The GDP has received alarming reports detailing the detention of 44 non-nationals in Ukraine’s Volyn detention centre (Volyn PTPI). Conditions in the facility are reported to be dire, raising serious concerns for detainees’ safety and wellbeing. (The GDP previously reported about the situation at Volyn, see our 29 April 2022 blog entry below.) Located in […]
Ukraine: Covid-19 and Detention
Immigration Detention amidst War: The Case of Ukraine’s Volyn Detention Centre A Global Detention Project Special Report In early March, shortly into Russia’s war on Ukraine, the Global Detention Project (GDP) began receiving email messages and videos from individuals claiming to know people who remained trapped in an immigration detention centre inside Ukraine, even as […]
Ukraine: Covid-19 and Detention
According to information submitted to the GDP by the office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in Ukraine, the number of newly detained migrants in the country has decreased during the pandemic. In Zakarpattia Oblast, those who have been apprehended while entering the country during the crisis have been placed in Border Guard […]
Ukraine: Covid-19 and Detention
According to information provided to the Global Detention Project (GDP) by the Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group (KHPG), the Ukrainian government is currently preparing to release inmates from prisons across Ukraine in an effort to stem the spread of the virus. Together with the Ministry of Justice, KHPG has prepared two bills on amnesty and […]
Ukraine: Covid-19 and Detention
While calls have been circulated urging authorities to take precautionary steps to protect prisoners, the GDP is not aware of such calls being made with regards to immigration detainees. On 24 March, 100 Ukrainian and European NGOs issued a statement urging Russian authorities to take necessary steps to protect prisoners confined in the Donbas and […]
Last updated: October 2023
Ukraine: Immigration Detention During the Current Conflict
Submission to the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment
INTRODUCTION
The Global Detention Project (GDP) is pleased to provide this submission to the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment in response to her call for input[1] to inform her upcoming report on Ukraine. This submission provides an overview of concerns regarding immigration detention in Ukraine with a particular focus on the period since Russia’s full-scale invasion of the country. The submission also recalls the Special Rapporteur’s long-standing concerns about torture and ill-treatment in immigration detention settings, which the mandate has addressed in various reports, including in the mandate’s 2018 report on migration-related torture and ill-treatment and 2015 report on the deprivation of liberty of children.[2]
CONTEXT
In March 2022, shortly after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, people confined in immigration detention centres in Ukraine used cell phones to contact the Global Detention Project (GDP) through social media and email to inform us of their ongoing detention, including in areas of the country near the conflict, as well as their alleged ill-treatment at the hands of detention centre staff.
While investigating these reports, the GDP learned that although one of Ukraine’s immigration detention centres, the Chernihiv PTPI, was emptied shortly after the start of the war, other facilities, including the Volyn PTPI (also known as the “Zhuravychi Migrant Accommodation Centre”) and Nikolaev PTPI, remained in operation. Information provided on the website of Ukraine’s State Migration Service in early 2022 corroborated these reports, indicating that there were at that time three migration-related detention facilities in operation: Volyn PTPI, Chernihiv PTPI, and Nikolaev PTPI.[3]
Reports subsequently published by the GDP[4] and other civil society organisations (including, Human Rights Watch[5] and the Transnational Institute[6]) as well as by several media outlets (including Lighthouse Reports[7], Al Jazeera[8], Der Spiegel[9], and the Guardian[10]) raise a number of critical concerns both with respect to the particular plights of immigration detainees in Ukraine as well as more broadly the seeming lack of legal protection for immigration detainees in the context of ongoing warfare and their vulnerability to torture and ill-treatment.
Amidst the ongoing suffering across Ukraine, it is crucial that the rights of refugees and asylum seekers caught up within the conflict not be not overlooked. Thus, the GDP has urged numerous stakeholders both domestically in Ukraine as well as internationally to push for the immediate release of foreign nationals detained for immigration-related reasons in the country, including the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), as well as the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT). The GDP has also reached out to officials in the European Parliament, urging them to raise this issue amongst EU Member States, particularly in light of the EU’s important investments in the Ukraine’s immigration detention system, resulting in some members tabling the issue during parliamentary sessions and including it in a European Parliament resolution in April 2022.[11] We likewise urge the Special Rapporteur to consider including concerns about this situation in her upcoming report on Ukraine.
EVIDENCE
Among the initial pieces of evidence that detainees at the Volyn (Zhuravychi) detention centre provided to the GDP were videos from inside cells during apparent Russian bombing of a nearby village as well as lists of countries of origin of people at the facility at that time, which included people from Pakistan, India, Eritrea, Sudan, and Afghanistan–many of them students and migrant workers. We corroborated this information with other on-the-ground sources, who informed the GDP that while the embassies of some of the detainees, including India, had begun arranging the removal of their nationals, other detainees did not want assistance from their embassies because they did not wish to return and were seeking asylum.
