.ua) recorded that by 30 September 2022 a total of 7,890 children had been removed from Ukraine. It further recorded that by the beginning of 2024 a total of 19,546 children had been removed, with 388 children being returned.
1530. The Commission of Inquiry described the following situations in which Russian authorities had transferred children from territories in Ukraine which had come under their control to other occupied areas in Ukraine or removed them to the Russian Federation: (1) children who had lost a parent or had temporarily lost contact with them during the hostilities; (2) children whose parents had been detained at filtration points; (3) children in institutions; and (4) children who had travelled to “vacation camps” with the consent of their parent but had subsequently encountered difficulties in establishing contact and reuniting with their parents. The situations investigated involved transfers of 195 children between four and eighteen years of age from the Donetsk, Kharkiv, Luhansk, Mykolaiv, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson regions.
1531. In none of the situations examined by the Commission of Inquiry did transfers of children appear to have satisfied the requirements of international humanitarian law. The transfers had not been justified by safety or medical reasons. There seemed to be no indication that it would have been impossible to allow the children to relocate to territory under the control of the government of Ukraine. It also did not appear that the authorities of the Russian Federation had sought to establish contact with the children’s relatives or with the Ukrainian authorities. While the parents had been led to believe that the transfers would be temporary, for a variety of reasons most had become prolonged, and parents or legal guardians and children had encountered an array of obstacles in establishing contact, achieving family reunification and achieving the return of the children to Ukraine. In some of the cases investigated, the Commission of Inquiry found that such transfers had occurred “in violation of international humanitarian law and qualified as unlawful transfers or deportations, which is a war crime”.
1532. The OSCE Moscow Mechanism experts referred to the three most commonly indicated grounds for the organised displacement of these children as being: (1) evacuation for security reasons; (2) the transfer for the purpose of adoption or foster care; and (3) temporary stays in “recreation camps”. While in the temporarily occupied territories or in the Russian Federation, Ukrainian children had been placed in institutions or in Russian families. The forms of the placement included adoption, which had been applied mainly to children from Crimea (at least since 2015) or custody, guardianship or foster families which had been more common for other Ukrainian children (mainly since 24 February 2022). Contact between parents and their children was sometimes re-established in a process based on coincidence and luck at the initiative of parents, or guardians, with the support of various outside actors. When parents were released from filtration, no information was provided to them as to the whereabouts of their children nor was any assistance rendered to ensure the reunification of the family. The mission further pointed out that, unlike other forms of child placements, adoption was carried out based on a judicial decision and it might entail the change of the child’s name, surname and date and place of birth. It was, moreover, protected by the principle of secrecy (ibid.). The cases investigated by the mission referred to transfers of children from the Donetsk, Kherson, Zaporizhzhia and Mykolaiv regions.
1533. The Commission of Inquiry noted that in most of the situations of transfers of children it had examined, the stay of the children in Russian-occupied areas or in the Russian Federation had been prolonged owing to a variety of reasons. Regardless of the large number of transfers of children which had been reported, the Commission of Inquiry was not made aware of measures taken by the Russian authorities to facilitate the establishment of family contacts or to facilitate the return of the children to territories controlled by the government of Ukraine. In fact, the onus of finding family members rested upon the children themselves or their families. When contacts were established, the Russian authorities required individual family members to pick up their children in person. This involved long and complicated travel, with considerable security and logistical difficulties. These factors prolonged the duration of the family separations. In some situations, it took weeks and up to several months for children and families to be reunited. In some documented cases, the children had taken the initiative and managed to locate their family members. In some incidents, family members had only learned about the children’s whereabouts through media reports. Witnesses had informed the Commission of Inquiry that some of the children transferred to institutions in occupied areas or deported to camps in the Russian Federation had not been able to establish contact with their families. Parents and relatives encountered serious challenges in organising travel to pick up their children due to the dire security situation and logistical difficulties. In many cases, travel was long and complicated, up to one week one way, at times requiring transit through the Russian Federation and several other countries. Some family members lacked the financial means or adequate travel documents, or were afraid of being detained in the Russian Federation. The Commission of Inquiry observed that in the absence of any pro-active effort from the Russian authorities, the children were at high risk of losing contact with their parents indefinitely and remaining permanently separated.
1534. NGO reports corroborated the specific allegations of the applicant Ukrainian Government and provided open-source investigations into the 43 locations where children had been taken, including locations as far as to the Russian Far East. They noted the absence of consent of children’s caregivers for their transfer and/or their “indefinite stay” in “summer camps”. The reports detailed the complexity of the administrative arrangements at different levels of government in the Russian Federation put into operation for the reception of Ukrainian children across Russian Federation’s territory.
1535. There have also been reported transfers of children to Belarus after October 2022 and of the conscription of Ukrainian children into the Russian army once they acquired Russian nationality and turned 18.
1536. In the situations examined by the Commission of Inquiry, Russian authorities transferred the children to areas occupied by the Russian Federation in Ukraine, including the Donetsk and Luhansk regions and Crimea, or deported them to regions in the Russian Federation, such as Moscow or Krasnodar. Once across the border, Russian authorities at federal and regional level accommodated the children in hospitals, social institutions, or “camps” throughout Russia. Parents were encouraged and even pressured by the “DPR” and “LPR” authorities to send their children to “summer camps” in the summer of 2022, the trips often being funded by Russia’s regional and republican governments under the so‑called “patronage” system under which, by July 2022, more than 40 regions and cities in Russia had assumed a declared “patronage” over different parts of occupied territory in Ukraine. Subsequently, children were retained in the “camps” by the Russian authorities operating the camps and moved between various camps, all without the consent of, and without information being sent to, their parents or legal guardians.
