Постраждалі від вибухонебезпечних предметів: юридична відповідальність та доступ до соціального захисту
DRC UKRAINE | LEGAL BRIEF
Explosive Ordnance Survivors: Legal Liability and Access to Social Protection
This Legal Brief examines how possible criminal or administrative liability arising from a person’s handling of explosive ordnance (EO) and how this interacts with their access to social protection in Ukraine. It distinguishes legal liability, procedural status in criminal proceedings and entitlement to social protection, and considers the practical effect of those distinctions for EO-related compensation, status of a person with a disability as a result of war, rehabilitation and other forms of support. The assessment is based on current Ukrainian legislation and publicly available sources as of 12 August 2026.
Legal basis
1. Legal status and possible liability
1.1 Person affected by explosive ordnance
The Law on Mine Action defines a person affected by EO by reference to harm caused by the use and/or presence of explosive ordnance, rather than by reference to how the person came to be exposed to it. This mirrors the international standard under the International Mine Action Standards (IMAS) 13.10, a victim is defined as a person or persons whose full and effective participation in society has been restricted by an accident involving confirmed or suspected EO. This category includes those killed, injured, or impaired, and extends to their families and affected communities.
The definition focuses on the consequence of the incident and does not make the lawfulness of the person’s own conduct a condition for meeting the statutory definition.1
This distinction is important because the mine-action concept of a person affected by EO is a term distinct from criminal-procedure status (e.g. suspect, accused) or a veteran-law. A person can meet the mine-action definition even where the circumstances of the incident separately raise questions about unlawful handling of the ordnance.
1.2 Victim, suspect and accused
Criminal procedure uses separate concepts. A victim is a person to whom a criminal offence caused harm; a suspect or accused is a person against whom criminal prosecution is being conducted. A person injured by EO may therefore be recognised as a victim in proceedings concerning the incident and, separately, acquire suspect or accused status in proceedings concerning their own handling of the item. These statuses answer different procedural questions and should not be conflated with one another, nor the mine-action status discussed above.2
The opening of criminal proceedings or the acquisition of suspect status does not establish guilt. The Constitution and the Criminal Procedure Code require that a person be presumed innocent until guilt is established by a final conviction.3
Legal liability, procedural status and access to social protection answer different legal questions. The existence of one does not automatically determine the others.
1.3 Possible criminal liability
Possible criminal liability depends on the item of explosive ordnance, the conduct and the consequences. Depending on the facts, Articles 263, 263-1 and 264 of the Criminal Code may be relevant to unlawful possession or handling, unlawful manufacture or alteration, or negligent storage. Where other persons are killed or injured, other provisions may also become relevant. The general age of criminal responsibility for the offences considered here is 16 years old.4
1.4 Voluntary surrender
Article 263(3) provides for release from criminal liability where a person voluntarily surrenders the relevant weapons, ammunition, explosives or explosive devices to the authorities. Supreme Court case law treats voluntariness as requiring a genuine decision to surrender rather than the mere discovery of the item by lawenforcement authorities.5
For a person injured by a detonation, the exemption may not be practically available if the object has already exploded and can no longer be surrendered. The issue should therefore be assessed on the facts of the individual case and should not be presented as a general protection from liability.
2. Access to social protection
Possible liability does not produce one uniform consequence across the social-protection system. The effect depends on the legal rules of the specific mechanism.
2.1 EO-related compensation
Article 10 of the Law on Mine Action and Resolution No. 1020 provide lump-sum compensation and an annual health-recovery allowance for people with disabilities and children with disabilities whose disability is linked to injury caused by EO. The current procedure is administered through the Pension Fund of Ukraine (PFU).6 The compensation procedure does not contain a general exclusion based solely on the person’s own unlawful handling of the item. This does not remove possible criminal or administrative liability; it means that liability and compensation are governed by different legal rules.
2.2 War-related disability status
The war-related disability pathway is different. Resolution No. 306 governs the procedure by which the Interagency Commission establishes the fact and circumstances of EO-related injury for this pathway; the relevant expert team then determines the causal link between the disability and the injury on the basis of that decision. Paragraph 7(1) includes a refusal ground where the injury resulted from the person’s commission of a criminal or administrative offence, as well as specified circumstances involving intoxication or intentional self-harm. Paragraph 7(3) separately provides for refusal where a final conviction exists for specified categories of offences, including offences against public safety, and the criminal record remains unspent or unexpunged. Article 263 of the Criminal Code is located in the chapter on criminal offences against public safety.7
Proceedings under Article 263 therefore do not automatically lead to refusal. In practical terms, a person who is only a suspect in proceedings concerning the handling or misuse of EO is not disqualified from war-related disability status on that basis alone. Paragraph 7(1) may nevertheless create a refusal risk if the Interagency Commission finds, on the materials before it, that the injury was a consequence of the person’s own criminal or administrative offence. Paragraph 7(3) is narrower: it requires a final conviction for a specified category of offence and an unspent or unexpunged criminal record. An entry in the Unified Register of Pre-Trial Investigations (ERDR), a pending investigation or suspect status does not, by itself, satisfy either ground.
