Vrinda Grover, Member of UN Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine

The Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine, established by the UN Human Rights Council, plays a critical role in documenting crimes committed by Russia since they launched aggression against Ukraine. Its activities are focused not only on collecting evidence, but also on identifying responsible individuals and structures, which can be targeted in future trials, including in the International Criminal Court and in the potential Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression against Ukraine.

On March 19, the Commission released its report on the results of its third annual mandate, having documented additional gross violations and crimes systematically committed by Russia in the course of its armed aggression against Ukraine.

Ukrinform's own correspondent in Vienna discussed the main findings of the report and important aspects of the Commission's work with its member, Indian human rights activist and lawyer Vrinda Grover. With over 30 years of experience in the field of constitutional and criminal law, women's rights, and human rights, she is a lawyer at the Supreme Court of India, and also chairs the board of the International Human Rights Service, founder and independent expert at the Working Group on Human Rights in India and the UN. 

FINANCING SHORTAGE, LACK OF COOPERATION WITH RUSSIA ARE THE MAIN ISSUES

- Thank you for agreeing to this conversation. Commissioner Grover, could you tell us more about how the Commission’s work is organized? Specifically, how is it coordinated between the three members of the Commission and the Secretariat in Vienna, especially regarding data collection and processing? 

 - The Commission was established in March 2022. Currently, there are three Commissioners. The Chair is Eric Mose, who is based in Oslo, Norway. Then we have Commissioner Pablo de Greiff, who is based in New York. I, on the other hand, am based in New Delhi, India. 

Our Secretariat is located in Vienna.  

So, regarding our work, especially in terms of coordination between us, we rely heavily on online meetings. We have a structured timetable that we follow on a regular basis. It is a Commission that communicates regularly, both among its members and with the Secretariat. 

At the beginning of each mandate – and we have now completed three mandates – the Commission sets out an investigative strategy, which is informed by relevant issues violations and events occurring at that time, and our mandate. This investigative strategy then guides the Secretariat and the investigators in collecting information and evidence. 

Nevertheless, once the investigative strategy is finalized, the investigators, guided by that strategy, travel to the necessary locations – particularly to Ukraine – to collect information and evidence. As a Commission, we have also previously travelled to Kyiv and other locations in Ukraine.  

However, during the third mandate, due to budgetary constraints, we, the Commissioners, were unable to travel to Ukraine. We considered it more prudent to allocate the limited resources to the investigators for travel. The investigators conduct both in-person meetings and remote interviews, with victims and witnesses; and a wide range of other interlocutors, including civil society organizations.  

Additionally, we receive information from the Ukrainian authorities. All the information received is then collected and analyzed. And we follow a scrupulous and rigorous verification process to ensure that the information, evidence, or testimony we receive is credible, corroborated and authenticated. 

Finally, we draft and submit reports according to the United Nations' timetable. 

- What have been the biggest challenges in gathering evidence and verifying the reliability of sources? 

- There are two distinct challenges that I would mention here. 

First, due to the ongoing liquidity crisis and recruitment freeze, at the United Nations, our Commission has been significantly affected. Initially, our Secretariat consisted of 24 members, but we now have only 13 members in the Commission Secretariat. If a position at the Secretariat falls vacant, we cannot hire a new person to fill the same. While we still have investigators and other staff, we have lost some key positions, such as the chief of investigation, legal advisor, and child rights expert.  

When the strength of the Secretariat is reduced so drastically and key positions are no longer available, the work does not stop, nor does the rigor of the work diminish. However, the breadth of issues that we can investigate is likely to be impacted and members of the Secretariat shoulder a significantly increased workload.  

The lack of resources has also directly affected our ability to travel. As I mentioned, we have not travelled at all to Ukraine during the third mandate, from March 2024 to March 2025. While technology allows us to conduct remote and hybrid conversations, including online meetings with Ukrainian authorities, it has its limitations. 