1537. In respect of the treatment to which these children were subjected, international reports noted that Ukrainian children found themselves in an entirely Russian environment, including language, customs and religion, and were exposed to a pro-Russian information campaign often amounting to targeted re-education. They were also involved in military education.
1538. Other reports described ill-treatment and neglect. Parents and relatives informed the Commission of Inquiry that the children had been accommodated in camps and institutions where conditions had been inadequate, with poor food, hygiene and medical care, as well as bad treatment by the local staff. Family members or legal guardians who had retrieved children reported that uncertainties regarding the prospects of finding and reuniting with parents or relatives had led to immense psychological suffering. This experience had deeply affected the children and they expressed a profound fear of being permanently separated from parents, guardians or relatives. During the period of separation, social services in occupied territory or in the Russian Federation had told the children that they would be placed for adoption, with foster parents or in an institution. This had been a source of considerable psychological pressure and fear for the children. In some situations, parents had additionally conveyed to the Commission of Inquiry that in places of transfer, children had been screamed at, meals had been poor and children had otherwise not been provided with adequate accommodation or hygiene. Some children with disabilities had not received adequate care and medication, which could be life threatening in some situations. Children had been locked up in an “isolator” in the “camp” for four to five days for alleged misbehaviour, such as listening to the Ukrainian anthem, removing the Russian flag or missing their parents; hit and threatened; told that they would be given weapons and would need to stand at checkpoints; and bullied by Russian children. A child aged ten had been placed in a psychiatric hospital because he missed his mother and had cried.
1539. The evidence set out in various reports describes the lasting trauma the children suffered, such as nightmares, screaming at night, refusal to speak about their experience and refusal to speak at all for several days after reunification. It was also reported that upon separation, children had been told that they were to be given to other families and that they should forget their own parents or that they would never see them again.
1540. Parents, relatives and legal guardians interviewed by the Commission of Inquiry emphasised that these experiences had had a severe impact on the children. The uncertainty and fear of being permanently and forcibly separated from their loved ones in a foreign country had been highly traumatising. The children who had been transferred reported how they had missed their parents, relatives and friends in Ukraine. The Commission of Inquiry observed that studies on children separated from their parents during wartime, with the intention of sparing them from hostilities, had shown that the trauma of separation was often more harmful and long lasting than remaining with the families and enduring war related traumas together.
1541. In July 2022 the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights noted with concern reports that children born in Mariupol had been issued with Russian birth certificates. She further expressed concern at the announcement by the regional administration in occupied areas of Kherson region that children born there after 24 February 2022, as well as orphans, would be granted citizenship of the Russian Federation.
1542. At least 15 Ukrainian children in Crimea on whom Russian nationality had been imposed were subsequently included in the “Train of Hope” Russian adoption programmeю The OSCE reported that the official Russian webportal on adoption (Усыновите.pу), which contained a database of children from various regions of the Russian Federation who were available for adoption (усыновлениe) or foster care (опека – попечительство), also included data on children from the annexed regions of Ukraine.
1543. On 21 July 2022 Maria Lvova-Belova, the Russian Presidential Commissioner for Children’s Rights, was included in the sanctions list of the European Union for “initiat[ing] the simplification of the procedure for granting citizenship to orphaned children in Ukraine, [and being] the most involved person in the illegal transportation of Ukrainian children to Russia and their adoption by Russian families”.
1544. On 17 March 2023 a pre-trial chamber of the ICC issued an arrest warrant for Ms Lvova-Belova and for President Putin, charging them with “the war crime of unlawful deportation of population (children) and that of unlawful transfer of population (children) from occupied areas of Ukraine to the Russian Federation”. In his statement on the issuance of the arrest warrants, the ICC Prosecutor said the following:
“… On the basis of evidence collected and analysed by my Office pursuant to its independent investigations, the Pre-Trial Chamber has confirmed that there are reasonable grounds to believe that President Putin and Ms Lvova-Belova bear criminal responsibility for the unlawful deportation and transfer of Ukrainian children from occupied areas of Ukraine to the Russian Federation …
Incidents identified by my Office include the deportation of at least hundreds of children taken from orphanages and children’s care homes. Many of these children, we allege, have since been given for adoption in the Russian Federation. The law was changed in the Russian Federation, through Presidential decrees issued by President Putin, to expedite the conferral of Russian citizenship, making it easier for them to be adopted by Russian families.
My Office alleges that these acts, amongst others, demonstrate an intention to permanently remove these children from their own country. At the time of these deportations, the Ukrainian children were protected persons under the Fourth Geneva Convention.
We also underlined in our application that most acts in this pattern of deportations were carried out in the context of the acts of aggression committed by Russian military forces against the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine which began in 2014.”
1545. In his report on children and armed conflict published in June 2023, the UN Secretary General explicitly confirmed the verification of the transfer of 46 children to the Russian Federation from occupied areas of Ukraine. This number included children forcibly separated from their parents, children removed from schools and institutions without the consent of their guardians and a child who had been given Russian citizenship. The Secretary General urged “the Russian Federation to ensure that no changes are made to the personal status of Ukrainian children, including their nationality”. Similar findings and calls were made by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly and Commissioner for Human Rights and the Committee of the Parties to the Council of Europe Convention on the protection of children against sexual exploitation and sexual abuse (Lanzarote Committee).
