Oleksandra Matviichuk is a prominent human rights defender, currently leading the Center for Civil Liberties and coordinating the Euromaidan SOS initiative group. Her work focuses on protecting human rights and promoting democracy in Ukraine and the OSCE region. The Center for Civil Liberties engages in legislative advocacy, public oversight of law enforcement and judiciary, educational initiatives, and international solidarity programs. Euromaidan SOS originated in response to the 2013 Kyiv student rally and has since monitored political persecution, documented war crimes, and campaigned for the release of political prisoners. Matviichuk, recognised for her extensive experience in human rights activism and documenting violations during armed conflicts, initiated the ‘Tribunal for Putin’ to document international crimes in regions targeted by Russian aggression. Her contributions earned her several awards, including the Right Livelihood Award and acknowledgement as one of the 25 most influential women by the Financial Times in 2022. Additionally, the Center for Civil Liberties received the Nobel Peace Prize in the same year.
CJLPA: You have led, and continue to lead, an inspiring career in protecting and upholding human rights as an international human rights lawyer, serving on the Advisory Council under the Commissioner for Human Rights of Ukraine’s national parliament, representing Ukraine to the UN Committee against Torture and of course, and heading the Centre for Civil Liberties in Ukraine. In 2022, the Centre for Civil Liberties was awarded the 2022 Nobel Peace Prize, a further indication of your remarkable work. What prompted you in this career?
Oleksandra Matviichuk: In high school, I considered becoming a theatre director. At that time, I met the philosopher, author, and head of PEN Ukraine, Yevhen Sverstiuk. He took care of me and introduced me to the circle of Ukrainian dissidents. I got to know people from my history textbook. They courageously dared to fight against the totalitarian Soviet machine. They spent many years in camps, exiles, and psychiatric hospitals. Since then, I know that even when you have no tools left, you always have your own word and your own stance. It is not so little, after all. This experience shaped my life. I chose to study law so that I could defend freedom and human dignity.
CJLPA: There is a lot of literature and philosophy about how we see human rights: do we see them as morals (which are in themselves subjective), a set of standards defined by intellectuals and philosophers, rights promised by states (which at any point can be taken away the same way it was given), or something else? What do human rights mean to you?
OM: Human rights are humanistic ideas of how to protect the person’s freedom from the arbitrariness of the majority, no matter what form it takes—be it the dictates of the society or the state machine. After World War II, these ideas were enshrined in international standards at the level of the UN, the Council of Europe and other regional international organisations. However, human rights are more about a way of thinking, about a certain paradigm of world perception that determines how a person thinks and acts. They lose their meaning if their defence is delivered to lawyers and diplomats alone. Therefore, it is not enough to pass the right laws or establish formal institutions. The values that dominate society are stronger anyway.
CJLPA: After World War II, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights codified the protection of our fundamental human rights. It signified a time of solidarity, a time where we thought we had helped end all wars and prevent future human rights abuses. And yet, in the present day, people around the world are fighting for their fundamental human rights and freedom. Countries, even ‘developed’ countries, began to take them for granted. How do we make human rights meaningful again?
OM: The problem is not only that the space of freedom in authoritarian countries has narrowed to the level of a prison cell. The problem is that even in developed democracies, forces calling into question the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are gaining weight. There are reasons for this.
Others have replaced the generations that survived World War II. They have inherited the values of democracy from their parents. They began to take rights and freedoms for granted. People are increasingly manifesting themselves not as carriers of these values but as their consumers. They perceive freedom as making choices between cheeses in the supermarket. Therefore, they are ready to exchange freedom for economic benefits, promises of security or personal comfort.
In a large part of the world outside the theatre of World War II, there was some experience that determined the development of the societies. For example, they were formed in the process of decolonisation and related confrontation with the metropolises, which became the architects of the new world order. It is obvious that in the absence of developed democratic traditions and a weak legal culture, trust in the entire concept of the existing world order and human rights is undermined.
Freedom and human rights cannot be achieved once and forever. We make our own choices every day. Human rights should be a no less important factor in our decision-making than economic benefit or comfort.
