Inside the UN Inquiry Into Russia’s Deportation of Ukrainian Children
Dr. Kateryna Rashevska is a Ukrainian human rights lawyer and holds a PhD in international law whose work centers on accountability for war crimes against children. She serves as a Legal Expert and Lead on International Justice and Legal Analysis at the Regional Center for Human Rights. Rashevska is also a member of the Interdepartmental Commission on the Application and Implementation of International Humanitarian Law in Ukraine, the Expert Council at the Representation of the President of Ukraine in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, and the Bring Kids Back UA Task Force. Her advocacy has brought her before the UN Security Council, the UN General Assembly, and the UN Human Rights Council, where she has addressed the issue of child deportations.
In this interview, Rashevska examines the findings of the UN Commission of Inquiry into Russia’s deportation and forcible transfer of Ukrainian children. She discusses how the Commission documented cases involving 1,205 children across five oblasts, including both previously reported and newly identified cases, and concluded that Russian authorities committed crimes against humanity—namely deportation and forcible transfer—as well as enforced disappearance and related war crimes, including the unjustifiable delay in repatriation.
Rashevska argues that delayed returns, alongside policies of Russification, militarization, ideological indoctrination, and long-term placement in Russian families or institutions, point to a broader system aimed at erasing Ukrainian identity. The conversation also explores potential pathways for accountability, including the role of the ICC, sanctions regimes, UN mechanisms, and wider international justice efforts to protect children and document ongoing abuses in occupied territories.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: About the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine, one major focus has been the unlawful deportation and forcible transfer of children. Earlier public discussions often cited a figure of roughly 19,500 to 20,000 children in broader Ukrainian tracking. In its March 9 report, presented to the Human Rights Council on March 12, the Commission documented cases involving 1,205 children from five oblasts, including previously reported cases. It concluded that Russian authorities committed the crimes against humanity of deportation and forcible transfer of children, as well as enforced disappearance, and war crimes, including unjustifiable delay in repatriation. From your area of expertise, what are the key points to draw from that report? Once those 1,205 documented cases are established, how do investigators move from documentation to prosecution, given that a case can be built on even a single verified instance?
Kateryna Rashevska: First, this is not the first report by the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine addressing the unlawful deportation and forcible transfer of Ukrainian children. In earlier reporting, including in 2023, the Commission had already concluded that such transfers and deportations had occurred and amounted to war crimes. In its more recent work, the Commission also found that Russian authorities unjustifiably delayed the repatriation of children, treating this delay as a separate war crime under international law.
The Commission clarified that failure to facilitate children’s return is not a secondary issue but part of the criminal conduct itself. In Ukraine, criminal legislation was amended in 2025 to specifically address the unlawful transfer, deportation, and unjustifiable delay in the repatriation of a child.
Among the report’s central findings is that, in the cases documented by the Commission, approximately 80% of the children had not yet returned after several years. This figure applies to the Commission’s documented cases, not to all affected children. Ukraine’s broader official tracking portal reported 20,570 deported or forcibly displaced children and 2,061 returned children as of April 1.
View this post on Instagram
The Commission also found that Russian authorities pursued long-term placement of these children in the Russian Federation, including in families and institutions. It noted that officials publicly referred to adoption and later emphasized foster placement, while long-term family placements continued. The report found children were placed across 21 regions of the Russian Federation, some were given Russian citizenship, and profiles appeared on adoption or foster-placement databases. Both adoption and long-term foster placement can serve the same practical outcome: preventing children from returning to their families and to Ukraine.
This conclusion challenges Russian official narratives. Maria Lvova-Belova, the Russian Presidential Commissioner for Children’s Rights, has repeatedly framed these practices as lawful or misunderstood. The Commission rejected this characterization, finding that many transfers were not temporary, that consent requirements were not met, and that the child’s best interests were not respected.
While there are procedural differences—adoption typically requires court proceedings, whereas foster care can be arranged through occupation authorities or at the level of Russian federal subjects—the underlying logic is similar. Both mechanisms serve the same purpose.
The report correctly highlights that Russian authorities are attempting to retain these children permanently and to transform Ukrainian children into Russian citizens, including through ideological conditioning aligned with state interests. The Commission found changes to children’s personal status, including nationality and, in some cases, their names and places of birth. These violated international humanitarian law and international human rights law.
The United Nations is now examining the broader impact of militarization and political indoctrination on Ukrainian children. This includes documenting violations affecting children under Russian control and occupation. This work is essential. There are established OSCE Moscow Mechanism findings on forcible transfer and deportation. Ukrainian officials argued for reapplying the mechanism with a new emphasis on indoctrination and militarization.
These reports are important because they demonstrate to the international community the full scope of violations committed against Ukrainian children. Each year, efforts to reshape their identity and allegiance become more systematic and more aggressive.
There are already indications of impact. Russian authorities report that children from occupied territories are entering Russian universities. Others are sent to so-called “re-education” programs or even abroad, where they are presented as youth representatives promoting Russian language, culture, and state narratives. These developments reflect the outcomes of these policies.
The report is also significant because it identifies individuals involved in designing and implementing these practices. Some of those named are high-ranking Russian officials. Anna Kuznetsova, for example, is referenced. The Regional Center for Human Rights submitted a communication to the International Criminal Court in 2023 concerning the imposition of Russian citizenship on Ukrainian children and the role of Kuznetsova in this violation.
As former Russian Presidential Commissioner for Children’s Rights and now Deputy Chair of the State Duma, Kuznetsova facilitated and publicly supported the deportation of Ukrainian children from occupied territories and their placement with Russian families. Following the full-scale invasion, she supported the imposition of Russian citizenship on Ukrainian children and broader policies of Russification. She also led a parliamentary commission promoting narratives about alleged crimes by Ukrainian forces against children in Donbas.
These findings may prompt further action by the International Criminal Court, including the development of potential cases. Other individuals identified in the report should also be considered for targeted sanctions. Sanctions remain one of the primary tools for signaling accountability and deterring further violations.
This report is an important step. Further reports should continue to establish clear links between documented violations and proceedings across international justice mechanisms addressing crimes against Ukrainian children.
As an example, in the recent interstate judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia, reports from United Nations bodies can be used as part of the evidentiary record. This demonstrates the evidentiary value of such reports in international proceedings.
Jacobsen: Thank you very much for the opportunity and your time, Kateryna.