Evidence of the acknowledged activities of the respondent State in respect of the relocation of children
1546. According to the official media report of 22 February 2022, Ms Lvova-Belova, in her address to regional children’s commissioners, noted that since 18 February 2022 there had been “an intensive relocation process” and that the number of people who had arrived in Russia from the “LPR” and the “DPR” had already exceeded 80,000. Most were women and children. Ms Lvova-Belova noted that the experience was not new for the country, explaining:
“[I]n 2014, people also moved en masse to Russia from these territories, and at that time, children’s rights commissioners were also actively involved in meeting, accommodating, and supporting children and families. Now, from the very first days, children’s ombudsmen from different regions were immediately getting involved in the work.”
1547. All officials attending the meeting confirmed that:
“[The] process is taking shape – operational headquarters have been established in the regions, temporary accommodation points have been set up, medical and social workers are providing support, psychological assistance and other types of help are being offered, social payments are being made, and humanitarian aid collection points have been opened.”
1548. The report referred to the fact that children had been transported to Russia from several orphanages in Donbas. Special attention was given at the meeting to the issues of providing support to orphans and children left without parental care. The Commissioner for Children’s Rights from the Kursk region shared a story about a child who had been frightened by the move and had cried, but volunteers had quickly come to the rescue. They had brought a kitten and the boy had immediately cheered up. Ms Lvova‑Belova emphasised:
“Children in this situation require our special attention and care because this is the most difficult stage for them – they have urgently left their homes, arrived in another country, and found themselves in new conditions. This is an immense stress even for adults, and it is important for us to ensure that this experience is not traumatic.”
1549. On 9 March 2022, during a meeting with the Russian President regarding “families evacuated from Donbass and children”, Ms Lvova‑Belova evoked the possibility of Russian families temporarily accommodating orphan children and inquired about the legislative delays linked to their acquiring Russian nationality. President Putin replied that relevant legislative amendments would be made.
1550. According to an official media report of 23 April 2022, Ms Lvova-Belova stated that she and the Moscow Governor had transferred orphans from the “DPR” to the care of ten families from various Russian regions; the families had been carefully selected and some of them had already cared for children from Donbas since 2014. Ms Lvova‑Belova reported:
“[A]fter the start of the special military operation in the territories of the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics … more than a thousand orphans and children left without parental care [had] arrived in Russia from various boarding institutions in Donbas.”
1551. One hundred and sixty children from the “DPR” had already been placed in Russian families and 133 of them had already acquired Russian nationality. Ms Lvova-Belova emphasised that President Putin supported the proposal to place orphaned children and children without parental care from the “DPR” and the “LPR” with Russian families (ibid.).
1552. On 30 May 2022 the President of the Russian Federation signed a decree facilitating the acquisition of Russian nationality by orphaned children or children without parental care from the “DPR”, the “LPR” and the occupied areas of Zaporizhzhia and Kherson regions. The decree authorised the heads of orphanages and other State institutions located in the “DPR” and the “LPR”, as well as those in the occupied areas of Zaporizhzhia and Kherson, to apply for Russian nationality for children under their care, granting them a wide discretion in determining whether a child was orphaned or without parental care.
1553. In June 2022 the Commissioner for Children’s Rights in the Moscow Region stated, with reference to the children from the “DPR”, that the Presidential decree on nationality had “remov[ed] the last obstacles for children to live and be brought up in Russian families.” In a media interview in July 2022, Ms Lvova-Belova declared that “now that the children have become Russian citizens, temporary guardianship can become permanent”.
1554. In July 2022 the Advisor to the Head of the “DPR” on Children’s Rights reported to the media that all children who had been in institutions in the “DPR” were by that point already in Russia.
1555. The Russian Federal constitutional laws of 4 October 2022 purporting to integrate the four Ukrainian regions of Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia into the composition of the Russian Federation granted Russian nationality to everyone in those regions and to everyone who had moved from those regions to the Russian Federation, exempting children under fourteen from the duty to pledge an oath, thus automatically making them Russian nationals.
1556. In her activity report on the protection of children for 2022, Ms Lvova-Belova stated that about 2,000 children from boarding institutions for orphans and children without parental care had arrived in Russia in February 2022, at the request of the “DPR” and “LPR” leadership. A total of 380 orphans had been placed in foster care with Russian families across 19 regions of Russia, while others had been transferred to other children’s institutions in Russia or returned to the “LPR”.
1557. The report further stated that in the late summer and autumn of 2022, parents from the Kherson, Zaporizhzhia and Kharkiv regions and other territories had voluntarily sent their children on “vacation”, including with a view to protecting them from military action. The situation on the front line had not allowed all children and their chaperones to travel safely home at the end of the programme. A significant number of families had been reunited independently or with the help of volunteer organisations. Reunification was difficult because not all parents could come to pick up their children on their own. Conscript-age fathers were not permitted by the Ukrainian authorities to leave Ukraine. Mothers had other children in their care and sometimes the state of their health prevented the parents from travelling. Not everyone had been able to find a trusted person to pick up their children and the necessary funds for the travel. Out of the 2,360 children who had been sent by their parents to Crimea, all but one had returned by October 2023 (ibid.).
