Information about Ukrainian archives taken or destroyed by the Russians and damage to archival institutions is not collected for its own sake. What is the ultimate goal? How can it be achieved?
Anatoliy Khromov: Information on documents taken or destroyed during the war is primarily collected for state records. According to the law, the National Archival Fond is the property of the Ukrainian people and the state. At least once a year, we compile data on the availability and preservation of documents across the archival system. War or no war, we must manage state property and cultural heritage efficiently.
Another key goal is to systematise information on the destruction, damage, and theft of archival documents by the Russians. This is essential for future work on compensation for losses or the restitution of cultural heritage.
Nataliya Hendel: International humanitarian law recognises archives as cultural property, granting them special protection under the Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in Time of Armed Conflict. Additionally, as civilian objects, they are entitled to general protection unless classified under specific cultural property regimes.
Archives are subject to restitution. Given this, it is crucial to hold Russia accountable for the damage inflicted on Ukrainian archives since 2014. In my view, archives serve both as objects and subjects of documentation. The objectives of documentation include:
- Recording damage to archives and qualifying alleged violations of international humanitarian law and war crimes against archives.
- Implementing sanctions against Russia and its representatives for damage caused to Ukrainian archives, bringing individuals to criminal justice, and holding Russia internationally accountable.
- Securing restitution and return of Ukrainian archives, as well as compensation for damage inflicted on archival institutions and the National Archival Fond.
Archives must also be considered as entities responsible for documenting and preserving records on Russian aggression and international crimes committed by Russia.
As work continues on documenting alleged crimes against archives, can any preliminary conclusions be drawn?
A.H.: We are recording all cases of archival seizures, document destruction, and damage to buildings from shelling. However, the legal qualification of these acts falls under law enforcement agencies and, eventually, future court rulings. For now, our main goal is to document, record, and report any instances of damage to archival institutions or cultural heritage to law enforcement promptly.
For instance, the destruction of the Kakhovka Reservoir dam is clearly a war crime with severe environmental and cultural consequences. In Russian-occupied areas of Kherson Region, we have evidence of lost archival records.
N.H.: Experts from the NGO Foundation for Support of Fundamental Research are not only documenting such cases but also providing preliminary legal assessments. Some cases fall under general qualifications, such as indiscriminate or disproportionate shelling, which resulted in damage to archival institutions. Large-scale destruction of property, including archives, is another qualification - this applies, for example, to the aftermath of the Kakhovka dam explosion.
A key focus is on the misappropriation of archives in Russian-occupied Ukrainian territories. These acts likely constitute war crimes under both Ukrainian and international criminal law.
What is the situation with archives in areas where the Armed Forces of Ukraine have had to withdraw? While some civilians refuse to evacuate, are archives being removed in such cases?
A.H.: The situation varies, as archival institutions differ in size and status. State archives usually have evacuation and relocation plans to move to government-controlled areas.
However, the greatest risk is faced by archival departments within institutions, organisations, and local governments. Many of these entities fail to comply with the law, and due to security concerns, they often do not have time to evacuate their records.
Our primary responsibility as the State Archival Service is to safeguard the National Archival Fond, which contains documents of permanent value. The situation is far worse for records with temporary storage periods. Many factories, research institutions, and organisations have been unable to move their archives, negatively affecting social security, employment verification, education records, and more.
N.H.:Since 2014, archives in areas occupied by Russia have been systematically looted. The general trend is the illegal transfer of documents from the National Archival Fond of Ukraine to Russian state archives. This is a direct violation of international humanitarian law.
Any transfers or destruction of Ukrainian archival records by Russian occupation authorities may constitute violations of international law and war crimes.
Is there any information about archives illegally taken from Kherson during Russian occupation? Where are they now?
A.H.: During the occupation of Kherson Region in 2022, Russian forces looted around 40% of the holdings of the State Archives of Kherson Region.
After Kherson was liberated, archivists have continued to assess the losses. Some documents, previously believed missing, have been recovered.
Open-source data suggests that some records are now stored in an illegal entity set up by the occupiers - the so-called “State Archives of Kherson Region.” This entity was created under the false premise that Kherson belongs to Russia under its so-called “constitution.” Our information indicates that these archives have been relocated to Russian-occupied Crimea.
N.H.:The looting and misappropriation of the State Archives of Kherson Region may constitute a war crime under Article 8 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and Article 438 of the Ukrainian Criminal Code. These acts also violate international treaties, including:
- The 1907 Hague Convention on the Laws and Customs of War on Land.
- The 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in Armed Conflict.
- The 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention on the Protection of Civilians in War.
- The 1977 First Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions.
Shortly after the full-scale invasion, the International Council on Archives (ICA) cut ties with Russian and Belarusian archives at Ukraine’s request. Has this stance remained unchanged? Does ICA support Ukrainian archives?
A.H.:Yes, our partners have kept their word. The ICA maintains its stance and does not engage in any joint initiatives with Russian or Belarusian archivists.
Importantly, ICA supports several joint projects, including digitisation efforts for archives in frontline areas. Ukraine’s experience in protecting archives during wartime is now being shared internationally, and ICA considers our efforts a model for other countries. Financially, ICA has exempted Ukraine from membership fees during the war.
N.H.:Archives, as independent cultural heritage objects, fall under the focus of two major international organisations: UNESCO and ICA.
Within UNESCO, Ukraine employs both general and special mechanisms for cultural heritage protection, including during wartime. One key UNESCO initiative is the Memory of the Worldprogramme, which maintains an international documentary heritage register. This register already includes documents on the Chornobyl disaster and Babyn Yar.
In our view, it should also include documents on Russian aggression against Ukraine and international crimes committed by Russian representatives.
In 2024, Ukraine launched its National Committee for the UNESCO Memory of the World Programme. One of its key objectives is to develop the National Register of Documentary Heritage of Ukraine, highlighting Russia’s appropriation of Ukrainian archives in occupied territories.
This material was prepared with the support of the International Renaissance Foundation. The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position of the Foundation.