Violation of the rights of military personnel: will the new institution of the Military Ombudsman help?
The fourth year of the war revealed the vulnerability not only of the front lines, but also of the rear structures designed to guarantee the rights of those who bear arms. As it turned out, the system of legal protection of military personnel is ineffective. Their rights are systematically violated, despite clear legal guarantees, the presence of specialized institutions and a direct provision of the Constitution. Guaranteed benefits and procedures are increasingly reduced to declarations, at best — to red tape. Our defenders, who operate in conditions of increased risk, limited access to legal procedures and constant workload, are forced to prove their right to medical assistance, certificate, leave, dismissal or payments. The paradox is that the state, which demands maximum self-sacrifice from its citizens, has not created effective protection for them. A logical question arises: how did it happen that at the very moment when the state is most dependent on the military, legal guarantees for them do not apply?
No Duplication and No Conflict: How the Military Ombudsman Institution Will Complement Rights Oversight
Currently, the legislative initiative on the introduction of the Military Ombudsman institute in Ukraine is considered as an important step in the direction of systematic protection of the rights of military personnel. On July 31, the President of Ukraine announced that he expects the full launch of this institution in the near future. According to him, the text of the corresponding draft law, which, by the way, was registered on May 8 of this year, has already been worked out.
It should be noted that at present there are several structures in Ukraine that take care of the rights of the military. This is, in particular, the Commissioner of the President of Ukraine for the protection of the rights of servicemen and members of their families — Olha Kobylynska. Legal protection of Ukrainians in a more general sense is handled by the Verkhovna Rada Commissioner for Human Rights, Dmytro Lubinets. In addition, the Central Department for the Protection of Servicemen’s Rights operates within the system of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine.
At the same time, the draft law on the Military Ombudsman proposes to create an auxiliary body of the President in accordance with Article 106 of the Constitution of Ukraine in order to exercise his powers in the field of democratic civilian control, provided for by the law “On National Security of Ukraine”. That is, another institution is being created, the creation of which will require additional costs from the State Budget of Ukraine. According to the legislative initiative, it will be an independent structure with its own office, which will focus on the implementation of democratic civilian control of the security and defense sector in matters of ensuring compliance by military administration and military command with the rights of servicemen.
That is, it is created for the additional protection of the rights of military personnel, which will complement the existing means of protecting the constitutional rights and freedoms of a person and a citizen, without canceling them and without creating grounds for revising the competence of state bodies that ensure the protection and restoration of violated rights and freedoms.
The task of the Military Ombudsman should include receiving and considering complaints, providing primary legal assistance, conducting inspections in cases of rights violations, and assisting in the elimination of possible abuses in units. In addition, his range of issues will include health care, gender equality in the military, legal protection during mobilization, and the completion of service and return to civilian life.
Ruslan Tsygankov, the head of the Central Department for the Protection of the Rights of Servicemen of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine, who is a co-author of the draft law, explained that this initiative does not contradict the powers of the current ombudsmen and does not duplicate them. He emphasized that the document is aimed at supplementing the mechanisms for the implementation of the president’s functions in the field of democratic civil control. Tsygankov expressed his conviction that Ukraine should not have a monopoly on the protection of human rights, and therefore the need for a new institution is justified.
It should be noted that during the discussion of the draft law in the parliament, some deputies began to express the opinion that the creation of a new institution contradicts the provisions of the Constitution. However, the situation looks contradictory: at first, the creation of a new body is initiated on the basis of a constitutional norm, and already during the consideration in the parliament, some people’s deputies express the position that such an initiative violates the Basic Law, since, according to its norms, there is only one ombudsman in Ukraine – the Verkhovna Rada Commissioner for Human Rights.
However, the initiators of the draft law believe that it in no way provides for the limitation or reduction of the powers of the Verkhovna Rada Commissioner for Human Rights and will not affect the scope of his competence. The position of the Military Ombudsman will be included in the legislation on national security, because its creation is a logical continuation of the performance of the functions of the President as the Supreme Commander, who has exclusive powers over each serviceman within the limits of disciplinary authority. No other body in the state has a similar legal status.
Therefore, the institution of the Military Ombudsman, which is currently being incorporated into the Ukrainian legislation, provides for its inclusion in the presidential vertical, and this decision has no alternative in the conditions of war.
At the same time, an important point is the requirements for the position of the Military Ombudsman. The draft law provides that it should be exclusively a civilian. Not necessarily with combat experience, because the main criterion should not be participation in combat operations, but expertise. According to the initiators of the draft law, the obligation of combat experience as a mandatory requirement would be a false criterion, because practical knowledge is much more important for the ombudsman than participation in combat operations. However, in which field he is a specialist, the explanatory note to the draft law does not say, but only states: A military ombudsman must be a citizen of Ukraine, not younger than 30 years old, have a higher education at the level of a specialist (master’s degree), be fluent in the state language, have high moral qualities and an impeccable reputation, have lived in Ukraine for the last five years before the appointment, and health, he must be able to perform the relevant duties.
Protection Without Guarantees: How Military Rights Are Still Violated Despite a System of Authorities
In Ukraine, where war has become everyday, there is nothing more absurd than the fact that the military – those who defend our country and deter the enemy – themselves remain defenseless before their own state. They risk their lives, lose limbs, health, and sometimes even their personality. And instead, they get the usual classics for us: red tape, indifference of institutions, circles of hell with VLK, rehabilitation, vacations and dismissals, etc.