1558. The report further explained that during the spring of 2022 the Russian military in Mariupol had discovered children without parental care and turned them over to the social services of the city. Subsequently, the children had been taken to the Children’s Social Center in Donetsk as “neglected” children. In May 2022 a group of 31 children had been sent to recover in a sanatorium in the Moscow region with the consent of their legal representative, the head of the Children’s Social Center. Upon completion of the recovery, the “authorised bodies in the sphere of guardianship and custody of the DPR” had petitioned the child protection authority of the Moscow region for their further placement under provisional guardianship in Russian families. Out of the total group of 31 children, 3 had been reunited with their father, who had arrived after filtration measures; 6 children had been placed in family centres at their request and almost all of them had subsequently wished to be placed with foster families; and 22 children had been placed in the provisional guardianship of residents of the Moscow region. One girl had later been placed in the custody of a neighbour who had lived next door to her family in the “DPR” (ibid.).
1559. Ms Lvova-Belova’s activity report explained that the children did not perceive Russia as an enemy and expected protection and help from Russia. Being placed in safe territory with Russian foster families was not a traumatic circumstance for them. All the children who had been placed in foster care had acquired Russian citizenship while retaining the citizenship of the “LPR”, the “DPR” or Ukraine. Between April and October 2022, adoption had not been used as a form of family placement with respect to children from the “DPR” and the “LPR” while “the republics were sovereign states” (ibid.).
1560. Finally, the activity report stated that there were no re-education camps in Russia, including camps for children from the military conflict zone. The camp programme involved educational and developmental activities. In November 2022 at the initiative of the Commissioner and the head of the Chechen Republic, a new format of camp for teenagers in conflict with the law had been held for the first time. The content of the programme had been sports and patriotic education. There had been 30 teenagers from the “DPR” and 15 from the “LPR”, all of whom had come with the consent of their parents who had a pro-Russian stance and were interested in the patriotic upbringing of their children.
1561. In an interview on 2 November 2022, Ms Lvova-Belova referred to the fact that 380 children from Ukraine were already in foster families in Russia noting, “Isn’t this unity, isn’t this a patriotic feeling, when there are no other people’s children and all of them are ours?”.
1562. In a meeting with the Russian President on 16 February 2023, Ms Lvova-Belova disclosed that she had adopted a 15-year-old child from Mariupol. She also stated:
“The favourite part of my work … is placing these children in families. Mr President, it was the most joyful thing that happened in this entire period of time. Because when I met with you in March [2022], you said, ‘Without delay’. We accommodate everyone who wants it, who are desperate, children who want it.”
1563. During her meeting with President Putin on 31 May 2024, Ms Lvova-Belova referred to 206 children from occupied territory in Ukraine receiving welfare benefits in Russia. She also referred to ongoing efforts to reunite Ukrainian children with their families in Ukraine. She said that on one occasion 70 children had been returned to their families and on another occasion 6 had been returned, from a list of 29 missing children.
1564. The Court will have regard to the general principles cited above in respect of Articles 3, 5 and 8 of the Convention
1565. In so far as the family life of a child is concerned, the Court moreover reiterates that there is a broad consensus, including in international law, in support of the idea that in all decisions concerning children, their best interests are of paramount importance (Neulinger and Shuruk v. Switzerland [GC], no. 41615/07, § 135, ECHR 2010). Indeed, the Court has emphasised that in cases involving the care of children and contact restrictions, the child’s interests must come before all other considerations (Jovanovic v. Sweden, no. 10592/12, § 77, 22 October 2015, and Gnahoré v. France, no. 40031/98, § 59).
1566. Regard for family unity and for family reunification in the event of separation are inherent considerations in the right to respect for family life under Article 8. Accordingly, in the case of imposition of public care restricting family life, a positive duty lies on the authorities to take measures to facilitate family reunification as soon as reasonably feasible (Strand Lobben and Others v. Norway [GC], no. 37283/13, § 205, 10 September 2019).
Application of the general principles to the facts of the case
1567. Relevant provisions of international humanitarian law have been summarised above, notably in paragraphs 1165-1566. However, additional provisions are also relevant in respect of this complaint. Article 78 AP I prohibits the evacuation of children, other than a Party’s own nationals, to a foreign country except for a temporary evacuation where compelling reasons of the health or medical treatment of the children or, except in occupied territory, their safety so require. Where the parents or legal guardians can be found, their written consent to such evacuation is required. If these persons cannot be found, the written consent to such evacuation of the persons who by law or custom are primarily responsible for the care of the children is required. With a view to facilitating the return to their families and country of children evacuated, the authorities of the Party arranging for the evacuation and, as appropriate, the authorities of the receiving country must establish for each child a card with photographs which must be sent to the Central Tracing Agency of the International Committee of the Red Cross. Under Article 50 GC IV, the occupying Power is required to take all necessary steps to facilitate the identification of children and the registration of their parentage. It may not, in any case, change their personal status, nor enlist them in formations or organisations subordinate to it. Should the local institutions be inadequate for the purpose, the occupying Power must make arrangements for the maintenance and education, if possible by persons of their own nationality, language and religion, of children who are orphaned or separated from their parents as a result of the war and who cannot be adequately cared for by a near relative or friend. A special section of the Information Bureau set up in accordance with Article 136 GC IV is responsible for taking all necessary steps to identify children whose identity is in doubt, in line with Article 26 of the GC IV, whereby States must facilitate enquiries made by members of families dispersed as a result of armed conflict. Article 74 AP I requires that the Parties to the conflict facilitate in every possible way the reunion of families dispersed as a result of armed conflicts.
