The Southern District Military Court in Rostov-on-Don has sentenced six Ukrainian prisoners of war to lengthy prison terms ranging from 12 to 19 years in a maximum-security penal colony. The individuals concerned are Tymofii Vashchenko, Andrii Zhyzhoma, Denys Shelomiienko, Serhii Medvediev, Volodymyr Shulipa, and Artem Stanishevskyi. According to Russian media reports, the sentences were handed down in April, although information about them has only now become public.
The Russian side claims that the Ukrainian servicemen had allegedly participated in the activities of organizations designated as "terrorist" in the Russian Federation. In particular, service in the Azov Brigade or the Aidar unit served as the basis for charges of "terrorist activity," "participation in a terrorist community," and "undergoing training for the purpose of carrying out terrorist activities."
The harshest sentence — 19 years in a maximum-security penal colony — was imposed on Tymofii Vashchenko. Andrii Zhyzhoma, Artem Stanishevskyi, and Serhii Medvediev were each sentenced to 18 years' imprisonment, Denys Shelomiienko received a 16-year sentence, while Volodymyr Shulipa was sentenced to 12 years in prison.
From the perspective of international humanitarian law, membership in a state's lawful armed forces and participation in hostilities cannot, in themselves, serve as grounds for the criminal prosecution of a prisoner of war. The Third Geneva Convention of 1949 provides that combatants enjoy immunity from prosecution for lawful acts of war. Criminal liability may arise only where there is suspicion of specific war crimes and provided that all guarantees of a fair trial are respected.
The International Committee of the Red Cross emphasizes that prisoner-of-war status protects individuals from punishment solely for having taken part in an armed conflict on behalf of their state. Prisoners of war may be interned until the end of active hostilities; however, such detention does not constitute criminal punishment.
Against this backdrop, concerns arise regarding Russia's practice of applying domestic anti-terrorism legislation to Ukrainian servicemen who hold prisoner-of-war status in the context of an international armed conflict. Human rights advocates argue that the effective criminalization of service within Ukraine's Defence Forces contradicts the principles of international humanitarian law and may indicate a breach of a state's obligations toward the protection of prisoners of war.
At the same time, this case is not an isolated incident. Since the beginning of Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Russian authorities have repeatedly conducted criminal proceedings against Ukrainian prisoners of war, bringing charges related to "terrorism" and "extremism." Those most frequently targeted in such cases include members of the Azov Brigade, marines, National Guard servicemen, and personnel from other units of Ukraine's Defence Forces.
In its reports, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has repeatedly raised concerns about the criminal prosecution of Ukrainian prisoners of war in Russia. UN experts have stressed that the deliberate denial of fair trial rights to prisoners of war may constitute a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions and, under certain circumstances, may amount to a war crime.
Evidence of the systemic nature of these violations is also reflected in data collected by Ukrainian state institutions. According to Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights, the Ombudsman's Office received nearly 30,000 complaints during 2024 concerning violations by the Russian Federation of the rights of Ukrainian prisoners of war. Furthermore, as of 2026, the Ombudsman's Office had documented 695 forms of torture and ill-treatment reported by servicemen released from Russian captivity.
UN experts have likewise noted that the overwhelming majority of interviewed Ukrainian prisoners of war reported having been subjected to torture, including beatings, threats, psychological pressure, sexualized violence, and denial of medical care. Taken together, these testimonies may point to a systematic pattern of violations of international humanitarian law.
At present, it remains unclear whether those convicted will have a genuine opportunity to appeal their sentences. There is also no information regarding the possibility of their inclusion in future prisoner exchanges between Ukraine and Russia. Meanwhile, Ukraine continues its efforts to secure the return of all its citizens held in Russian captivity.
From a human rights perspective, each such sentence requires not only political assessment but also thorough international legal scrutiny. These cases should not be viewed merely as individual criminal proceedings; rather, they may reflect a broader practice indicative of the systematic disregard for the norms of international humanitarian law governing the protection of prisoners of war during an international armed conflict.