In interviews with Human Rights Watch, which collaborated with the GDP on this issue, detainees in Volyn said that conditions had deteriorated after 24 February when members of the Ukrainian military moved into the centre and guards relocated the detainees to one of the two buildings in the complex–freeing the second building for the soldiers. The centre also has no bomb shelter. When detainees protested and demanded to be released, the guards refused, forcibly putting an end to the protest and beating detainees.[12] According to other reports, guards told detainees that they could leave the facility if they joined the Ukrainian war effort–which, reportedly, would have resulted in them immediately being granted Ukrainian citizenship.[13]
In the months following, some detainees were reported to be released. However, in December 2022, the GDP received more reports detailing the continued use of Volyn PTPI for detaining foreign nationals. According to the information seen by the GDP, 44 foreign nationals were being detained in the centre–42 men and 2 women. Most of them were Tatars, Dagestanis, Russians, Azerbaijanis, Armenians, and Uzbeks–many of whom were fleeing political and religious persecution and feared being returned to their countries of origin.
At the time, much of Ukraine faced power outages as a result of Russian missiles targeting the country’s power-generating facilities. Reports from the centre highlighted constant electricity cuts, extremely cold rooms, infrequent hot water supply, and disrupted mobile service–raising serious concerns for detainees’ welfare and safety.[14]
The dangers faced by those who remain detained were also illustrated in May 2022, when the Deputy Director of the Chernihiv PTPI informed HRW that the facility–having already been emptied–was hit by munitions that he believes were fired by a drone on 30 March. Windows of the dining room and dormitory were shattered, and the roof was damaged. As HRW noted, “While the damage was limited, it underscores the need to urgently evacuate people from Zhuravychi and Mykolaiv before these centers are also targeted in an attack.”[15]
RECOMMENDATIONS
It is deeply concerning that Ukrainian authorities have continued to detain and deport migrants and refugees since Russia’s invasion of the country. It is also concerning that there appears to be only limited provision in international humanitarian law that is relevant to the plight of these detainees, including in particular Additional Protocol 1, Article 58C, of the Geneva Conventions, which requires all parties to a conflict to take necessary measures to protect civilians under their control from the effects of war.
“The Parties to the conflict shall, to the maximum extent feasible…. (c) Take the other necessary precautions to protect the civilian population, individual civilians and civilian objects under their control against the dangers resulting from military operations.”
We encourage the Special Rapporteur to raise these issues in her report on Ukraine, using the opportunity to:
- Urge Ukrainian authorities to release all people in immigration detention centres and provide them with resources to depart the country or to remain safe and adequately cared for in the community.
- Urge Ukrainian authorities to cease all use of immigration detention measures while the country remains under siege and at war.
- Urge Ukrainian authorities to provide a full accounting of the measures they have taken since Russia’s invasion to protect immigration detainees in the country, as well as to investigate abuses that have occurred in detention centres.
- Urge relevant international agencies and human rights mechanisms to address the situation of immigration detention with national authorities in Ukraine.
- Urge national missions in Ukraine to assist the removal of their citizens when such assistance is sought.
- Urge EU officials to produce an account of the use of EU-financed detention centres since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and to pressure officials in Ukraine to cease immigration detention operations while conflict is ongoing in the country.
- Initiate a broader conversation about the use of immigration detention in conflict situations with a view to underscoring relevant international norms and identifying possible gaps in the existing normative framework, leading to a “lessons learned” assessment that could be applied in future crisis.
SEE ALSO
[1] Special Rapporteur on Torture, “Call For Inputs – Country Visit to Ukraine (4-15 September 2023),” https://www.ohchr.org/en/calls-for-input/2023/call-inputs-country-visit-ukraine-4-15-september-2023
[2] UN Human Rights Council, “Report of the Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Juan E. Méndez,” A/HRC/28/68, 5 March 2015, https://www.refworld.org/pdfid/5501506a4.pdf; UN Human Rights Council, “Report of the Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment,” A/HRC/37/50, 23 November 2018, https://ap.ohchr.org/documents/dpage_e.aspx?si=A/HRC/37/50
[3] Global Detention Project, “Volyn Temporary Stay for Foreigners and Stateless Persons (Volyn PTPI),” https://bitly.ws/YtfW; Global Detention Project, “Chernihiv Temporary Stay for Foreigners and Stateless Persons (Chernihiv PTPI),” https://bitly.ws/Ytg6; Global Detention Project, “Nikolaev Temporary Stay for Foreigners and Stateless Persons (Mykolayiv PTPI),” https://bitly.ws/YtfE
[4] Global Detention Project, “Immigration Detention Amidst War: The Case of Ukraine’s Volyn Detention Centre,” 29 April 2022, https://www.globaldetentionproject.org/immigration-detention-amidst-war-the-case-of-ukraines-volyn-detention-centre
[5] Human Rights Watch, “Migrants, Asylum Seekers Locked Up In Ukraine,” 4 April 2022, https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/04/04/migrants-asylum-seekers-locked-ukraine
[6] TNI, “How the EU has Used War in Ukraine to Expand its Border Regime,” 14 June 2023, https://www.tni.org/en/article/how-the-eu-has-used-the-war-in-ukraine-to-expand-its-border-regime