CJLPA: From your extensive experience in working with national governments and the United Nations or from your encounters with diplomats and politicians, are human rights given the importance in political decision making that we would expect?
OM: Now, the armies are speaking because the voices of civil society have not been heard. We may have been listened to at the UN Human Rights Committee or the annual OSCE Human Dimension Implementation Meeting, but definitely not in the rooms where people in power make decisions. If we do not want power to remain with those who have the most powerful military potential, then the voices of civil society require much more support.
We are witnessing before our eyes the collapse of the world order based on the UN Charter and international law. Yes, this system did not do well before, but now it is slipping and performing the ritual movements. The Security Council is paralysed. We have entered a period of turbulence, and now fires will occur more and more frequently because the world’s wiring is faulty, and sparks are everywhere.
Hence the question—how will we, people in the 21st century, protect people, their rights, freedom, and dignity? Can we rely on the law? Does only brute force matter? It is important not only for people in Ukraine, Syria, China, Iran, or Sudan to understand this. The answer to this question determines our common future.
CJLPA: As of 2022, the world has responded in shock about the emergence of Russia’s disgraceful regime, but the reality is that Russia has been committing crimes in countries around the world for decades (eg Syria). Why do you think there was no international response?
OM: This impunity has a long tradition. The Nazi criminals faced the Nuremberg Tribunal, but the Soviet totalitarian gulag has never been condemned or punished. Neither for Holodomor exterminating the Ukrainian people in 1932-33, nor for the forced deportation of the Crimean Tatar people, nor for the aggression of the USSR against Czechoslovakia.
Unpunished evil grows. Even after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Russian military has committed terrible crimes in Chechnya, Georgia, Syria, Mali, Libya, and other parts of the world. However, the countries of the democratic world have turned a blind eye to this for a long time. They have continued to shake hands with the Russian leadership, build gas pipelines, and conduct ‘business as usual’. The world did not respond properly even to the act of aggression and annexation of Crimea, which became the first precedent in post-war Europe. Russia has come to believe that it can do whatever it wants.
Now, when I am asked why the Russian military shelled the car with the mother and children, to whom they themselves gave permission to evacuate and waved their hands as if to say goodbye, I have a simple answer. There was no legitimate purpose to do this. There was no military necessity for this. The Russians did it only because they could.
CJLPA: In addition to the above, the Russia-Ukraine war did not start in 2022 but years earlier. Could this war have been prevented altogether if our response had been different, or was it inevitable, given Putin’s horrific ideals and motivation? What can and should politicians learn from this?
OM: In February 2014, Russia unleashed the war against Ukraine, occupying the Crimean peninsula and a part of the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts. At that time, the Revolution of Dignity was over in Ukraine. Millions of people courageously stood up against the authoritarian and corrupt regime. They fought for the chance to build a state in which every person’s rights are protected, the government is accountable, the courts are independent, and the police do not beat peaceful student demonstrations. They paid the highest price for it. The police shot dead more than a hundred peaceful demonstrators in the capital’s central square.
When the authoritarian regime collapsed, Ukraine had a chance for democratic transformation. To stop Ukraine on this path, Russia began this war in February 2014. In February 2022, Russia expanded it to a full-scale invasion. It is not NATO which Putin is afraid of. Dictators fear the assertion of the idea of freedom.
The democratic world has become accustomed to concessions to dictatorships. That is why the willingness of the Ukrainian people to resist Russian imperialism and defend the values of freedom and democracy is so significant.
It is necessary to stop disguising postponed military threats as ‘political compromises’ or selling the Russian occupation and its terror against the civilian population under the guise of ‘peace’. Politicians are tempted to avoid difficult decisions. They often act as if global challenges will disappear on their own. However, the truth is that global challenges are only intensifying.
CJLPA: It is important to address how unprecedented and terrifying this war is and its implications for humanity. Can you provide us with some details about the crimes that have been occurring and of which we have evidence?