Another major challenge has been that, despite our repeated communications with the Russian authorities we have not received any information whatsoever from the Russian authorities. We have sent 31 communications since the beginning, many of which were requests for information. 

We need both information as well as access to areas that are under the occupation of the Russian Federation within Ukraine and in the Russian Federation. For example, our investigations cover issues such as torture and sexual violence in detention facilities. However, we do not have access to these facilities because the Russian Federation has not granted it. 

Even if, for instance, we wanted to investigate or examine any allegation put forward by the Russian authorities – not directly to us, as there is no communication, but those that may be in the public domain – we do not have any access, and that limitation remains.     

I would like to re-emphasize that, despite these challenges, the investigators have consistently done extraordinary work in verifying information and speaking to individuals upon their return – for instance, prisoners of war or civilians coming back from detention facilities. 

For instance, in our latest March 19 report to the Human Rights Council in Geneva, we documented interviews with individuals who deserted from the Russian armed forces. So, there are multiple other ways in which we have collected evidence. 

- One follow-up to the financial problems the Commission is facing now. What are the prospects of resolving this liquidity crisis, as you said? And does it affect your work that the United States withdrew from the United Nations Human Rights Council? 

- The liquidity crisis is an issue that actually started in 2024, at the United Nations. It affects all investigative bodies, fact-finding missions, and maybe other aspects of the United Nations' work, which I'm not familiar with. 

But we get our money from the United Nations. Now, how those budgets operate and who gives what is really something that the United Nations and those involved would be better placed to explain.  

DESPITE THE LACK OF COOPERATION ON RUSSIA'S SIDE, WORK IS UNDERWAY WITH OTHER SOURCES

- You have mentioned Russia's refusal to cooperate with the Commission. In your opinion, how could such investigations be practically carried out in the occupied territories of Ukraine, as well as beyond – on the territory of the Russian Federation itself? 

- There are practical impediments because we do not have access to the areas occupied by the Russian Federation within Ukraine or to areas within the Russian Federation itself. Therefore, we conduct interviews with people upon their return. We gather evidence either from their families or through interviews when they come back. 

For instance, in our investigation into the crimes of enforced disappearances, we have examined many letters sent by the Ministry of Defense and other Russian authorities to families who have inquired about the fate and whereabouts of their loved ones. 

Thus, despite the complete lack of communication and absence of access to both information and locations, we work with other available sources of evidence. 

- Do I correctly understand that the Commission doesn't have any geographical, thematic, or time-related restrictions on the events it can investigate? 

- Yes, our mandate is very clear. 

It involves examining all violations of international human rights law, humanitarian law, and other related crimes in the context of the aggression against Ukraine by the Russian Federation. The mandate is not limited solely to the territory of Ukraine. While it primarily focuses on the context of the full-scale invasion, it is broad enough to include the examination of the root causes of the full-scale invasion as well. 

In our work, we are very scrupulous about maintaining independence, impartiality, and objectivity, which is reflected in our reports. We investigate violations regardless of which party is responsible. Therefore, the lack of communication from the Russian Federation disables us even to examine any allegations that the Russian authorities may have.  

Nonetheless, we remain committed to investigating all allegations. 

- And how would you describe the cooperation with the Ukrainian side? 

- The Ukrainian authorities have been cooperative. We have met them on different occasions during our earlier visits and continue to have online communication when required. 

The Secretariat is also in close communication with, for example, the Office of the Prosecutor General or the Ombudsman's Office, and information is sought and received. 

There has been cooperation in the provision of information. 

OUR CONCLUSION IS THAT ENFORCED DISAPPEARANCES ARE A RESULT OF A DELIBERATE POLICY

- In the third year of its work, the Commission documented additional serious human rights violations and irrefutable evidence of horrific crimes systematically committed by Russia during its armed aggression against Ukraine. How would you describe the key findings from this latest report? 