[7] Lighthouse Reports, Twitter thread, 21 March 2022, https://twitter.com/LHreports/status/1506029416652156933
[8] K. Fallon, “Fear Grows for Migrants Held in Ukraine’s Detention Centre,” Al Jazeera English, 4 April 2022, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/4/4/fear-grows-for-migrants-held-in-ukraines-detention-centre
[9] S. Lüdke, “Gefangen im Krieg,” Der Speigel, 4 April 2022, https://www.spiegel.de/ausland/ukraine-migranten-in-eu-finanzierten-haftzentren-gefangen-a-ea2ed6bc-9d46-4026-af5d-c58f9d1095f0
[10] J. Williams, “’Scared for our Lives’: Grave Concerns Over Safety of Refugees Detained by Ukraine,” The Guardian, 12 April 2022, https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2022/apr/12/ukraine-refugees-detained-russia-war
[11] European Parliament, “European Parliament Resolution of 7 April 2022 on the EU’s Protection of Children and Young People Fleeing the War in Ukraine,” 7 April 2022, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2022-0120_EN.html
[12] Human Rights Watch, “Migrants, Asylum Seekers Locked Up In Ukraine,” 4 April 2022, https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/04/04/migrants-asylum-seekers-locked-ukraine
[13] Euro-Med Monitor, “Ukraine’s Detention of Dozens of Migrants During War is Inhumane, Unjustifiable,” 17 April 2022, https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/5062/Ukraine%E2%80%99s-detention-of-dozens-of-migrants-during-war-is-inhumane,-unjustifiable
[14] Global Detention Project, “The Continued Detention of Non-Nationals in Ukraine’s Volyn Detention Centre,” 15 December 2022, https://www.globaldetentionproject.org/15-december-2022-ukraine
[15] Human Rights Watch, “Ukraine: Migrants Locked Up Near Front Lines,” 6 May 2022, https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/05/06/ukraine-migrants-locked-near-front-lines
DETENTION STATISTICS
DETENTION CAPACITY
ALTERNATIVES TO DETENTION
PRISON DATA
POPULATION DATA
SOCIO-ECONOMIC DATA & POLLS
LEGAL & REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Additional Legislation
Law of Ukraine No 3671-VI on Refugees and Persons in need of Complementary or Temporary Protection in Ukraine. 8 July 2011
(2011)
2014
Law on amendments to some legislative acts of Ukraine in connection with the adoption of the Law of Ukraine on the Legal Status of Foreigners and Stateless Persons of October 2012, No.5453-VI.
(2012)
2012
Regulations, Standards, Guidelines
Regulations on consideration of applications and processing needed for refugee status or complementary protection determination, or for refugee status or complementary protection deprivation, or for refugee status or complementary protection cancellation. 7 September 2011#649.
(2011)
Bilateral/Multilateral Readmission Agreements
GROUNDS FOR DETENTION
LENGTH OF DETENTION
DETENTION INSTITUTIONS
Custodial Authorities
Detention Facility Management
PROCEDURAL STANDARDS & SAFEGUARDS
Procedural Standards
COSTS & OUTSOURCING
Description of Foreign Assistance
In 2011, the European Union (EU) allocated 30 million Euros to build 9 new detention centres for irregular migrants, which are slated to have a total capacity of 270 beds. The construction cost per bed would thus exceed 100,000 euros. This programme is part of the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI). It will finance the construction of centres of detention—“temporary holding facilities” in EU parlance—along the EU borders with Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, and Romania, each with a capacity of 10 beds. One of two larger “custody centres” with a capacity for 100 detainees will be located closer to the Russian Federation. The financing authority is the EU, represented by the European Commission. The contracting authorities are the Ministry of Internal Affairs for the two larger facilities and the Administration of the State Border Guard service of Ukraine for the 7 smaller ones (Europa TTED 2010, DECU 2011b).
COVID-19 DATA
TRANSPARENCY
MONITORING
Types of Authorised Detention Monitoring Institutions
Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights
(National Human Rights Institution (or Ombudsperson) (NHRI))
NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS MONITORING BODIES
NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISMS (OPTIONAL PROTOCOL TO UN CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE)
NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANISATIONS (NGOs)
GOVERNMENTAL MONITORING BODIES
INTERNATIONAL DETENTION MONITORING
INTERNATIONAL TREATIES & TREATY BODIES
International Treaties Ratified
Ratification Year
Observation Date
ICPED, International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance
2015
2015
OPCAT, Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
2006
2006
CTOCTP, Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children
2004
2004
CTOCSP, Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime
2004
2004
CAT, Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
1987
1987
Ratio of relevant international treaties ratified
Ratio: 15/19
Individual Complaints Procedures
Acceptance Year
CEDAW, Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, 1999
2003
2003
Relevant Recommendations or Observations Issued by Treaty Bodies
Recommendation Year
Observation Date
Human Rights Committee
38. The State party should:
(a) Ensure that any legislation adopted fully complies with the Covenant, in
particular the principle of non-refoulement and the right to liberty and security of
person, in accordance with the Committee’s general comment No. 35 (2014), and that
the principle of non-refoulement is fully respected in transit zones;
(b) Provide free legal aid and translation services to applicants for asylum at
the border, in particular in transit zones, to ensure that they are able to exercise their
right to appeal in practice;
(c) Enhance the training of border guard officials and immigration personnel
to ensure full respect of the rights of asylum seekers under the Covenant and other
applicable international standards.
