Please answer:

1. What are 2–3 changes you most want to understand or track?

2. What feels uncertain or hard to measure that OH could help clarify? What do you not yet know about your influence or contribution?

3. What kind of outcomes are you hoping to surface (e.g., influence on policy, increased collaboration, survivor engagement, capacity changes)?

– highest ranking official to be convicted in Europe and it’s important to have trials of higher ranking officials
- double standards because no convictions from the north

What was Trial’s contribution?

• Trial filed a criminal complaint against him in jan 2015. In switzerland we are part of a number of NGOs who are discussing how to 

Do you thnk it would have happened without your legal complaint?

• No. it’s good that we have knowledge of the context. Few weeks ago we supported a trial happening there. 

The complaint itself I imagine is filed on behalf of survivors. How did this affect survivors? Do they see it positively?

• We provided holistic assistance to survivors such as logistical support to attend the trial . We also followed up on the judge's orders for reparations, but Sanko doesn’t have anything on this. We also provided clothing and liaise to provide psychological assistance. The court didn’t provide translation services - even the defendant himself didn’t understand things at one point.

• What is the new legislation? A revision of the criminal code that includes implementation of the Rome Status, crime of aggression and torture

• Anyone convicted? No because it was just passed but that's why it is important because it allows prosecution / investigation

• What was ECCHR's role? ECCHR was involved in the legislative process - direct contact with drafters and MPs, meetings with MPs on the relevance of the law

• How was it received? They realised it was important

• What was the response of local NGO? We worked directly with a coaltion of NGOs in Denmark to bridge what the local civil society wanted and how to capitalize on that

Significance: This marks a rare and important instance of accountability for CRSV in a domestic court. It highlights the growing ability of Ukrainian legal practitioners to uphold survivors’ rights and pursue justice in line with international standards, even in the context of an ongoing conflict.

Contribution: Through our ongoing mentorship program—implemented in partnership with the Ukrainian Legal Advisory Group (ULAG)—the legal representative received sustained, case-specific support from an experienced international criminal law practitioner. This included guidance on legal strategy, evidentiary framing, and survivor-centred approaches, which directly enhanced the mentee’s ability to advocate effectively in court.

Discussions / Ping pong :

• « Strengthening » : except on being sensitized, - strengthen the capacity to litigate.

• Specify what was the contribution of the program : program --> essentially meet as often as needed based on the proportion of the cases they are handling and can receive help by experts or practitioners as they need it (evidences, how to support victims, media practicing, etc.)

• To be noted : Mentorship program began before - currently the continuation of a program that was financed by an other grant before. Long process, starting to see the outcomes of the process.

• Suggestion to rephrase the outcome by adding "throughout the mentorship program, at least one legal practitioners"...

• Not the first case of a successful conviction in this kind of cases but one of the few.

• Hope that outcome/successful conviction could lead to a more macro trend in the future.

• Do legal representatives could have done litigation or integrate CRSV without the program ? - helped by bringing in practitioners and experts and enable them to interact with victims.

To what extent and how has our improved coordination as INGOs in the GIAI shifted the dial in the fight against impunity?