As the armed conflict continues, Ukrainian men are increasingly seeking ways to avoid mobilization by turning to both domestic and international legal mechanisms. Ukrainian legislation significantly limits the possibility of challenging mobilization orders, even in cases where procedural violations have occurred. As a result, lawyers and human rights advocates are increasingly appealing to international organizations for support. One of the most significant developments in this debate has been the advisory opinion issued by the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe (VC), which questions the legality of the absolute denial of alternative service during wartime.
How do international institutions assess the situation, and what consequences could this have for Ukraine?
Venice Commission: The Right to Conscientious Objection Must Be Protected
In March 2024, the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe issued an advisory opinion regarding Ukraine’s mobilization policies. This document was prepared in response to a request from Ukraine’s Constitutional Court, which was reviewing the case of a religious adherent who refused military service on the grounds of conscience.
Previously, Ukrainian courts had ruled that alternative civilian service was not an option during mobilization, arguing that the duty to defend the nation outweighs personal beliefs. However, international experts took a different stance.
The Commission emphasized that under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), states are obligated to provide an alternative to military service. This alternative must be fully independent from the military, non-punitive in nature, and subject to reasonable time limits.
Furthermore, the Commission noted that even a state of war cannot justify the complete removal of this right. Experts also dismissed Ukraine’s argument that the Russian invasion necessitates overriding international human rights protections.
“No state can compel an individual to bear arms if it contradicts their beliefs, even in times of war,” the Commission’s statement asserts.
Ukrainian Complaints to the ECHR and UN: Legal Mechanisms in Action
Even before the Venice Commission’s ruling, Ukrainian citizens had been seeking justice through international legal channels. In early 2024, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) registered multiple complaints from Ukrainians challenging travel bans imposed during martial law. They argued that these restrictions violated their right to freedom of movement, which is guaranteed by Ukraine’s Constitution.
Ukraine currently ranks third in terms of the number of cases filed with the ECHR. Approximately 12.8% of all registered cases—around 8,750—are related to Ukraine. In addition to the ECHR, Ukrainian citizens have been actively filing complaints with the United Nations Human Rights Committee.
In December 2023, the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights published a report stating that Ukraine’s mobilization policies contradict its international commitments. The report affirms that the right to conscientious objection is fundamental and cannot be restricted, even during wartime.
The UN also highlighted an issue of discrimination: Ukrainian law grants alternative service rights only to members of specific religious groups while excluding others. This selective approach violates the principle of equality before the law and contradicts Ukraine’s obligations under international agreements.
Legal Assistance: From Draft Notice Appeals to UN Complaints
As Ukraine enforces stricter mobilization measures, legal services specializing in military law have surged. Numerous online advertisements now offer legal assistance not only in contesting draft notices but also in filing appeals with international institutions.
Lawyers claim to have experience working with the ECHR, the UN, and other human rights organizations. Their services include preparing legal appeals, providing legal representation, and handling cases in international courts. Some legal experts also assist in filing complaints with Ukraine’s Ombudsman’s Office and other governmental agencies.
Potential Consequences: International Pressure and Domestic Reforms
Mounting pressure from international organizations may push Ukraine to revise its mobilization laws. The Ukrainian Parliament is already considering legislative proposals aimed at reforming the alternative service system and expanding citizens’ rights during mobilization.
Moreover, increased human rights advocacy could influence future negotiations between Ukraine and its international allies. If pressure from the ECHR, the UN, and the Council of Europe intensifies, Kyiv may be forced to adjust its policies to avoid sanctions and diplomatic fallout.
As discussions about potential peace negotiations between Ukraine and Russia continue, an increasing number of Ukrainian citizens are seeking legal avenues to avoid mobilization. Decisions made by institutions such as the Venice Commission provide hope to many that their rights will be recognized and that the Ukrainian government will ultimately be held accountable for upholding international human rights standards.