2.3 Other forms of support
A person injured by EO may also require emergency or other medical care, rehabilitation, social services, general social assistance and disability assessment. These mechanisms are governed by their own eligibility rules. Criminalprocedure status does not create a general exclusion from the health and social-protection systems.
Even a conviction does not place a person outside all health and social-protection mechanisms: criminal-execution legislation provides for medical care and social insurance or pension-related rights for persons serving sentences, subject to the applicable rules.8
A criminal record is also distinct from the existence of proceedings. It arises following conviction under the conditions set by the Criminal Code, not merely because a person is a suspect.9
IMAS 13.10 treats victim assistance as a multi-sector national responsibility and emphasises identification and referral to health, rehabilitation, social-protection and other services. This supports a referral-based approach rather than treating possible liability as a general barrier to assistance.10
3. Evidence and access barriers
In practice, the main difficulty under the war-related disability procedure may be evidentiary rather than the mere existence of criminal proceedings. The procedure relies on medical and criminal-procedure materials to establish the incident and the causal link.
3.1 Documentation requirements
- Medical records should record the injury and, where possible, the circumstances of the EO incident.
- Criminal-procedure materials may be needed to confirm the incident and the person’s procedural participation.
- Forensic medical examination may depend on investigators obtaining complete medical materials.
- Access to ERDR-related or investigation materials may require procedural requests and cooperation from investigators or prosecutors.
- Where the incident occurred in an area with incomplete official recording, obtaining standard documents may be particularly difficult.
A July 2026 analysis published by the International Renaissance Foundation, citing Ministry of Veterans Affairs of Ukraine statistics for 2022–2025, reported 347 refusals under the relevant procedure. Of these, 221 were based on missing documents confirming EO-related injury, 125 on the former territory/time ground, and one on paragraph 7(1). That paragraph groups several circumstance-based grounds, including the person’s own criminal or administrative offence, intoxication and intentional self-harm; the published statistics do not identify which element applied in the single case.11
The same analysis describes delays and practical difficulties in obtaining forensic examinations and ERDR or investigation materials. This indicates that documentation and access to procedural evidence are important implementation barriers.12
PRACTICE NOTE
For casework, the first step should be an evidence map: identify the support mechanism, list the documents already available, identify missing medical or procedural evidence and determine which authority can lawfully provide it.
3.2 Incidents in occupied territories
Resolution No. 1721 of 24 December 2025 removed the remaining restriction that had prevented the procedure from applying to incidents in occupied territories. The main residual difficulty is practical: proving the circumstances of an incident where medical, police, emergency-service or forensic documentation could not be created or obtained at the time.13
4. Specific situations
4.1 Third-party injuries
Where EO brought home, stored or dismantled by one person detonates and injures a family member, neighbour or another person, each injured person must be assessed independently. Possible liability of the person who handled the item should not be transferred to others when their entitlement to support is assessed.
4.2 Children
Children require a separate safeguarding and legal assessment. A child injured by EO should not lose access to care, rehabilitation or disability-related assistance because an adult may have acted unlawfully. Where the child personally handled the item, age of criminal responsibility and the child’s own conduct must be assessed before any conclusion about liability is drawn.'
The Law on Mine Action expressly includes assistance to children affected by EO, while the Convention on the Rights of the Child recognises rights relevant to children with disabilities and social security.14
4.3 Examples
4.4 Reporting concerns
Fear of prosecution may discourage an EO victim from reporting how an incident occurred or from approaching public authorities. This is a plausible protection risk, but the available evidence does not establish its scale. It should therefore be treated as a monitoring and access-to-justice issue rather than as a demonstrated primary barrier.
Public information should communicate two messages together: unsafe handling of EO may have legal consequences, but possible liability does not automatically cancel access to medical care, rehabilitation or all forms of social protection.
5. Recommendations
The following measures would reduce legal uncertainty and access barriers while preserving legitimate publicsafety rules on the handling of explosive ordnance.