1568. At the admissibility stage of the present proceedings, the Court declared admissible “the complaint of an administrative practice in violation of Articles 3, 5 and 8 of the Convention and Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention in respect of the alleged abduction and transfer to Russia of three groups of children”. The three groups of children were those transferred to Russia on 12 June, 26 July and 8 August 2014. The Court considered, in the particular circumstances of the present case, that the short period in which the events occurred and the number and characteristics of the children involved supported the finding of an administrative practice (Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia (dec.), §§ 896-98). The applicant Ukrainian Government have now submitted that the alleged administrative practice started in the summer of 2014 and was ongoing following that date, with an increase in its scale and organisation after the invasion on 24 February 2022.
1569. It is undisputed that in the summer of 2014, three groups of a total of 85 residents of children’s homes in eastern Ukraine were escorted by armed “DPR” and “LPR” representatives across the Ukrainian-Russian border, on three separate dates and from different parts of the “DPR” and “LPR”. All three groups were returned to Ukraine, the first group having been returning following an indication of interim measures by this Court (Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia (dec.), §§ 94-96). The disagreement between the parties related to whether the border crossings were voluntary or involuntarily.
1570. At the admissibility stage, the Court found that the applicant Ukrainian Government had provided sufficiently substantiated prima facie evidence that the transfer to and crossing of the border of these three groups had been involuntary and had occurred with the intervention of armed separatists (Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia (dec.), § 897). The respondent Government have not made any further submissions or provided any further evidence in respect of these three incidents. The documents produced by the respondent Government at the admissibility stage show the limited nature of the inquiry by the Russian domestic authorities into the allegations. The only investigation conducted concerned the June 2014 incident. No steps appear to have been taken to further elucidate the circumstances of the two later incidents.
Moreover, although the respondent Government claimed that all 16 of those resident in the care home in Snizhne who had crossed the border in June 2014 had been interviewed, witness statements by only 4 of the children, the 18-year-old resident of the home and the 2 accompanying adults were provided to the.
None of the investigation materials reveal any consideration of the question of consent, given the context of duress involving the presence of armed persons during ongoing military operations and the fact that most or all of the children were travelling without their parents or legal guardians. The Court has not been provided with copies of valid travel documents used and there is no evidence of any forms confirming the consent of those with legal responsibility for the children to their crossing of an international border. The investigation does not appear to have examined why it was necessary, even assuming that the children were evacuating from danger linked to armed hostilities, for the group to have crossed the border into Russia instead of relocating elsewhere within occupied territory.
If all formalities had been properly complied with in respect of the crossing of the border by the three groups of children concerned, including those related to parental or other legal consent, it is also unclear why this was not quickly established following the complaints of the applicant Ukrainian Government, permitting the children to continue their journeys in Russia.
The respondent Government have not provided any, let alone a satisfactory and convincing, explanation on these points.
1571. The Court considers that in view of the prima facie evidence in support of the applicant Ukrainian Government’s allegations, the burden was on the respondent Government to provide further evidence to support their position that the crossings had been voluntary. Given the inadequacies of the investigation discussed above, the Court is unable to draw any benefit from its results.
The failure of the respondent State to engage with the present proceedings means that no credible and substantiated explanation has been given by the respondent Government to enable any serious challenge to the account of the applicant Ukrainian Government. In the circumstances, the Court considers that it can draw inferences from the available material.
It finds the applicant Ukrainian Government’s allegations that the border crossings in the summer of 2014 were involuntary sufficiently convincing and established beyond reasonable doubt (El-Masri, §§ 165‑67).
1572. Before turning to examine the evidence for the continuation of the practice of transferring Ukrainian children across the border to Russia in the subsequent years, the Court considers it appropriate to review the evidence regarding the alleged escalation of the practice from 24 February 2022.
1573. The circumstances from February 2022 are documented in detail. While reported numbers of transferred children vary greatly, it is undisputed that children from the “DPR”, the “LPR” and subsequently from other occupied territory were removed to the Russian Federation or to other occupied areas in Ukraine, separated from their legal caregivers and prevented from reuniting with them. Indeed, the evidence establishes clearly that there were such transfers in the “DPR” and the “LPR” shortly before the invasion, as purported “evacuation” measures. In the following months, countless children from institutions and children attending holiday camps were transferred to Russia from occupied territory and were subsequently unable to return to their homes in Ukraine. Some were retained in holiday camps while others were placed in foster care with Russian families across various regions in Russia and adopted once they acquired Russian nationality. Numerous public statements by Russian officials do not dispute the mass removal of children from Ukraine and the ongoing presence of such children in Russia. The Commission of Inquiry was able to review the transfers of 195 such children. The “DPR authorities” themselves said that “all children previously in ‘DPR’ institutions” had been removed to Russia by July 2022. The Russian Commissioner for Children’s Rights has claimed that 2,000 children arrived in Russia in February 2022 alone. The portal operated by the Ukrainian Government recorded that, by 30 September 2022 a total of 7,890 children had been removed from.