OM: Since the full-scale invasion, we have faced an unprecedented number of war crimes. Russian troops are destroying residential buildings, churches, museums, schools, and hospitals. They are shooting evacuation corridors. They are torturing people in the filtration camps. They are forcibly deporting Ukrainian children to Russia. They are destroying the energy infrastructure to deprive millions of people of heat and light in winter. They are abducting, robbing, raping, and killing in the occupied territories.
Russia is deliberately committing these war crimes. Russia is attempting to break the resistance and occupy the country by inflicting immense pain on the civilian population. Russia uses pain as a tool. Therefore, we are documenting violations of the Geneva or Hague Conventions. Not just violations: we are documenting human pain.
War turns people into numbers. The scale of war crimes is increasing so rapidly that it is simply impossible to tell all the stories. That is why it is so important to tell them. Like the story of Svitlana, who lost her entire family after a Russian missile hit her house.
I heard them dying. My husband was breathing, straining, as if he was trying to throw off the slab, but he couldn’t. One moment, he simply froze. My grandmother and Zhenia died instantly. I heard my daughter start crying. In a moment, she also fell silent. My mother said about my son that he called me several times and fell silent.
People are not numbers. We must give people their names back. Because the life of every person matters.
CJLPA: What are key international laws Russia is violating?
OM: There are probably few provisions of international humanitarian law that Russia has not violated. Before the full-scale invasion, Russian officials at least covered up war crimes, but since 24 February, no one has been hiding anything in particular. Therefore, it is not surprising that when the photos and videos of the murdered people’s bodies in Bucha, still lying on the streets until the city was liberated, shocked the world, Putin gave an award to the army unit which had been deployed there. He thereby gave a clear signal that the Russian army could continue killing, raping, and torturing the civilian population. Nevertheless, special attention should be paid to the genocidal character of this war.
Russia is a contemporary empire. The enslaved peoples of Belarus, Chechnya, Dagestan, Tatarstan, Yakutia, and others are undergoing forced russification, expropriation of natural resources, banning of their native languages and cultures, and forced identity change. An empire has a centre but no borders. An empire always seeks to expand. Therefore, if Russia is not stopped in Ukraine, it will go further.
For empires, culture is only one of the tools of expansion and assimilation of enslaved peoples, just like the languages of these empires. Therefore, it is not surprising that first Russian tanks entered Kherson, and then banners with Pushkin appeared immediately after them. These are the road signs that the Russian Empire used to mark the territories it seized.
At the international level, there are still discussions about whether Russia’s actions can be called genocide. However, there is no need to be a lawyer to understand a simple thing. In order to exterminate a certain national group, it is not necessary to kill all its representatives. One just needs to destroy their identity, and the whole national group will simply disappear.
CJLPA: Does the war demonstrate international law is weak?
OM: It is not international law that is weak. Our efforts to comply with the provisions of international law are insufficient. I had many conversations with the heads of various countries, government officials, and parliamentarians. We still perceive the world through the lens of the Nuremberg Tribunal, where war criminals were convicted only after the Nazi regime had collapsed. However, we are living in a new century. Justice should not depend on how and when the war ends. Justice must not wait. We must establish a special tribunal for the crime of aggression now and bring Putin, Lukashenko and other war criminals to justice.
CJLPA: Alternatively, what are the implications under international law if any ‘political compromises’ (eg concessions offered by Ukraine) were made, either through neutrality or an agreement not to join NATO? Would this have a lawful effect?
OM: People in Ukraine desire peace more than anyone else. Nevertheless, peace does not come when the attacked country lays down its arms. Then, it is not peace but occupation. Occupation is another form of war.
Russia has commenced terror in the occupied territories to keep them under control. The Russian military is exterminating communities’ activists—mayors, public figures, journalists, volunteers, priests, artists, etc. People do not have any possibility to protect themselves, their freedom, property, life and their relatives.
The story of Volodymyr Vakulenko is a vivid example. His body was found in an unmarked grave number 319 after Kharkiv Oblast liberation. He wrote stories for children, and entire generations grew up with his ‘Daddy’s Book’. Volodymyr disappeared during the Russian occupation. His family hoped to the last that he was alive and, like thousands of others, was in Russian captivity. It was difficult for them to accept the results of the identification.