- Clarify the effect of criminal proceedings on social-protection eligibility. Relevant State authorities should issue coordinated guidance distinguishing an ERDR entry, victim or suspect status, pending proceedings and a legally established offence. Social-protection eligibility should be assessed under the rules of the specific mechanism rather than inferred from the existence of criminal proceedings.
- Clarify the two liability-related refusal grounds under Resolution No. 306. The Ministry of Veterans Affairs of Ukraine and the Interagency Commission should distinguish paragraph 7(1), which requires assessment of the causal relationship between the injury and the person’s own offence, from paragraph 7(3), which requires a final conviction for specified offence categories and an unspent or unexpunged criminal record. An allegation, ERDR entry or pending proceeding should not be treated as satisfying either ground.
- Ensure reasoned decisions and clear review information. Where an application under Resolution No. 306 is refused, the decision should identify the precise paragraph 7 ground, the evidence relied on and the available reconsideration or appeal route. This would support consistent application of the procedure and make legal assistance more effective.
- Reduce evidentiary barriers. Authorities should review whether EO-related injury can be established through a broader range of reliable evidence where standard documents are unavailable, particularly for incidents in occupied territories, areas where the Government of Ukraine recently regained control, or heavily affected areas. Applicants should not be asked to reproduce information already available to public authorities where lawful inter-agency exchange is possible.
- Establish a clear referral pathway for EO victims. A harmonised referral map should distinguish medical care, rehabilitation, disability assessment, PFU benefits under Resolution No. 1020, the procedure under Resolution No. 306, social services and legal assistance. Early legal referral is particularly important where the circumstances of the incident may expose the person to liability.
- Apply separate safeguards for children and other EO victims. The conduct of the person who brought, stored or handled EO should not be treated as an informal basis for limiting the rights of another injured person. Children and other EO victims should be assessed independently under the eligibility rules applicable to them.
- Align practitioner guidance and public communication. Organisations working in mine action, explosive ordnance risk education (EORE), health, social protection and legal aid should use consistent messages: report the incident, seek medical assistance, preserve available evidence and obtain legal advice where needed. Information materials should explain that possible liability may affect some status-based mechanisms but does not automatically exclude an EO victim from all support.
- Monitor refusals, delays and possible under-reporting. Relevant authorities, humanitarian organisations and legal-aid providers should collect anonymised information on refusal grounds, missing documents, procedural delays and cases in which fear of prosecution appears to discourage reporting. This evidence should inform any future legislative or procedural amendments.
3Constitution of Ukraine, Art. 62; Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, Art. 17 (presumption of innocence), and.
5Criminal Code of Ukraine, Art. 263(3); Supreme Court, Criminal Cassation Court, judgment of 11 October 2023 in Case No. 756/15397/19, Unified State Register of Court Decisions No. 114292175; Supreme Court case note, 13 December 2023.
6Law of Ukraine “On Mine Action in Ukraine” No. 2642-VIII, Art. 10; Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, Resolution No. 1020 of 29 September 2021, as amended; Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, Resolution No. 765 of 25 June 2025, as amended; Pension Fund of Ukraine, “One-time compensation and annual health-recovery allowance to persons with disabilities affected by explosive ordnance”, 1 July 2026.
7Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, Resolution No. 306 of 25 April 2018 “Certain Issues of Establishing the Link of Disability with Wounds or Other Damage to Health”, as amended, para. 7(1) and 7(3); Ministry of Veterans Affairs of Ukraine, Order No. 184 of 3 August 2023 (Regulation on the Interagency Commission), as amended; Criminal Code of Ukraine, Chapter IX and Art. 263 (criminal offences against public safety).
9Criminal Code of Ukraine No. 2341-III, Arts. 88–91 (criminal record, expungement and lifting).
12Ibid. The study documents practical barriers in obtaining forensic medical examinations and ERDR/investigation materials, including delays, incomplete medical records and dependence on investigative action.
13Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, Resolution No. 1721 of 24 December 2025 amending Resolution No. 306 and removing the remaining restriction concerning temporarily occupied territories; see also International Renaissance Foundation, analysis of 20 July 2026 on the legal change and continuing evidentiary barriers.
This Legal Brief was produced under the project funded by Switzerland through the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation. Some of the terminology used in this Legal Brief was taken from draft laws or current legislation. The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of the author(s). The views expressed herein should not be takn, in any way, to reflect the official opinion of Switzerland, the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation, or the Danish Refugee Council (DRC). Neither the Agency nor the DRC is responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained herein