1574. The Commission of Inquiry and the OSCE Moscow Mechanism mission experts concluded that in the Donetsk, Kharkiv, Kherson, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia and Mykolaiv regions, the displacement of children was an organised process. Their reports concluded that the transfers were not justified by safety or medical reasons and lacked proper consent from the children’s legal caregivers. They further found that subsequent actions and omissions by the Russian authorities prevented the children’s reunification with their legal caregivers. The evidence shows that parents in Ukraine were not provided with information concerning their children’s location in Russia and that where contact was re-established it was often through coincidence or luck.
1575. Official communications illustrate that Russian officials put in place dedicated legislative and policy measures for the removal and placement of Ukrainian children in Russia. Removal of allegedly orphaned Ukrainian children from Ukraine was carried out by the Russian armed forces and authorities, including by the Presidential Commissioner for Children’s Rights in person as well as by “DPR” and “LPR” armed groups, in coordination with the “DPR” and “LPR” “child protection authorities”. Once across the border, Russian authorities at federal and regional level accommodated the children in hospitals, social institutions or “camps” throughout. The trips were often funded by Russia’s regional and republican governments, under the so-called “patronage” system. Official statements referred to the support of President Putin himself to the placement of Ukrainian children in Russian families.
1576. In respect of the children’s legal status, the Court notes the legislative amendments in the Russian Federation to make it easier for Ukrainian children to acquire Russian citizenship and be adopted by Russian families. After 24 February 2022 children born in occupied territory were issued Russian birth certificates and Russian nationality. This practice was subsequently formalised with the annexation of the four Ukrainian regions of Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia in October 2022. The automatic change in the children’s nationality facilitated their adoption in Russia (Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea), §§ 1032-39). Perceived to be Russian citizens, children from occupied territory in Ukraine could be adopted by Russian families from anywhere in Russia. The evidence shows that they were listed for adoption or foster care in Russia.
1577. The legislative measures to which the evidence refers are indicative of a systematic programme of long-term, indeed permanent, removal of these children from their legal guardians in Ukraine. Public statements made by Russian officials referred to the acquisition by Ukrainian children of Russian nationality under the decree of 30 May 2022 as “the last obstacle” to be overcome.
1578. It has been widely reported, and confirmed in the activity reports of her mandate, that Ms Lvova-Belova, the Russian Federation’s Presidential Commissioner for Children’s Rights, spearheaded a wide range of initiatives aimed at transferring and accommodating Ukrainian children in the Russian Federation. She herself travelled to the Russian-controlled territories of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions to coordinate the transfers and placements of children in Russian families. She also accompanied a group of children to Russia and reported on more groups of children being ready to travel to Russia for placement in Russian families. She further adopted a child from Mariupol herself. On 17 March 2023 a pre-trial chamber of the ICC issued arrest warrants for her and for President Putin, charging them with the war crime of unlawful deportation of children and that of unlawful transfer of children from occupied areas of Ukraine to the Russian Federation.
1579. The Court finds that there is overwhelming evidence of a systematic practice from shortly before the invasion of 24 February 2022 of transferring Ukrainian children in occupied areas to Russia, without parental or legal consent, and facilitating their adoption there.
1580. The factual question that remains is whether there is evidence between August 2014 and February 2022 of an ongoing practice of transferring Ukrainian children from “the “DPR” and the “LPR” to Russia, as alleged by the applicant Ukrainian Government.
1581. There is some evidence of further attempts by armed groups to send children from orphanages in the Donetsk region to the Russian Federation in the summer of 2014. There is also evidence of attempts to secure the return to occupied territory of orphan IDPs in government-controlled territory to enable them to acquire Russian nationality. Official decisions of the “DPR” and “LPR”, in 2015 and 2017 respectively, authorising the adoption of any orphaned or “abandoned” children, including children separated from their parents, and enabling Russian nationals resident in separatist entities to adopt such children, are indicative a cavalier attitude towards the importance of reuniting with their families children who had been separated from them by the conflict.
1582. There is, moreover, ample evidence, notably from the OSCE Border Mission, of the movement of a large number of children back and forth across the border between Ukraine and the Russian Federation between 2014 and 2018. It can be inferred from the regular presence of vehicles and personnel of the Russian Ministry of Emergency Situations and the preparations for, and carrying out of, medical checks that the transfers were organised by the Russian Federation and involved significant logistical arrangements.
1583. It is significant that the Border Mission was present at only two border crossing points covering approximately one kilometre of the lengthy land border separating the occupied territory of Ukraine from the Russian Federation. The border crossings detailed in the evidence above are those that took place in the knowledge that international observers were present and were recording and publishing on a weekly basis their observations on events at the border crossing point. The absence of observers at other border crossing points means that there is almost no evidence as to whether similar transfers of children were also occurring at those crossings (see, for example, paragraph 1524 above). It also prevents the drawing of any conclusions as to the overall numbers involved and whether more children left Ukraine than entered. The Court has no information from the respondent Government as to the number of children transferred in groups across the border between 2014 and 2022, or the identities, nationalities and backgrounds of the children.
1584. The observations of the Border Mission moreover do not themselves allow any conclusions to be drawn as to why the children were crossing the border. No explanation has been provided by the respondent Government of the purpose of the transfers. In their memorial at the separate admissibility stage of the present proceedings, they claimed that the children crossing the border in summer 2014 had been fleeing the conflict in eastern Ukraine. The material before the Court indicates that the children transferred across the border from February 2022 were those in institutions, those whose parents had been detained, those who were orphans or had lost contact with parents, and those who had travelled to holiday camps and were subsequently unable to return.