- In our last report, presented on 19th March, 2025, during the interactive dialogue in Geneva to the Human Rights Council, we concluded that enforced disappearances as crimes against humanity have been committed by the Russian Federation.  

Regarding the crime against humanity of enforced disappearance, our investigations reveal that civilians have been held both in detention facilities in the occupied areas of Ukraine and in facilities within the Russian Federation. Some have been detained for months or even years; and some have died while being forcibly disappeared. During their detention, victims have been subjected to other grave violations, including sexual violence and torture. 

International law obliges the detaining authority to inform families about the fate and whereabouts of detainees. However, our analysis of 280 letters indicates a consistent failure to meet this obligation. Families seeking information about their missing relatives often receive standard replies that fail to disclose the detainees' fate or location, despite occasional acknowledgments of detention by the Ministry of Defense. 

This pattern led us to conclude that enforced disappearances are being perpetrated as a deliberate policy, keeping victims beyond legal protection. 

Prisoners of war have also been victims of enforced disappearances. 

Another important finding concerns the widespread and systematic use of torture. In our October 2024 report to the General Assembly, we concluded that torture was being carried out as part of a coordinated state policy and constituted a crime against humanity. Our findings on this have been further confirmed as our investigations deepen, reaffirming that torture is being committed as a crime against humanity. 

Our investigations have also disclosed that the Federal Security Service (FSB) personnel, when present at detention facilities, not only exercised the highest authority but also both commit and order torture, which is particularly brutal during interrogations. 

These acts often involve beatings, electric shocks, and many other forms of severe physical and mental suffering. We've also found that rape and sexual violence are being committed as forms of torture, against men and women in detention, used to punish, coerce, intimidate, and extract information.  

- Commissioner, as you said, in this report was stated that massive systematic torture and enforced disappearance committed by the Russian authorities were part of coordinated state policy. So my question is, can this policy be considered part of a deliberate strategy to persecute and destroy Ukrainians as a national community? 

- As we have said, there is an attempt to extract information, break people down, coerce and punish them in these detention facilities. 

So, within our mandate, and considering the evidence available, we arrive at certain determinations, which we present in our reports. 

There may be further implications, but within the mandate, we reach specific conclusions. 

THE COMMISSION IS INVESTIGATING GENOCIDE BUT IT'S TOO EARLY TO DRAW CONCLUSIONS

- Regarding Russia's campaign against the Ukrainian people, the Commission has previously stated that it has not yet established that Russia is committing genocide in Ukraine. However, as Chairman Erik Møse said, the Commission has noticed some aspects that may raise questions about this crime. So my question is, which aspects drew the Commission's attention, and is further work being done in this direction? 

- As I said, we have an investigative strategy and continue to follow certain areas in our investigation. The reference you made is to an earlier report from 2024, if I recall correctly, where we mentioned that we are examining the evidence. 

The Commission has conducted some investigations into genocide allegations and continues to do so. We have, for example in an earlier report pointed out that the rhetoric of certain Russian media calling for the killing of a large number of persons raises particular concern. 

Our evidence has currently led us to conclude that crimes against humanity, such as enforced disappearances and torture, have been committed, as well as war crimes, including rape, sexual violence, and the killing of wounded and injured soldiers. 

Our evidence leads us to legal determinations, and as you know, the Commission’s third mandate has concluded, and its renewal is currently before the Human Rights Council. 

So, the areas and aspects to be further investigated will depend on where the evidence takes us and the availability of evidence. 

And of course, as I mentioned earlier, we also operate under certain real constraints. 

- But again, Ukrainian officials have repeatedly stated that Russia is committing genocide in Ukraine, insisting on this qualification. In particular, they point to calls in Russian state media directed against Ukrainians, the denial by Russian officials of the very existence of Ukrainians as a separate nation, the forced deportation of Ukrainian children to Russia, and the destruction of their identity. But the war itself — Russians are killing Ukrainians simply because they are Ukrainians and want an independent state. So how does the Commission assess these arguments? What evidence still needs to be gathered or verified? 

