Ukraine: International Claims Commission Convention

Baroness Prentis of Banbury Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Prentis of Banbury (Con)]

My Lords, I too thank the committee for this excellent report and agree that the claims commission is not perfect—I was involved at the initial stages of its inception—but I am very glad that we are supporting this initiative as a nation.

The claims commission is an integral part of the web of comprehensive accountability that Ukraine is weaving. As I have been fortunate enough to observe over the past four years how this is being done, I want to share an up-to-date brief that I have received from the Office of the Prosecutor General—so, the Attorney-General—of Ukraine which gives some further information about the web that is being woven.

I was involved first as Attorney-General and, since the election, I have been involved deeply as a volunteer teacher of Ukrainian lawyers in international law, which is something I continue to do. I want to praise those lawyers, all of those whom I have taught have active war crimes cases, for their fortitude and openness to concepts of international law which are not necessarily taught to them at university or which they have necessarily practised in their careers. They are pursuing this international justice to a high level and it is very impressive.

There are various pillars to go with the claims commission, which are important to the way that this work is carried out. First, 99% of these war crimes prosecutions will be national investigations. They will be prosecuted in Ukraine and documented, investigated and prosecuted in local courts. That is as it should be. In international law, we know that if a state is willing and able to do its prosecutions, it should do them itself. There are real innovations going on in the spaces of ecocide, for example—not a word we knew until four years ago—as well as prosecutions for cyber attacks and for the systematic destruction of infrastructure that Russia has perpetrated in Ukraine.

The figures are frankly staggering. The latest brief I have received from the Office of the Prosecutor General shows that 268,957 files have been opened in the war crimes space, getting on for 18,000 civilians have been killed, almost 46,000 have been injured and new prosecutions are opening every day. For war crimes against children, the office has issued 234 notifications of suspicion, which includes, sadly, 190 forced deportation cases, and has convicted 39 people. I remind all noble Lords present that this is unprecedented. To prosecute during an active conflict has never happened before and it should be welcomed. Conflict-related sexual violence on both men and women is never something we have managed well in the international court fora, or always domestically, but it is notable that the office has issued 96 notifications of suspicion and that 27 Russians have already been convicted.

The next pillar I want to mention is accountability for the crime of aggression. The Ukrainians view this very much as the anchor case going forward and take it very seriously. There have been 346 convictions under this alone in Ukraine, but we also have the work of the Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression against Ukraine, which is designed to complement the ongoing work of the International Criminal Court. The tribunal is specifically seeking to fill the jurisdictional gap relating to the invasion itself, which the ICC cannot prosecute.

Co-operation with international justice is very important to Ukraine. The country has now ratified the Rome Statute of the ICC and brought Ukrainian law into line with international norms—for example, by introducing criminal responsibility for military commanders and incorporating crimes against humanity in international legislation. This has been phenomenally difficult to bring before the Parliament during an active war, and we should applaud Ukraine for taking that step.

As to the third pillar, cases are happening around the world. At least 27 countries are conducting their own investigation into Russian war crimes. People have been sentenced: for example, in Finland. Whatever happens to the Ukrainian prosecutions in any peace deal, these international cases will carry on. There is no stopping international justice in this space.

That brings me to reparations for loss and damage, which this report and this claims commission are centrally concerned with. These are critical. Some 276,113 residential buildings have been destroyed or damaged, along with 5,500 schools and 341 churches, including the Lavra, where I have worshipped on a Sunday—a few weeks ago, we saw the destruction of that very important religious site. I was struck by the evidence of Tetyana Nesterchuk before the committee. She is married, of course, to the noble Lord, Lord Banner. She told us very powerfully that, if Ukraine is to rebuild, its citizens must have places to live and the normal foundations of society with which to function. That is why this claims commission and the promise it holds are so important to Ukrainians at this time. She has asked me to remind those in this debate that behind all these cases are real people who are suffering.

Tetyana has asked me specifically to mention the stories of two people who have suffered very drastically at Russians’ hands. The first is called Oleksiy. He was a civilian who was tortured and raped by Russian troops in then-occupied Kherson. I quote from his letter to Tetyana:

“I am one of those for whom the register of damage is not just a legal mechanism, but my last hope for justice—my last hope for future reparations, accountability and the restoration of my human dignity”.


He goes on in his letter—which was unsolicited, but he clearly feels very strongly about this—to praise the register, which is what we used to call the claims commission, for three reasons: it preserves the evidence of atrocities, it recognises human suffering and it lays the foundations for justice. Tetyana has asked me to mention briefly the case of Alisa, who is also a survivor of sexual violence. Her rape took place in 2014—so of course it is not currently covered by this claims commission—when she was only 27 years old. She describes justice as a “slow horse”, but she too speaks of the hope given by this register of damage.

I am very pleased that we are signing up to this claims commission. I am pleased to see a piece of work that began as a twinkle in the eye lead to something that is real and meaningful. What is the Minister’s view on whether the UK should lead the pack on freezing Russian assets, on looking at ways to use interest payments and on working out ways to make sure that this register can be meaningfully backed up with money—or we should we merely stay part of the pack? Personally, I feel that we have a strong tradition in this nation of justice following war, and we need to be leading other nations in this matter.