1585. The Court observes that the border crossings recorded by the Border Mission followed a similar procedure to that applied to the crossing of the border by the first group of children, who were resident in a care home in June 2014. As on that occasion, groups of children crossing the border from 2015 to 2019 were greeted by personnel from the Russian Ministry of Emergency Situations and were examined in tent camps before entering the Russian Federation. The medical procedure applied during the border crossing observed by the OSCE was consistent with the children having come from institutions in Ukraine. In such circumstances, the question arises whether the appropriate consents had been obtained and formalities complied with. The respondent Government have not informed the Court of the legal arrangements for children resident in care homes in eastern Ukraine or otherwise separated from those holding parental responsibility for them. In view of the post-2022 practice, there are also legitimate concerns as to whether such children who crossed the border into Russia subsequently returned to Ukraine.
1586. The Court further notes that the transfers observed by the Border Mission took place largely, but not exclusively, in the summer months. This is consistent with some of the children having crossed the border to attend “holiday camps” in the Russian Federation. However, the evidence for the post-2022 period shows that even where children crossed the border with parental consent to attend camps, their stay in Russia was frequently prolonged and parents encountered difficulties in reuniting with their children. Some of the difficulties described in 2022 in this respect appear to have been linked to the intensity of the armed conflict and restrictions on travel as a result. But there are also descriptions of transfers between camps and of temporary stays becoming indefinite stays, without parental consent.
1587. The Court considers that in the context of the overwhelming evidence of a systematic practice from shortly before the invasion of 24 February 2022 of transferring Ukrainian children in occupied areas to Russia and facilitating their adoption there, the evidence described above in respect of the period between 2014 and 2022 gives rise to a real concern that the practice of transferring children to Russia established in the summer of 2014 continued throughout the intervening years. The reference in statements made in 2022 by the Russian Presidential Commissioner for Children’s Rights to experience with caring for children from Donbas “since 2014” corroborates the allegation that relocations from the “DPR” and the “LPR” took place in 2014 and in subsequent years. In this respect the Court underlines that the children involved in the three incidents which occurred in June, July and August 2014 cannot conceivably be those cared for by Russian families given the short duration of their stay in Russia. The Court infers from this statement that, since 2014, other children from the “DPR” and the “LPR” have been placed with families in Russia.
1588. All of these elements called for an explanation from the Russian Federation. No explanation has been forthcoming. In these circumstances, the Court does not consider that the overall examination of the complaint about the existence of an administrative practice of the transfer of children between 2014 and 2022 is to be confined in the present case only to the three groups of children transferred in the summer of 2014 and the numerous children transferred in 2022. It is satisfied that a continuous sequence of acts in a pattern between 2014 and 2022 aimed at removing Ukrainian children from occupied territory in Ukraine and integrating them potentially indefinitely in families or institutions in Russia has been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt (see, for a similar approach in respect of the repetition of acts, Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea), § 970). The temporal breaks between such sequences of acts and the development of additional elements, such as the provisions facilitating changes of nationality and adoption in the Russian Federation, are not factors which affect the continuity of the overarching pattern and the intention behind it.
1589. The applicant Ukrainian Government have alleged that this practice breached Articles 3, 5 and 8 of the Convention and Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention. The Court considers it appropriate to address, first, the complaint under Article 8 of the Convention.
1590. The Court is satisfied that the children’s removal from their homes, their separation from their parents and caregivers, their transfer to Russia and the absence of any steps by the Russian authorities to secure their reunification, while active arrangements were being made for their temporary or permanent placement in foster families or adoption, amounted to interferences with the children’s right to respect for their private and family lives, as guaranteed under Article 8 of the Convention.
1591. The respondent Government have not, in the present proceedings, identified any legal basis for the various measures taken. Russian officials have described transfers as a humanitarian undertaking to rescue children from war zones and to bring them to safety. The Court notes that evacuation is permitted under international humanitarian law in certain circumstances. However, as explained above, the powers granted by international humanitarian law must be reflected in the domestic legal order through relevant legal instruments and appropriate guidance that satisfy the quality of law requirement inherent in the notion of “lawfulness”. The respondent Government have not identified any legal basis for these measures and the evidence does not refer to any specific legal framework authorising evacuation measures. Insofar as the evidence suggests that at least some measures may have been based on “legal acts” of the “DPR” and the “LPR”, the Court has already explained that such “legal acts” cannot provide a legal basis for the measures taken.
1592. It is, in any event, questionable whether the measures described in the evidence could satisfy the “quality of law” requirement inherent in the concept of lawfulness. The respondent Government have not argued that the legal provisions applied incorporated adequate safeguards to ensure protection of the children’s best interests and there is nothing in the evidence to suggest that this was the case.