There is no publicly available information on the number of complaints about violations of military rights in 2025, but it is known that during 2024, the Verkhovna Rada Commissioner for Human Rights received 123,221 complaints, which is 28.6% more than in 2023. At the same time, the most complaints came from the families of military personnel, in particular, those whose relatives are in captivity, missing, injured or cannot exercise the right to release or treatment.
It is also known that in the Zhytomyr region alone, the Center for the Protection of Human Rights recorded 3,393 appeals in 2024 alone. In the first two months of 2025, there are 916 more. More than half of them are about violations of the rights of servicemen or their families. These appeals do not concern household matters. We are talking about the refusal of vacations after injuries, about the sabotage of the VLK, about the ignoring of applications for dismissal due to health, about the attempts of the command to keep the fighters in the units after the end of the contract period. Some families complain about the lack of information about the whereabouts of their relatives, the delay in the process of recognition of disappearance or captivity, the silence of official structures even after the requests of lawyers.
At the same time, the representative of the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine in the Odesa region reported that the largest number of applicants turn to her in connection with violations of the rights of servicemen — in 2024, 29,957 such appeals were recorded. Of these, more than a thousand came from veterans and their family members. The main reasons were delays in granting the status of a combatant, non-payment or late payment of social funds, as well as complaints about restrictions on the right to freedom of movement and violation of personal integrity in the context of mobilization. Along with this, conscripts and their families generally submitted more than 3,000 applications regarding mobilization processes, of which 1,045 came from Odesa region. In addition, during 2024, 101 complaints about human rights violations during mobilization activities were registered from this region, addressed directly to the Commissioner.
Therefore, the given data are a systemic signal and indicate a crisis in the protection of the rights of servicemen.
Families complain that their husbands serve for several months, and sometimes years, without rotations, weekends or vacations. And not because there is no regulatory framework, but because the command ignores the requirements of the law. That is, the law allows, but reality blocks. At the same time, people after difficult rotations are forced to remain in combat conditions without sleep, proper rehabilitation and chances even to see their children.
Injury is another fault line. After contusions, injuries, frostbite, numerous injuries, military personnel undergo VLK. However, instead of an objective assessment, they receive formal examinations, evasion of referrals, attempts to find anyone suitable. Commissions do not want to grant disability status, because it is difficult, expensive, and time-consuming. As a result, soldiers return to duty without proper treatment. And again the front line, tension and injuries.
In some cases, military families report sabotage of the rehabilitation process. We are talking about situations when a fighter cannot get a referral to a hospital for months after being wounded or is treated at his own expense. Medical facilities either do not have the funding or do not want to take responsibility without formal referral. As a result, servicemen with combat injuries remain without a diagnosis, a conclusion of the MSEK, and without the ability to issue disability. Even those who have received documents cannot get to specialized centers. In the best case – queues, in the worst case – lack of seats. Physical, psycho-emotional, neurological rehabilitation exists in words, but not in route letters. Defenders return home for a few days and have to leave again without even partially recovering their working capacity.
At the same time, the families of the missing and captured have been unable to obtain a certificate of status for years. Often there is no contact, response and accounting. They are sent in a circle — from one department to another, from the TCC to the regional administration, from the police to the SBU. Each stage is accompanied by indifference, depreciation, the phrases “wait”, “let’s clarify”, “check”. At this time, mothers and wives continue to search independently, look for the wounded in hospital lists, write letters to international organizations, and at the same time pay off loans, pay for the treatment of children and collect certificates for social assistance.
Financial violations are another layer. This is a delay in payments, reduction of premiums, lack of promised allowances, errors in calculations. At the same time, no mechanism allows you to quickly appeal such situations. Often, families find out about debts already after the death of a soldier or at the moment when they cannot pay utilities because the money simply did not arrive.
A separate problem is the mobilized, who have not undergone combat training, but are in combat units. At the same time, complaints about being forced to perform tasks that go beyond training are also recorded, but do not have any impact on the position of the serviceman. In many cases, official structures do not even register such appeals as violations.
It should be noted that the general problem is not that there is no formal appeal mechanism. It exists – a serviceman can file a report, complain to the commander, go to court, but in reality these means do not work. A commander who violates the rights of a subordinate is at the same time the only person to whom this subordinate should turn. Hierarchical closure of the system deprives the military of an effective method of protection. A complaint addressed vertically is most often not transferred anywhere. Internal control is formal and not accompanied by independent verification, and there are no real mechanisms of influence on violators.
External institutional protection is also insufficient. Yes, the Human Rights Commissioner does not have the authority to suspend orders or initiate disciplinary proceedings against the command. Its representative offices can only provide advice, send a letter, prepare a recommendation, but under the conditions of the military system, a recommendation does not stop violations. The prosecutor’s office, which theoretically should react, mostly does not intervene. Legal protection, although guaranteed, is practically unavailable. First, many military personnel are physically unable to file a lawsuit without access to an attorney. Secondly, the duration of the consideration of cases in the courts does not correlate with the urgency of the requests — a wounded military man cannot wait for a decision for several months until the meeting of the VLK is held.
As a result, there is a whole series of bodies in the state that declare the protection of the rights of the military, and a new one is also being created, but in the fourth year of a full-scale war, there is no mechanism that would guarantee real, fast and independent protection of the rights of military personnel. Institutions exist, but none have the authority to intervene in the chain of command. This is precisely the reason for the impunity of violations, which is recorded not only by human rights defenders, but also by the state statistics themselves. As long as there are no comprehensive measures to grant powers and mechanisms of influence to human rights state institutions, as well as their real desire to protect servicemen, the situation is unlikely to change. And until the very practice of violating the rights of our defenders does not disappear, the problems will only deepen both in the number of appeals and in the destructive effect on the morale of the army as a whole.
