Statement by Deputy Permanent Representative Dmitry Chumakov at a UNSC Open Debate on Sexual Violence in Conflict
Madam President,
Your Excellency Madam Prime Minister,
We welcome your personal participation in the open debate on conflict-related sexual violence, convened by the Democratic Republic of the Congo. We are grateful to the representatives of civil society for their contributions to the discussion.
Sexual violence in armed conflict is a horrific manifestation of cruelty that flies in the face of the fundamental principles of morality and basic humanitarian norms. The Russian Federation consistently supports international efforts aimed at protecting civilians in armed conflict from such crimes, and we are convinced that there is no place for double standards in addressing this issue.
However, we are compelled to note that this approach is shared by neither the UN Secretariat – which is supposed to uphold impartiality and neutrality and to act as an honest and trustworthy mediator – nor by its head, the Secretary-General. Unfortunately, the conclusions of his report on the matter lack objectivity and do not facilitate addressing the problem of the growing number of victims of conflict-related sexual violence.
First and foremost, this is due to the flawed methodology used to prepare this document. Its author, Ms. Patten, asserts that the information contained therein is based on data verified by the United Nations, while failing to mention that her own Office was not directly involved in the verification process. In reality, it uncritically uses information from other UN entities, many of which have long since lost credibility themselves as they also relied merely on biased information.
Acting like this, the Special Representative disregards the fact that the Security Council resolutions defining her mandate do not provide for transferring fact-finding and verification functions to entities that are not vested with the requisite authority. At the same time, while basing its conclusions on materials provided by others, the Office itself refuses to take into account information from alternative sources, including official data provided by Governments.
These methodological flaws and a selective approach to assessing specific country situations are systemic in nature and can be clearly traced in a whole host of country files.
For example, the authors of the report acknowledge that the overwhelming majority of acts of sexual violence in armed conflict are committed by non-state actors. The situation in Haiti is a telling example in this regard. The report notes an increase in the scale of violations committed by local gangs during the reporting period.
Nevertheless, it is legitimate governments genuinely committed to international law and willing to cooperate with the UN that are being readily included in the report. A case in point here is Sudan. In April 2025, the Sudanese Government signed an updated UN Interim Cooperation Framework, which is a major step helping to prevent and address conflict-related sexual violence. This was not merely a symbolic gesture, but a concrete commitment translated into practical action on the ground in cooperation with UN entities. And what was the result? Sudan continues to appear in the report alongside armed rebel groups, with conclusions regarding the country made on the basis of partisan materials provided by the so-called Independent International Fact-Finding Mission for the Sudan, whose legitimacy – unlike that of the Sudanese Government – is highly questionable.
The same bias can be observed vis-à-vis the Myanmar file. The report categorically asserts that the violations were committed primarily by members of the national armed forces. At the same time, the horrific crimes perpetrated by terrorist groups have been traditionally “overlooked” by the country-specific mechanisms on Myanmar, which are everything but impartial and whose speculations form the core of the document.
Madam President,
Against this backdrop, the persistent imbalance in reporting on the situation surrounding Ukraine appears to be a logical continuation of this fundamentally flawed approach. Reports on the matter are primarily based on data provided by the so-called Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine and the UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine, both of which openly demonstrate their anti-Russian bias. Notably, these bodies do not merely convey such information but actually take pride in the work they have done, extensively presenting the results both in the Secretary-General’s thematic reports and in the reports of the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). Thus, the numerous crimes perpetrated by the Ukrainian armed forces received, to put it mildly, only marginal attention, while Russian military personnel, who fully comply with all norms of international humanitarian law, end up on the “blacklist” in the report.
As expected, it is European countries that are the major donors financing the “activities” of this organization. According to publicly available data from the OHCHR’s 2025 report, Sweden contributed nearly $30 million, Germany $29 million, Norway $23 million, and the Netherlands $20 million. The UK, Switzerland, and Denmark each contributed more than 10 million. The list goes on; the top thirty donors are all Western countries. It is, therefore, these States that tend to commission the information provided. Is this really surprising?