1593. Moreover, for transfers of children to qualify as lawful evacuations under international humanitarian law, they would have had to comply with a number of requirements. Evacuations may be carried out only in case of “imperative military reasons” or for the “safety of the population”; within the bounds of occupied territory unless impossible; and only temporarily. There are extensive procedural rules concerning the need for written consent from parents or legal guardians and the obligation to make arrangements to facilitate the return and reunification with their families of evacuated children. Changes in their personal status are prohibited. The respondent Government have not provided evidence that the children’s removal from Ukraine in the circumstances complied with any these provisions. There is nothing to show that any of the purported evacuations of children were carried out for the reasons provided for by international humanitarian law. It is also significant that the essence of the present complaint is that the children were transferred from occupied territory to the Russian Federation, which is in clear breach of international humanitarian law in the absence of evidence showing that transfer within occupied territory would have been impossible. The Court has, furthermore, not been informed of any measures having been undertaken by the respondent Government to secure the return to Ukraine and the family reunification of children purportedly evacuated, and no such measures are described in the various reports before it. On the contrary, numerous credible reports identify cases where Ukrainian children were themselves left to try and contact their parents, often with the manifest non-cooperation of the persons in whose custody they were. The policy put in place for the mass acquisition of Russian nationality by children in occupied areas after the 2022 invasion, in breach of international humanitarian law, was nothing less than the automatic imposition of Russian. The Court has already found a similar policy in Crimea implemented in respect of adults to be in breach of Article 8 of the Convention (Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea), §§ 1031-39). This change in nationality facilitated the adoption of the children in Russia. In view of the secrecy of adoption proceedings, once adopted a child is virtually impossible to trace. Given the evidence of changes to nationality and adoption in the Russian Federation, the children’s transfer to Russia cannot be seen as a temporary measure. In view of these considerations, the children’s transfer from Ukraine to the Russian Federation would not appear to qualify as lawful “evacuation” under international humanitarian law.
1594. The Court therefore finds that the transfer to Russia of Ukrainian children and, in many cases, their subsequent adoption in Russia was not “in accordance with the law” within the meaning of Article 8 § 2 of the Convention.
1595. The Court further finds that the treatment of the children concerned attained the threshold of severity required to engage Article 3 of the Convention, for the following reasons. First, the case concerns an official policy of removing children from their legal caregivers in occupied territory and placing them in the care of a hostile occupying State potentially indefinitely and in defiance of international law. Second, the impugned acts occurred against the backdrop of military operations which on their own have a long-lasting and traumatising impact. Third, the separation of children from their families and caregivers in the context described above had a traumatising effect on the children concerned, in particular considering the uncertainty and the fear of being permanently and forcibly separated from their families.This has been acknowledged by the Russian authorities themselves. Finally, there are credible reports of ill-treatment to which some of these children were subjected after relocation. These considerations, combined with the children’s inherent vulnerability resulting from their age and in certain cases their disabilities or special health needs and the absence of parental care or institutionalisation, are sufficiently serious to fall within the scope of application of Article 3 of the Convention. The Court therefore concludes that the removal of Ukrainian children to Russia or Russian-controlled territories, in the conditions described above, resulted in a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.
1596. As regards Article 5 of the Convention, the Court notes that the incidents described concern not only acts of removing children from their habitual residence but also acts of holding them in Russia or Russian-controlled territories either by facilitating their placement in foster-care or their adoption or by placing an excessive burden on children and their caregivers to enable their reunion.
While, according to reports provided by credible sources, a total of over 300 children were returned to Ukraine in the days, weeks and months after their removal to Russia, many more children remain unidentified and stranded in Russia, sometimes thousands of kilometres away from Ukraine and from their families or caregivers.
The exceptional circumstances of the present case – the coercive element of the children’s removal from and stay outside Ukraine, the lack of opportunity to contact their family members, the excessive difficulties faced by caregivers seeking to reunite with the children, the holding of a number of children in various facilities and institutions throughout Russia or Russian-controlled territories and the evident impossibility for them to leave those facilities alone and travel back to Ukraine – lead the Court to conclude that the children were “deprived of their liberty and security” within the meaning of Article 5 of the Convention (Salayev v. Azerbaijan, no. 40900/05, §§ 40-43, 9 November 2010; Tarak and Depe v. Turkey, no. 70472/12, §§ 52-61, 9 April 2019; M.A. v. Cyprus, no. 41872/10, §§ 185‑95,; Khlaifia and Others v. Italy [GC], no. 16483/12, §§ 64-72, 15 December 2016; Bozano v. France, 18 December 1986, § 54).
The respondent Government have not made any submissions arguing that such deprivation of liberty complied with any of the permitted grounds under Article 5 § 1 (a) to (f) of the Convention or that it constituted internment or any other security measures in conformity with international humanitarian law. The Court is also unable to identify any legal ground for such deprivation of liberty. For this reason, the Court concludes that there was also a breach of Article 5 of the Convention.
1597. Finally, the applicant Ukrainian Government have relied on Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention in the context of this complaint. However, in light of its findings above, and notably its conclusion in respect of Article 5, the Court does not consider necessary to examine separately this complaint.
1598. In conclusion, the Court is satisfied, beyond reasonable doubt, that there existed an accumulation of identical or analogous breaches of Articles 3, 5 and 8 of the Convention between June 2014 and 16 September 2022 which are sufficiently numerous and interconnected to amount to a pattern or system of unjustified interferences with the rights of Ukrainian children. Given the systemic and regulatory nature of these violations, there is no doubt that they were officially tolerated by the superiors of the perpetrators and by the higher authorities of the respondent.
1599. The Court therefore finds the respondent State responsible for an administrative practice in the period between June 2014 and 16 September 2022 of the transfer to Russia and, in many cases, the adoption there of Ukrainian children in occupied areas of Ukraine in violation of Articles 3, 5 and 8 of the Convention.
Post Comment