- I think the distinction we perhaps have to make is that, as a Commission of Inquiry constituted with a specific mandate, we work within defined parameters: we examine the evidence and test it against certain legal regimes. 

The legal regimes include the Rome Statute, international human rights law, and international humanitarian law. Genocide, as we know, is part of the Rome Statute. 

There are various elements of evidence that have to come together. We collect evidence and make determinations based on material that we have verified and analyzed. 

 Other authorities may draw different conclusions, but our conclusions are based on the evidence we are collecting and analyzing. 

The elements we have and the determinations we have made have already been outlined. As our work deepens, further insights may emerge. However, the current mandate has concluded and is up for renewal, pending a decision by the Human Rights Council. 

If renewed, investigations will continue as required. For now, these are the conclusions we have arrived at. 

THE COMMISSION IS AN INVESTIGATING BODY, NOT A PROSECUTING ONE

- The Commission previously stated that the forced displacement and deportation of Ukrainian children from occupied territories of Ukraine is a war crime. How do you assess the prospects of punishing those responsible for this crime, including the main war criminal Putin, for whom an arrest warrant has been issued by the International Criminal Court for this very crime? 

- As you know, we are an investigating body, not a prosecuting one. That is very much within the domain of the ICC, and we, of course, coordinate and provide whatever is available from our evidence, if required, to prosecutors, whether domestic or international. 

As for prosecuting anyone, it is completely outside our mandate, and I will not venture into that area at all. 

Regarding the issue of child deportation and holding those responsible accountable, it remains a key mandate of the Commission. The reason for our investigations is that accountability must be ensured. It is one of the few ways to end this cycle of impunity, and accountability can occur both at the national and international levels. 

To this end, we collect information, conduct investigations, and coordinate with other bodies. Prosecution, whether for war crimes or crimes against humanity, falls within the remit of other institutions. 

- If you talk about the prospects for the real punishment of those guilty, so much depends on how the materials collected by the Commission will be used. In your opinion, how can these materials contribute to future trials? Are there already specific cases where the evidence and testimonies you collected have been used? 

- We do try, in the process of our investigation, to the extent possible, to identify entities or persons who have committed any form of crime. That evidence is collected, and as I said, there is coordination with the relevant institutions, entities, and authorities who may seek that evidence. It is, of course, made available only if we have consent from the victim. 

We are very careful to ensure that all processes follow a victim-centric approach, even the process of coordinating or providing any information or evidence. 

This coordination takes place at the institutional level. 

ACCOUNTABILITY FOR THE CRIME OF AGGRESSION IS NECESSARY

- You have mentioned that the Commission's mandate also covers the identification of individuals and structures responsible for violations and crimes. So has the Commission made any progress in this direction? Perhaps there is maybe a closed report with a list of specific individuals and structures. If not, when will this be done? 

- Well, two things. 

Starting with the latter part first, you see, our work will only proceed if the mandate is renewed.  

As for identification, we do identify entities as well. Our reports reflect this. For instance, if you look at our reports during the third mandate, we identified the Russian Federation’s Federal Security Service (FSB), the Federal Penitentiary Service (FSIN) and its special purpose units (SPETSNAZ), and the Investigations Committee, as entities playing an important role in the perpetration of torture as part of a coordinated state policy. 

So that is how evidence is collected, and once secured, it is shared with the appropriate institutions as and when required. Communication is done at the appropriate level.  

- The work of the Core Group establishing the Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression against Ukraine is in its final stage. How do you see the feasibility of such a Tribunal with regard to international criminal law? And can the evidence collected by the Commission also be used by this potential special tribunal? 

- Yes, insofar as the crime of aggression is concerned, the Commission has previously stated that the invasion of Ukraine by Russia constitutes an act of aggression. This has been noted in our earlier reports as well as in the conference room paper presented by the Commission. 

