Amnesty International and the August 2022 Ukraine Report
In August, Amnesty International published a short report claiming that Ukraine is endangering civilians by operating in populated areas, and violating the laws of war. The report was met with criticism from the international community. The head of Amnesty in Ukraine, Oksana Pokalchuk, resigned in protest, describing the report as partial and failing to take into account the views of the Ukrainian Defence Ministry. The human rights organisation was accused of legitimising Russian propaganda, and Amnesty would later release a statement acknowledging the criticism, but it reaffirmed its findings.
The report cites evidence of hospitals and schools in the Kharkiv, Donbas, and Mykolaiv Oblasts (regions) being used as military bases throughout the period of April and July 2022. It claims that Ukraine is not fulfilling its obligations to take all feasible measures to avoid civilian casualties, and this constitutes a violation of international humanitarian law. Further analysis of the report shows that it fails to locate these observations within the full context of the conflict. The methodology of the investigation raises questions about the quality of sources, and therefore the quality of the data gathered. The poor communication of that data creates the false impression that the issues raised are endemic and deliberate. The failure to contextualise the data results in an incomplete understanding of the realities of the situation in Ukraine, as well the challenges of balancing the defence and protection of civilians during conflicts.
Operating in Populated Areas
Amnesty criticises Ukraine for operating in populated areas, claiming this resulted in Russian missile strikes that killed or injured civilians. Critics of the report argue for the need to link the presence of Ukrainian forces in these areas, to the pattern of Russian attacks on populated areas. The alternative would be to leave them undefended and the civilians unprotected.
Amnesty acknowledges in the same report that unlawful civilian deaths have occurred in areas where the Ukrainian forces have not been present. It has documented Russian war crimes, and condemned its practice of targeting civilian structures and residential areas. It is within this context that the presence of Ukrainian forces in populated areas needs to be analysed. These Oblasts experienced or faced the threat of land invasion by Russian forces. In order for Ukrainian forces to repel these attacks, it is reasonable for them to be present in the areas that require defending. While a pattern of Ukrainian military operations or presence resulting in the targeting of a populated area is clearly identifiable, the onus is on Russian forces to identify legitimate military targets from civilian ones. Ukrainian forces are responding to tactics being imposed upon them, not by them. Amnesty’s failure to moderate its criticism with an acknowledgement of this, demonstrates a lack of understanding of the reality on the ground.
Hospitals and Schools as Military Bases
The report does acknowledge that humanitarian law does not explicitly disallow the use of vacant schools as military bases, it emphasises the need to avoid using schools near residential areas, unless there is a compelling military need. Amnesty claims that viable alternatives were available but not used. It also states the 19 areas investigated were mere kilometres from the frontline, however this does not take into account the insecure nature of Kharkiv, Donbas, and Mykolaiv Oblasts. As the report testifies, all three were active conflict zones during the period of April to July and subject to missile strikes. The Ukrainian government and military could not guarantee the security of the Oblasts regardless of where the frontline was.
Another criticism is that Amnesty has failed to consider the logistics of mass mobilisation. Full mobilisation is in effect in Ukraine, and thousands of soldiers have required accommodation within a short timeframe. There is limited availability of suitable military buildings given the scale and speed of the conflict. Using vacant schools or hospital compounds as de facto bases is not ideal, but given the situation on the ground, there is a compelling military need to utilise them in these oblasts.
Amnesty reported no evidence of attempts to evacuate civilians from areas being used to accommodate troops or as staging areas, but critics of the report were able to point to several efforts made by the government.
Communication
Amnesty International clearly stated that its criticism of Ukraine’s actions do not justify Russia’s missile strikes against civilians, however the report was used by the Russian government to do precisely that. The potential for this was explained to Amnesty International by its Ukrainian branch, and critics of the report openly condemned Amnesty as aiding Russia’s propaganda and false narratives about the conflict. The language of the report was criticised for not adhering to the principles of impartiality or neutrality. The opening statements and section headlines give the false impression that violations are widespread, with the geographical and temporal parameters of the investigation mentioned further down. The facts of the case are generally accepted, it is the manner in which they have been presented and communicated that has received the most criticism. The actions of Ukraine and Russia are presented without full interrogation creating a false equivalence, which further reinforces the impression that Amnesty lacked an understanding of the situation on the ground in these oblasts.
Methodology
The methodology of the report is not transparent. It fails to provide full details of all of the investigations or observations undertaken, instead providing select examples. It does not explain the criteria for the selection of the 19 areas chosen to be observed within the three oblasts. Verification efforts are mentioned, but the evidence is not included for others to evaluate. This makes counter-enquiry difficult. As an NGO engaged in fact finding, Amnesty’s failure to allow outside actors access to the data is poor practice. Without verification Ukraine is unable to effectively rebut the accusations, and critics of Amnesty have accused it of bias. This could have been prevented with a more rigorous and transparent methodological approach.
Amnesty has been accused by its Ukrainian branch of failing to collaborate with them or the government prior to publishing. Ukraine’s Centre for Strategic Communications challenges the validity of some sources. The report relies on the statements of civilians which is insufficient to accurately identify causality of the strikes mentioned in the report. Amnesty’s Secretary General, Agnes Callamard maintains that the report was subject to due diligence and is impartial.
Impartiality is a critical aspect of humanitarian law and no state or group should be exempt from criticism, however human rights groups do have a responsibility to present their findings transparently and with context. The purpose of Amnesty’s report was to highlight the dangers that civilians in Ukraine face from the tactic of operating in populated areas, and using civilian structures as de facto bases. In presenting its findings so poorly Amnesty International has potentially contributed to further endangering those civilians. The report has been used by Russia to justify its practice of targeting civilian structures and populated areas. Amnesty have clearly criticised this practice, as well as the disinformation deployed by Russia. This only serves to make the poor communication and methodology of the report more surprising. Amnesty should have known how it would be utilised by Russia, especially given the feedback from the Ukrainian branch.
In the report Agnes Callamard states that, “Being in a defensive position does not exempt the Ukrainian military from respecting international humanitarian law.”. This is a fair statement, but it required further expansion. Being in a defensive position means that Ukraine is having to operate in environments that can endanger civilians, precisely to try and defend them. Callamard’s response to criticism further served to reinforce the impression that Amnesty did not understand the situation in Ukraine. When documenting violations of humanitarian law, Amnesty International is not exempt from having to take the complex dynamics of conflict into consideration when reporting its findings. Otherwise it risks contributing to those complex dynamics and achieving the opposite of its aims.