Former Ukrainian prisoners have given accounts of torture and sexual abuse during detention in Russian jails, in testimony reported this week.

We are not going to describe what they say was done to them. This article is about why testimony like this is gathered, what happens to it, and why it takes years to produce anything.

What the law says about prisoners

The treatment of people captured in war is one of the oldest and most settled areas of international law. The Geneva Conventions require that prisoners of war be treated humanely, protected from violence and intimidation, and shielded from public curiosity.

Torture is prohibited absolutely. There is no exception for necessity, for intelligence value, or for reciprocity if the other side is doing it. It is one of the few rules in international law that admits no balancing test at all.

The prohibition also applies to civilians detained in occupied territory, who are covered by a separate convention with its own protections.

Why survivors are asked to speak

Detention happens out of sight. There are rarely photographs, and facilities can be emptied and cleaned. In many cases the testimony of people who were held there is the primary evidence that exists.

Investigators from the UN, from national prosecutors and from human rights organisations therefore conduct structured interviews — recording who was present, dates, the layout of buildings, the names or descriptions of individuals. Consistent detail across many independent accounts is what turns testimony into evidence.

Doing that well requires training. Interviewing someone about severe trauma badly can cause real harm and can also contaminate the account, so specialists work to protocols designed to protect both the person and the evidence.

Why prosecutions take so long

Between an allegation and a courtroom sits a long and uncertain process.

Individual perpetrators must be identified, which is difficult when detainees were blindfolded or guards used only first names. Command responsibility must be established if senior figures are to be charged, which requires documents. And the accused must be physically present — international courts do not generally try people in absentia, so a warrant against someone whose state will not surrender them may sit unexecuted for decades.

Some cases have taken twenty years or more. Some never reach court at all.

What documentation achieves anyway

Given all that, it is reasonable to ask what the point is.

Evidence gathered now is the only evidence that will exist later, and political circumstances change in ways nobody predicts — trials have followed decades after the events, once governments fell. Documentation also supports prisoner exchanges, informs sanctions decisions, and establishes a record that cannot later be dismissed as rumour.

And for many survivors, being formally recorded matters in itself, independent of whether anyone is convicted.

How we report it

Our Editorial Standards commit us to not publishing graphic detail for its own sake, and to taking particular care with victims. Accounts of torture and sexual violence are exactly where that applies.

What is reportable is that credible allegations exist, that they are being documented by people qualified to do so, and that the conduct alleged is prohibited without exception. The detail belongs in an investigator’s file, not in a headline.

---

Source: Democracy Now! headlines, 12 August 2026. Legal background from the Geneva Conventions and the UN Convention against Torture.