As for the feasibility, we know that currently there is no mechanism of accountability for this under international criminal law. However, there is an ongoing discussion at the international level about setting up a tribunal. In principle, the Commission has expressed that accountability for the crime of aggression is necessary. 

In terms of feasibility, it would take time and require substantial resources, including financial resources. So, could it take a long time, and would it therefore be many years before anybody can be held accountable? 

These are, of course, still part of ongoing dialogues at the international level. 

- Concerning the extension of the Commission's mandate in early April, can you tell us when exactly this will happen? What are your expectations? Will the mandate be extended? 

- So, the resolution has been tabled, and it has to be voted on by the 47 member states of the Human Rights Council. 

As I said, during the interactive dialogue, we observed significant support for the Commission's work and for the renewal of the mandate, as expressed by many member states. 

Regarding the actual renewal, my understanding is that it will take place in the first week of April. 

- It is clear that the focus of the Commission's investigation during this new period will be defined after the mandate is extended. Nevertheless, given your expertise and experience, which directions and topics do you think deserve attention and prioritization? 

- As you've rightly pointed out, the investigative strategy will be determined after we receive confirmation of the mandate renewal. 

If we look back at the three mandates the Commission has worked on, we observe a pattern of specific crimes that have been identified. Some of these, such as torture, enforced disappearances, rape, and sexual violence, have been thoroughly investigated, allowing us to identify entities and establish the elements constituting these crimes. 

There are, however, many other violations that are occurring, and formulating the new investigative strategy will require us to take into consideration available capacity, resources, access issues, and the ongoing grave violations and crimes. 

In the past, we have also addressed attacks on energy infrastructure and other issues of varying nature. Therefore, our investigative strategy will also depend on the availability of material, information, and evidence amid the numerous violations taking place. 

ACCOUNTABILITY SHOULD UNDERPIN ANY PEACE PROCESS

- Currently, active international efforts are underway to find a peaceful resolution to Russia's war against Ukraine. Could a potential ceasefire affect the Commission's further work if its mandate is extended? 

- The Commission is not involved in any political process related to a ceasefire. 

Our mandate, responsibility, and area of work focus on investigation because accountability for crimes and violations must be ensured. 

We believe that both judicial and non-judicial accountability are essential for sustaining any peace process. 

Therefore, if the mandate is renewed, we will continue our work because accountability should underpin any peace process. 

- I would also like to ask one more general, perhaps personal question. Throughout your work, you have encountered many crimes and violations, reviewed testimonies from victims, and witnessed the destruction caused by Russia. What has impacted you the most during your time working with the Commission? 

- I think the interviews we conduct with victims and their families, the kind of hardship and suffering people have experienced – whether it is when a family member has disappeared and for months or years you are waiting, as anxiety and uncertainty  grips your life; or the recounting of torture that people have endured, and the sexual violence and rape  - not just against women but also against men in detention – are profoundly disturbing. 

Those testimonies are very troubling, as they reveal the extent of suffering being inflicted. Our work involves understanding and analyzing them. 

We therefore emphasize ensuring that victims receive all forms of support, whether it be psychosocial assistance or non-judicial accountability, which includes reparation, rehabilitation, and that there are guarantees of non-recurrence so that those who have suffered receive some form of justice. 

- Commissioner Grover, my last question. Do you believe this war will change international law? What should the international community do to ensure that such crimes never happen again? 

- Well, the core purpose of international law is accountability. The mandate of this Commission is centred on accountability. International law provides that there should be accountability for all violations and crimes, regardless of jurisdiction. 

We can only hope that our work, along with the efforts of others, will secure accountability. To my understanding, judicial accountability is important to break these cycles of impunity. 

And that is something we must keep in mind throughout this process.  

Vasyl Korotkyi, Vienna

Photos by Nikoleta Haffar, Vasyl Korotkyi