2022
2022
2022
Human Rights Committee
"18. "[...] ensure that all persons applying for international protection are given access to a fair and full refugee determination procedure, are effectively protected against refoulement, and have access to counsel, legal aid and an interpreter. The state party should ensure that detention is only used as a last resort, and where necessary, for as short a period as possible, and provide alternatives to detention. It should also consider increasing the time span for filing appeals and ensure that rejected applicants are not deported immediately after the conclusion of the administrative proceedings before they can submit an appeal against a negative asylum decision.
2013
2013
Committee on the Rights of the Child
“42. The Committee urges the State party to take all necessary measures to prevent and eliminate torture and all forms of ill-treatment of children, and, in particular: (a) To initiate comprehensive trainings for members of the Militsia and the Ukraine State Border Guard Services on the prohibition of torture and ill-treatment and on international standards relating to juvenile justice; (b) To strengthen independent monitoring of children deprived of their liberty, including by “mobile groups/teams” (see CCPR/C/UKR/CO/6/Add.1, para. 11 and CAT/C/UKR/CO/5, para. 12) or other mechanisms, until a national preventive mechanism is formally established by the State party under the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment; (c) To ensure prompt, independent and effective investigation of all alleged cases of torture or ill-treatment of children and, as appropriate, prosecute offenders; (d) To undertake a study on access to justice of children deprived of their liberty with a view to improving respect for legal safeguards against torture and illtreatment;” “72. The Committee recommends that the State party: […] (b) Ensure that unaccompanied asylum-seeking children are promptly appointed a legal representative in order to effectively access the asylum procedure, as well as assistance and protection, including access to free interpretation; (c) Ensure that no asylum-seeking or refugee child is deprived of his or her liberty; (d) Adopt the draft instruction on cooperation between State authorities regarding unaccompanied asylum-seeking children;”
2011
2011
Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination
“20. […] b) ensure that all asylum-seekers remain documented throughout the asylum procedure, including the appeals stage, so that they do not face the risk of detention or refoulement while pursuing their asylum claims, and that adequate resources are available for the provision of interpretation to them, particularly in the courts and in places of detention so that they can enjoy meaningful access to justice”
2011
2011
Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
“26. The Committee is deeply concerned about reports on substandard living conditions and overcrowding in prisons, pre-trial detention centres and centres for refugees and asylum-seekers, including in medical wards for inmates and detainees suffering from tuberculosis.” 49. The Committee recommends that the State party take immediate measures to ensure adequate occupancy levels and access to safe water, sanitation, food, bedding, natural light, ventilation, and out-of-cell activities in prisons, detention centres and centres for refugees and asylumseekers, as well as adequate treatment and medication for prisoners and detainees suffering from tuberculosis and other diseases
2008
2008
Committee against Torture
“20. adopt asylum procedures in accordance with international standards as well as improve detention conditions, including by the use of alternative measures”
2007
2007
Committee against Torture
§17 The State party should:
(a) Ensure that all persons applying for international protection have access to a fair refugee determination procedure and are effectively protected against refoulement;
(b) Refrain from detaining asylum seekers for prolonged periods, use detention only as a measure of last resort for as short a period as possible, promote alternatives to detention and revise policy in order to bring it in line with the Guidelines on the Applicable Criteria and Standards relating to the Detention of Asylum Seekers and Alternatives to Detention issued by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees;
(c) Consider increasing the time for filing appeals and ensure that rejected applicants are not deported immediately upon the conclusion of administrative proceedings before they are able to submit an appeal against a negative asylum decision , and make available legal aid and interpreters;
(d) Take all the necessary measures , in accordance with international standards, to provide sufficient protection to all internally displaced persons.
2014
2014
> UN Special Procedures
Global Detention Project and Partner Submissions to UN Special Procedures
> UN Universal Periodic Review
REGIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS MECHANISMS
Regional Legal Instruments
Year of Ratification (Treaty) / Transposed (Directive) / Adoption (Regulation)
Observation Date
CPCSE, Convention on the Protection of Children against Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse
2012
2012
2017
ECHR, Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (commonly known as the European Convention on Human Rights
1997
1997
2017
ECHRP7, Protocol 7 to the European Convention on Human Rights (amended by protocol 11)
1997
1997
2017
ECHRP1, Protocol 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights (amended by protocol 11)
1997
1997
2017
ECPT, European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment of Punishment
1997
1997
2017
Relevant Recommendations or Observations of Regional Human Rights Mechanisms
Recommendation Year
Observation Date
European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT)
“CPT calls upon the Ukrainian authorities to implement its recommendations made in paragraph 42 of the report on the 2007 visit, and in particular to ensure that all persons held under aliens legislation:
- have an effective right, as from the very outset of their deprivation of liberty (i.e. from the moment when the persons concerned are obliged to remain with a law enforcement agency), to inform a relative or a third party of their choice of
their situation;
- have an effective right of access to a lawyer as from the very outset of their deprivation of liberty and at all stages of the proceedings;
- receive, when necessary, the assistance of a qualified interpreter.
Further, the CPT invites the Ukrainian authorities to redouble their efforts to ensure that foreign nationals held under aliens legislation are fully informed about their situation and the procedure applicable to them.”