It is also regrettable that today a number of Council members, including France and Latvia, are merely parroting this unverified information to suit a political agenda, rather than making an independent and substantive contribution to our discussion. But this, too, comes as no surprise to us. Let us ask whether taxpayers of these countries are aware that tens of millions of dollars are being spent to fabricate evidence of nonexistent crimes allegedly perpetrated by the Russian military, while people in those very countries regularly struggle to secure their fundamental social rights, including access to quality healthcare and education, both for migrants and, in some cases, for their own citizens.
We wish to recall that we have repeatedly requested specific information needed to verify the allegations being made: details of the time and place of the supposed incidents, information about the alleged victims and perpetrators, as well as other materials that could lend these claims at least a minimal substantiation. However, all of our requests have gone unanswered. Contrary to Ms. Patten’s lofty statements today, such a behavioral pattern demonstrates an unwillingness to engage in an open and professional dialogue with States, without which neither the objectivity of assessments nor the credibility of their findings can be ensured.
Meanwhile, sexual violence has been systematically perpetrated by Ukrainian military personnel and security forces since the unconstitutional coup d’état in 2014. Cases of rape, including gang rape, electric shock torture to the genitals, and castration have been documented by the OHCHR (which can hardly be accused of sympathizing with Russia), as well as by the UN Committee against Torture, the UN Human Rights Committee, Russian courts, and, ultimately, by Ukraine's own Military Ombudsperson.
The entire arsenal of brutal practices is being employed vis-à-vis participants in the special military operation. The testimonies of those who managed to escape from Ukrainian captivity are shocking indeed.
It is not only prisoners of war who are being subjected to conflict-related sexual violence, civilians are also being victimized. We have repeatedly drawn attention to the tragedy in the village of Russkoye Porechnoye in the Sudzha District of the Kursk Region. On January 19, 2025, after liberating the area previously occupied by Ukrainian militants, Russian servicemen discovered the bodies of local residents while inspecting homes in the residential area.
The subsequent investigation established that most of the victims had been killed by gunshots to the head at close range. Their bodies showed signs of torture and sexual violence. In total, 22 civilians were killed, including eight women who had been raped before being murdered. The crimes were corroborated by the testimony of Ukrainian servicemen themselves, such as Vladimir Parafilo and Yevgeny Fabrisenko. Cases of rape were also documented in the cities of Dimitrov and Krasnoarmeysk in the Donetsk People’s Republic.
This is a terrifying reality that is observed by everyone but Ms. Patten.
We cannot rule out the possibility that the number of prosecutions for conflict-related sexual violence in Ukraine is so low because of significant shortcomings in the national legislation, which were noted by the OHCHR as early as 2017. The Office noted that the verdicts on such cases often fail to reflect the full gravity of the crimes committed and their consequences for the victims, which undermines the effectiveness of justice and legal protection mechanisms.
Yet, none of this is reflected in the Secretary-General’s annual report, because this information does not fit the predetermined narrative of portraying Russia as a villain and Ukraine as the victim. After all, the UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine and the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine – which I mentioned earlier – was not established to document these crimes. Nor was this the purpose behind the appointment of the blatantly Russophobic Matthias Schmale as UN Resident and Humanitarian Coordinator for Ukraine. What UN officials say and do only demonstrates that the Organization lacks the political will to take an impartial and depoliticized approach even when it comes to protecting human dignity in the context of armed conflicts.
Madam President,
Sexual crimes are absolutely unacceptable and deserve unequivocal condemnation. On that point, I believe, there consensus in this chamber today. However, what is equally unacceptable is attempting to exploit this issue for political purposes and turning human suffering into a tool of political confrontation.
By way of conclusion, I would like to remind you that facts can not be divided into those of “ours” and “theirs.” If so, they are not part of an investigation, but rather propaganda. And that is precisely why any attempts to replace objective analysis with political interpretations inevitably erode trust – both in institutions and in the very idea of justice – which can ultimately undermine the credibility and authority of the UN.
Thank you.