Occupation is not about changing one state flag to another. Occupation means torture, deportations, forced adoptions, prohibition of identity, filtration camps, and mass graves.
People cannot be left to die and be tortured in the occupied territories. People’s lives cannot be a ‘political compromise’. Sustainable peace is the freedom to live without fear and to have a long-term perspective. Calls for Ukraine to stop defending itself and to satisfy Russia’s imperial appetites are not just wrong. They not only conflict with international law, but they are immoral.
CJLPA: Are there any legal or political mechanisms to stop the Russian atrocities now?
OM: Throughout the entire period of the full-scale invasion, Russia has demonstrated complete disregard for international law. Russia has refused to fulfil the interim measures of the UN International Court of Justice regarding the withdrawal of Russian troops from the territory of Ukraine. Therefore, the law is currently not working, although I am sure this is temporary.
One of the possible political mechanisms to stop Russian atrocities is to officially invite Ukraine to NATO with the provision of security guarantees until the moment of accession, which will extend to the part of the territory of Ukraine that is under the jurisdiction of the Ukrainian government. The beginning of the actual accession of Ukraine to NATO is a way to end the war, not to expand it, for the reason that ‘strategic uncertainty’ will constantly serve as a reason for Russia to continue attacking Ukraine.
Russia has always acted proactively. Russia used wars and occupation of foreign territories as a fait accompli, thus creating a new reality and forcing the international community to reckon with it. The democratic NATO member countries should finally seize the initiative to start managing this process.
Ukraine deserves to be a member of NATO. Ukraine shares the values of freedom and democracy and is ready to defend them. Ukraine will not be just a beneficiary but a powerful contributor to the security of the Alliance. These are not promises. This is a fact proven on the battlefield. Ukraine will strengthen NATO.
CJLPA: The UN system, created after World War II by victors, created a structure that allowed for unjustified indulgences for individual and powerful countries. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is not the first time military power has been abused—we saw this with the US’s invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan or NATO bombing in the Kosovo crisis without permission. Did the latter examples create dangerous precedents, or can they be distinguished?
OM: The international peace and security system no longer works. The UN is not capable of protecting people from authoritarian regimes and aggressive wars. Created after World War II by its victors, this system established unjustified indulgences for individual countries, which individual countries are increasingly abusing.
We must launch the reform of the international system to protect people from wars and authoritarian regimes. Effective guarantees of security and respect for human rights are required for all states and their citizens, regardless of their membership in military blocs, their military potential, or economic capacity.
Expanding the number of privileged members of the Security Council, as proposed by the President of the USA, will not solve this problem. We are once again offered a hierarchy where countries of greater size or economic potential determine the fate of the entire world. However, we need a fundamental change in the world order, which should be based on respect for human rights.
CJLPA: A particular weakness in the UN is the veto power for the Permanent States in the UNSC. Two of the veto powers, Russia and China, are authoritarian regimes that contradict our values for human rights and democracy. Time and time again, they have blocked crucial resolutions that were reacting to international conflicts that violated democratic principles. How can we overcome this?
OM: A special responsibility rests with state leaders until the fundamental transformation of the peace and security system takes place. The UN General Assembly should become more proactive in ensuring peace and security. We already have instances when a coalition of states led by Liechtenstein promoted the creation of a special mechanism for Syria. Russia has vetoed the decision to refer the case to the International Criminal Court for years. Establishing the institute of the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Russia by the UN Human Rights Council was equally important. This is the first case of an ‘inviolable, permanent member’ of the Security Council being subject to independent monitoring of the fulfilment of human rights obligations.
CJLPA: Should any state have veto power in the UNSC? Would it be realistic and feasible to change this structure?
OM: I cannot predict the future. Nevertheless, I can use examples from world history. It convincingly testifies that the ideas of changes, which were considered too radical and therefore unrealistic, were eventually implemented. The UN is such an example because, for the first time, the charter of this international organisation enshrined the right to intervene in the internal affairs of a state that grossly violates human rights. Before that, this very possibility sounded like nonsense.