The CPT has repeatedly recommended that the 12-hour period of time after which consulates or relevant diplomatic missions are to be contacted following the detention of a foreign national should be extended as the period is not long enough for many persons to apply for asylum (CPT 2011, para. 58).
2009
2009
2009
Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights
“ - Enact specific legislation on asylum seekers;
- provide legal guarantees against discrimination of refugees on grounds of race, religion or country of origin; ensure legal representation of refugees by NGO staff; and a time frame for illegally entering migrants;
- resort to detention only as a very last solution; put an end to the unacceptable situations of asylum seekers who, after some time, find themselves in a legal limbo and are kept in detention of indefinite duration.”
2006
2006
2006
HEALTH CARE PROVISION
HEALTH IMPACTS
COVID-19
Country Updates
The GDP has received alarming reports detailing the detention of 44 non-nationals in Ukraine’s Volyn detention centre (Volyn PTPI). Conditions in the facility are reported to be dire, raising serious concerns for detainees’ safety and wellbeing. (The GDP previously reported about the situation at Volyn, see our 29 April 2022 blog entry below.)
Located in northwestern Ukraine and 130km from the border with Belarus, Volyn is reportedly detaining 44 non-nationals–42 men and two women. In our previous reports about Volyn, which were coordinated with media outlets and other civil society groups, we highlighted the grave plight of foreign nationals trapped at the detention centre who were unable to evacuate even as Russia’s war on the country reached nearby towns. Despite the reported release of some immigration detainees in Ukraine since then, the GDP is alarmed to learn that Volyn PTPI remains operational and that conditions in the centre remain appalling, even as concerns grow of a possible land invasion by Russian and Belarusian troops amassing on the Belarus border.
Much of Ukraine has been facing power outages in recent weeks as a result of Russian missiles targeting the country’s power-generating facilities. Volyn PTPI may also have been affected, with reports received by the GDP highlighting constant electricity cuts–with the facility’s management rarely turning on a generator–heating that is rarely on, extremely cold rooms, infrequent hot water supply, and disrupted cellular service. Combined with bitterly cold winter weather (this weekend, temperatures are expected to plunge to -12° in the area), the welfare of detainees is at grave risk. Already, several detainees are reported to be sick.
Previously, the GDP reported that detainees were mostly students and migrant workers from India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Ethiopia, and Sudan who had been detained on immigration grounds and who were desperately trying to return to their own countries. The most recent reports received by the GDP, however, indicate a change in the profile of detainees. Today, they are principally ethnic Tatars, Dagestanis, Russians, Azerbaijanis, Armenians, and Uzbeks seeking asylum from political and religious persecution–and who would thus risk persecution or worse if “evacuated” to their home countries. Nevertheless, Ukrainian authorities likely view these nationals with suspicion and may assume that they are affiliated with an aggressor country during a state of war.
Ukraine’s continued detention of migrants and refugees violate international legal standards that underscore the necessity of releasing detainees in administrative detention in situations of on-going warfare. Additional Protocol 1, Article 58C, of the Geneva Conventions requires all parties to a conflict to take necessary measures to protect civilians under their control from the effects of war. It is also alarming that Russians, Tatars, Dagestanis, Azerbaijanis, Armenians, and Uzbeks, many of whom have fled persecution by Russian security services and whose lives and safety would be in extreme danger if deported to their countries, are being arrested, detained, and threatened with deportation from Ukraine.
Amidst the ongoing suffering across Ukraine, it is crucial that the rights of refugees and asylum seekers caught up within the conflict are not overlooked. Ukraine must consider immediately releasing all foreign nationals who are being detained for immigration reasons, in particular in light of on-going warfare on its territory. The GDP also believes that it is incumbent on international and regional organisations to help detainees find safety in accordance with their mandates.
Immigration Detention amidst War: The Case of Ukraine’s Volyn Detention Centre
A Global Detention Project Special Report
In early March, shortly into Russia’s war on Ukraine, the Global Detention Project (GDP) began receiving email messages and videos from individuals claiming to know people who remained trapped in an immigration detention centre inside Ukraine, even as the war approached. We also received messages from a representative of the humanitarian group Alight based in Poland, who said that they too were receiving messages from detainees at Volyn, as well as identity documents, photos, and videos.
The information we received indicated that there were several dozen detainees still at the Volyn detention centre (formally, “Volyn PTPI,” but also referred to as the “Zhuravychi Migrant Accommodation Centre”), including people from Pakistan, India, Eritrea, Sudan, Afghanistan, among other countries. They had grown particularly desperate after the start of the war and had held a demonstration to demand their release when the nearby town was shelled, which reportedly was violently broken up by detention centre guards.
The GDP located a webpage on the official website of Ukraine’s State Secretariat of Migration that provided confirmation of the operational status of the Volyn facility as well as of two others. Although the official webpage was subsequently taken down, as of late March it continued to indicate that there were three operational migration-related detention centres in Ukraine, called Temporary Stay for Foreigners or PTPI (Пункти тимчасового перебування іноземців та осіб без громадянства): Volyn PTPI(Zhuravychi); Chernihiv PTPI; and Nikolaev PTPI (also referred to as the Mykolaiv detention centre).