Certainly, this became possible after World War II, which caused millions of casualties, the destruction of entire states and the total dehumanisation of people, symbolised by the Holocaust and Nazi concentration camps. I would like to believe that we are able to learn from historical mistakes and prevent such upheavals.
Nevertheless, I am optimistic about the future. We are accustomed to thinking in categories of states and interstate organisations. However, ordinary people have much more influence than they think. The voice of millions of people in different countries can change world history quicker than the intervention of the United Nations.
CJLPA: How do we (and international law) ensure that Russia will bear responsibility for this age of its history?
OM: We have faced the problem of the responsibility gap. Ukrainian legal system is overloaded with the amount of war crimes proceedings. The International Criminal Court shall limit its investigation to a few selected cases, and it has no jurisdiction over the crime of aggression in the situation of Russian aggression against Ukraine. We need to establish a special tribunal regarding the crime of aggression now and bring Putin, Lukashenko, and others guilty of this crime to justice.
In addition to the crime of aggression, there are other international crimes—war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. These crimes should not remain only in the databases of human rights defenders or in the reports of international organisations. For this purpose, the international element should be involved at the level of national investigation and justice. The support of foreign experts—judges, prosecutors, detectives—is required to properly investigate and ensure judicial proceedings of dozens of thousands of international crimes in accordance with the standards of justice, particularly Articles 6 and 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It is essential to create a hybrid mechanism where national investigators carry out investigations together with international investigators, and national judges administer justice together with international judges.
We must break this circle of impunity. Not only for Ukrainians but also other people who have already suffered from Russia’s actions. And also for people who may become the next target of Russian aggression—this time, to prevent it.
CJLPA: We see crimes against humanity around the world—in Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, Sudan, Palestine, and many more nations. How can the international community improve the protection of human rights for these victims around the world?
OM: Frankly, we have been defeated so many times lately regarding justice that we greatly need success. Ukraine can become such a precedent that will inspire people in other countries of the world to fight. As my colleagues from Syria said: ‘Tell us what is required to achieve justice for Russian war crimes in Ukraine. Because your success will also be our success’.
CJLPA: In addition to the above, do you think we are in a position to instil our ‘Western Principles’ in these countries?
OM: I do not completely understand what ‘Western Principles’ means. If we are talking about human rights, which dictators like to refer to, then the ideas embedded in them are universal in nature. We can find the idea of human freedom or dignity in various cultures and religions worldwide. The truth is that mechanisms for defending freedom are developed in quite diverse ways, and still people in many countries cannot defend their violated rights.
Therefore, human rights advocates in different parts of the world need to work harder to build on local traditions and local historical experience, in which we can find the origins and confirmations of these universal humanistic values.
CJLPA: What can and should the ordinary person who is not a politician or a lawyer do to help make a difference and influence change in our world?
OM: The states that have experienced totalitarianism share a common characteristic. They may have a large population, but they still have only a small number of citizens. Living in fear produces a certain way of thinking, like, ‘I’m an ordinary person; nothing depends on me; anyway, it’s not up to us to decide’. This is a ‘learned helplessness syndrome’ in action. People voluntarily renounce their subjectivity. They turn into objects of control, ‘simple cogs in the mechanism’, as Soviet propaganda said. People become citizens not when they receive their passports but when their area of responsibility starts covering broader categories than themselves or their families.
The countries in transition can demonstrate some consequences of this. However, a person can voluntarily renounce his or her subjectivity even in a developed democratic state. Quite often, people do it for the sake of personal comfort, in order not to take the responsibility and to be inactive. Nevertheless, you cannot make a cat’s paw full of heroes; everyone should make efforts to support social institutions.
This interview was conducted by Nadia Jahnecke, Legal Editor and Founder of CJLPA: The Human Agenda. In addition to her role at CJLPA, Nadia is a qualified lawyer in England & Wales specialising in public international law.