We learned that the Chernihiv PTPI, located north of Kyiv, was emptied shortly after the start of the war. However, as of the end of March 2022, it appeared that both the Volyn PTPI and Nikolaev PTPI remained operational and were holding detainees. We understood that the situation at the detention centres had been brought to the attention of relevant authorities in Ukraine and that the embassies of at least some of the detainees—including India—had begun arranging the removal of their nationals. Detainees from some countries, however, reportedly indicated that they did not want assistance from their embassies because they did not wish to return and were seeking asylum.
In our communications and reporting on this situation, including on social media and through direct outreach to officials and media outlets, the GDP consistently called for the release of all migrants trapped in detention centres in Ukraine and for international efforts to assist migrants to seek safety. We highlighted important international legal standards that underscore the necessity of releasing detainees in administrative detention in situations of ongoing warfare. Important among these is Additional Protocol 1, Article 58C, of the Geneva Conventions, which requires all parties to a conflict to take necessary measures to protect civilians under their control from the effects of the war.
We also pointed to relevant human rights standards pertaining to administrative detention. For example, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, in their seminal Revised Deliberation No. 5 on the deprivation of liberty of migrants, conclude that in “instances when the obstacle for identifying or removal of persons in an irregular situation from the territory is not attributable to them … rendering expulsion impossible … the detainee must be released to avoid potentially indefinite detention from occurring, which would be arbitrary.” Similarly, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has repeatedly found that when the purpose of such detention is no longer possible, detainees must be released (see ECHR, “Guide on Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights: Right to Liberty and Security,” paragraph 149.).
In April, a consortium of press outlets—including Lighthouse Reports, Al Jazeera English, and Der Spiegel—jointly undertook an investigation into migrants trapped in detention in Ukraine and published separate reports simultaneously on 4 April. Human Rights Watch (HRW) also published their own report on 4 April, which called on authorities to immediately release the detainees. All these reports cited information provided by the GDP and interviewed GDP staff.
HRW reported that they had spoken to some of the detainees at Volyn (Zhuravychi) and were able to confirm numerous details, including that “people of up to 15 nationalities were being held there, including people from Afghanistan, Algeria, Bangladesh, Cameroon, Ethiopia, Gambia, Ghana, India, Nigeria, Pakistan, and Syria.” According to HRW, the detainees claimed to have “been detained in the months prior to the Russian invasion for irregularly trying to cross the border into Poland.” They said that there were more than 100 men and women at the facility, though according to Lighthouse Reports only an estimated 45 people remained at the centre as of 21 March.
The interviewees said that conditions at the detention centre deteriorated after 24 February when members of the Ukrainian military moved into the centre and guards relocated the detainees to one of the two buildings in the complex, freeing the second building for the soldiers. When detainees protested and demanded to be released, the guards refused, forcibly putting an end to the protest and beating detainees. Some detainees claimed to have been told that they could leave the centre if they agreed to fight alongside the Ukrainian military, which they refused.
An issue addressed in many of these reports is the EU’s role in financing immigration detention centres in Ukraine, which the GDP had previously noted in a report about Ukraine in 2012. According to that report, “In 2011, 30 million Euros were allocated to build nine new detention centres in Ukraine. According to the EU delegation to Ukraine, this project will ‘enable’ the application of the EU-Ukraine readmission by providing detention space for ‘readmitted’ migrants sent back to Ukraine from EU countries.”
In its report on the situation, Al Jazeera quoted Niamh Ní Bhriain of the Transnational Institute, who said that the EU had allocated 1.7 million euros ($1.8m) for the securitisation of the Volyn centre in 2009. She added, “The EU drove the policies and funded the infrastructure which sees up to 45 people being detained today inside this facility in Ukraine and therefore it must call on Ukraine to immediately release those being held and guarantee them the same protection inside the EU as others fleeing the same war.”
Efforts to get clarity on EU financing from officials in Brussels were stymied by lack of responsiveness on the part of EU officials. According to Al Jazeera, “The European Commission did not answer questions from Al Jazeera regarding its operation and whether there were plans to help evacuate any remaining people. Ukrainian authorities also did not respond to a request for comment.” The Guardian also reported in mid-April they had “approached the Zhuravychi detention facility and the Ukrainian authorities for comment” but had yet to receive a response as of 12 April.
However, on 5 April, two MEPs, Tineke Strik and Erik Marquardt, raised the issue during a joint session of the European Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice, and Home Affairs (LIBE) and the Committee on Development (DEVE). The MEPs urged the EU to take steps to assist the release of the detainees.
In mid-April, reports emerged that some detainees who had been released from the Volyn PTPI in Zhuravychi were later re-detained in Poland. In its 14 April report, The Guardian reported that “some of those that were released from the centre in the first few days of the war are now being held in a detention centre in Poland, after they were arrested attempting to cross the Polish border, but these claims could not be verified.” On 22 April, Lighthouse Reports cited Tigrayan diaspora representatives as saying that two former detainees at the facility were refugees fleeing Ethiopia’s war in the region, where human rights groups report evidence of a campaign of ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. Despite being provided documents by Ukraine stipulating that they were stateless persons and being promised safe passage, Polish border guards detained the pair, arguing that there was an “extreme probability of escape.”
Separately, human rights campaigners following the case informed the GDP in late April that they had evidence of immigration detainees still being locked up in Ukraine’s detention centres, including in particular the Nikolaev (Mykolaiv) PTPI.
The GDP continues to call for the release of all migrants detained in Ukraine during ongoing warfare and for international efforts to help detainees to find safety, in accordance with international humanitarian and human rights law. Recognizing the huge efforts Poland is making to assist refugees from Ukraine, we nevertheless call on the Polish government to treat all people fleeing Ukraine equally and without discrimination based on race, nationality, or ethnic origin. Everyone fleeing the conflict in Ukraine is entitled to international protection and assistance and no one should be detained on arrival in Poland.
• Global Detention Project, Initial Twitter regarding the Zhuravychi/Volyn detention centre, 14 March 2022, https://twitter.com/migradetention/status/1503782279591649281?s=20&t=RJiogbQssEW9Oed1Bu4yMg
• Human Rights Watch, “Migrant, Asylum Seekers Locked Up in Ukraine,” 4 April 2022, https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/04/04/migrants-asylum-seekers-locked-ukraine
• Lighthouse Reports, “Twitter,” 21 March 2022, https://twitter.com/LHreports/status/1506029416652156933
• J. Christensen, “War in Ukraine Could Make the COVID-19 Pandemic Worse, WHO Says,” CNN, 14 March 2022, https://edition.cnn.com/2022/03/13/health/who-ukraine-war-covid-19/index.html
• WHO, “Stop Attacks on Health Care in Ukraine: Joint Statement from UNICEF, UNFPA, and WHO,” 13 March 2022, https://www.who.int/news/item/13-03-2022-stop-attacks-on-health-care-in-ukraine
• L. Sabin, “Prisoners in Ukraine with Combat Experience will be Released from Jail to Help Defend Against Russia,” The Independent, 28 February 2022, https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ukraine-army-russia-prisoners-jail-b2024985.html
• C. Brown, “A Kremlin Paper Justifies Erasing the Ukrainian Identity, as Russia is Accused of War Crimes,” CBC, 5 April 2022, https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/kremlin-editorial-ukraine-identity-1.6407921
• K. Fallon, “Fear Grows for Migrants Held in Ukraine’s Detention Centre,” Al-Jazeera, 4 April 2022, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/4/4/fear-grows-for-migrants-held-in-ukraines-detention-centre
• S. Lüdke, “Caught in War,” Der Spiegel, 4 April 2022, https://www.spiegel.de/ausland/ukraine-migranten-in-eu-finanzierten-haftzentren-gefangen-a-ea2ed6bc-9d46-4026-af5d-c58f9d1095f0
• Lighthouse Reports, “Twitter,” 4 April 2022, https://twitter.com/stluedke/status/1510907043225477121
• Volyn PTPI (in Zhuravychi) (© Ukraine Ombudsperson via Right2Protect, https://r2p.org.ua/shho-take-ptpi/)
• GDP Twitter thread on data from Ukraine’s State Secretariat of Migration, 25 March 2022, https://twitter.com/migradetention/status/1507254585949310980?s=20&t=RJiogbQssEW9Oed1Bu4yMg
• GDP Twitter tread on relevant international law, 27 March 2022, https://twitter.com/migradetention/status/1508159933593882628?s=20&t=RJiogbQssEW9Oed1Bu4yMg
• Niamh Ní Bhriain (The Transnational Institute), Twitter thread, 24 March 2022, https://twitter.com/DondeNiamh/status/1506910877685010433?s=20&t=wcPwjTiMTlEovUSnUOH4GQ
• Global Detention Project, “Immigration Detention in Ukraine,” 2012, https://www.globaldetentionproject.org/countries/europe/ukraine#country-report
• Jessie Williams, “‘Scared for our lives’: grave concerns over safety of refugees detained by Ukraine,” The Guardian, 12 April 2022, https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2022/apr/12/ukraine-refugees-detained-russia-war
According to information submitted to the GDP by the office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in Ukraine, the number of newly detained migrants in the country has decreased during the pandemic. In Zakarpattia Oblast, those who have been apprehended while entering the country during the crisis have been placed in Border Guard Temporary Holding Facilities (THFs) and Specially Equipped Premises (SPs) (Mukachevo THF, Onokivzi SP, Velukuj SP, and Solotvino SP). THFs are designed for holding non-nationals for up to 72 hours (or for up to ten days with permission from the prosecutor), while SPs are designed for holding non-nationals for three hours (or up to three days if necessary and provided the public prosecutor is notified within 24 hours). Usually, persons who need to be detained longer are transferred to one of three state-run migrant custody centres (MCCs). However, during the pandemic such transfers have been halted leaving detainees confined in THFs and SPs for far longer than legislation permits.
Although Ukrainian authorities announced a non-discriminatory approach to the pandemic, significant barriers exist in the country, preventing many undocumented nationals from accessing assistance during the pandemic. Individuals without identity documents—including thousands of stateless persons—are not entitled to access state services including medical examinations (which are free of charge to any documented individual). In a survey conducted by Right to Protection among stateless persons in Ukraine between April and May, 92 percent of stateless persons reported that they do not have a family doctor—and approximately half of all respondents reported that they had been denied registering due to their lack of identity documents. Although UNHCR estimates that there are 35,600 stateless persons in the country, in 2019 only 5,642 had a stateless person residence permit. Few are able to regularise their situation due to the fact that the country lacks a statelessness determination procedure (a draft law, #2335, which would establish this, is currently awaiting parliamentary debate).
According to information provided to the Global Detention Project (GDP) by the Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group (KHPG), the Ukrainian government is currently preparing to release inmates from prisons across Ukraine in an effort to stem the spread of the virus. Together with the Ministry of Justice, KHPG has prepared two bills on amnesty and parole which have been approved by the government, and which are now awaiting parliamentary approval. According to the KHPG, rights groups hope for 40 percent of the prison population to be released from the country’s “chronically underfunded” penitentiary system. On 30 April, the head of the UN Monitoring Mission for Human Rights in Ukraine called on the Ministry of Justice and Ministry of Health to strengthen their response to Covid-19 in the country’s penitentiary system.
There do not appear to be any specific plans to release people from migration-related detention, and to-date, KHPG is not aware of any calls from civil society to protect non-citizens. According to the rights group, some lawyers and government officials view - if inaccurately - immigration detention facilities as resembling hotels rather than prisons. They also hold that with deportation impossible and no alternative accommodation options in place, it would be “dangerous” to release non-citizens.
In recent years, the number of people detained at Temporary Holding Centres for Foreign Nationals and Stateless Persons (THCs) for the purpose of expulsion has increased: from 407 in 2014 to 1,481 in 2018. KHPG says that there is significant overcrowding at THCs, which have a maximum capacity of 473, and that detainees have limited access to assistance. According to the Ombudsman’s 2018 report, detention conditions are inadequate in THCs - those inside have limited space, and are restricted in their ability to communicate with the outside world. Within the context of a pandemic, such conditions raise significant concerns.
In early May, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Human Rights also reported concerns regarding the detention of Ukrainian nationals (and others who have not taken Russian citizenship) in both Russia and occupied Ukrainian territories. Noting that Crimean Tatars detained in the Russian Federation and occupied Crimea lack sufficient space, ventilation, and sanitary conditions, she pointed to reports that they are not being provided with PPE, disinfectants, or medicines.
While calls have been circulated urging authorities to take precautionary steps to protect prisoners, the GDP is not aware of such calls being made with regards to immigration detainees.
On 24 March, 100 Ukrainian and European NGOs issued a statement urging Russian authorities to take necessary steps to protect prisoners confined in the Donbas and Crimea (as well as in Russia). According to the statement, inadequate measures have been adopted to protect prisoners - health services are “faulty,” prison authorities cannot guarantee adequate sanitation and hygiene conditions, no masks are available for prisoners displaying symptoms, and facilities are overcrowded. The statement, however, did not address persons detained due to their migration status. In Ukrainian-controlled prisons, prisoners speaking to the Kharkhiv Human Rights Protection Group have reported a lack of precautionary measures (including disinfection, temperature screening on arrival, and protective clothing for staff) despite the introduction of governmental decrees requiring penitentiary institutions to initiate anti-epidemic measures.
On 23 March, the Justice Ministry Elena Vysotskaya, Deputy Minister of the Justice Ministry, stated that although there were no plans to release prisoners, authorities are observing practices of other countries and are not ruling out the option of releasing inmates. No mention of immigration detainees, however, was made.
Government Agencies
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine, http://www.mfa.gov.ua
Ministry of the Interior, http://mvs.gov.ua/en/
State Border Guard Service of Ukraine, http://www.pvu.gov.ua/en/
State Migration Service of Ukraine, http://dmsu.gov.ua/
State Statistics Committee of Ukraine, http://2001.ukrcensus.gov.ua/eng/
Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine (Parliament), http://portal.rada.gov.ua/control/en/index
International Organisations
Delegation of the European Commission to Ukraine,http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/ukraine/
International Labour Organisation (ILO) Central and Eastern Europe, http://www.ilo.org/public/english/region/eurpro/budapest/
International Organisation for Migration (IOM) Mission in Ukraine, http://www.iom.org.ua/?lang=en
UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) Ukraine, http://www.unhcr.org.ua
NGO & Research Institutions
Border Monitoring Project Ukraine, http://bordermonitoring-ukraine.eu/
Caritas Ukraine, http://caritas-ua.org/index.php?&lang=english
Chernihiv Public Committee of Human Rights Protection, http://www.protection.org.ua/en/
Danish Refugee Council, https://drc.ngo/where-we-work/europe-and-caucasus/ukraine
Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, http://global.hias.org/
International Centre for Policy Studies (ICPS Ukraine),http://www.icps.com.ua/en/
Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group, http://www.khpg.org/en/
No Borders Ukraine, http://noborders.org.ua/en/
Media
Brama, http://www.brama.com/news/
Kyiv Post, http://www.kyivpost.com/
UA Reporter, http://www.ua-reporter.com/eng
Ukrainian Independent Information Agency (UNIAN), http://www.unian.net/
Ukrayinska Pravda (Ukrainian), http://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/
UKRINFORM, http://www.ukrinform.ua/eng/
Zerkalo Nedeli (Ukrainian), http://www.zn.ua/
