8797 visitors online
16 112 69

Deputy Minister of Justice Irina Mudra: If Russia thinks that it will sign a settlement agreement without reparations - will not sign. Ukraine will never go for it

Author: 

EU leaders have approved a plan to use the proceeds of frozen Russian assets to help Ukraine. We asked Deputy Minister of Justice Iryna Mudra what the mechanism for implementing this plan might be, what assets are involved, and why only the profits are being transferred to us, and not all frozen and confiscated Russian assets.

In an interview with Censor.NET, she also explained how and when the compensation mechanism being developed by Ukraine together with international partners will allow people who have suffered from war crimes to receive payments.

Deputy Minister of Justice Irina Mudra: If Russia thinks that it will sign a settlement agreement without reparations - will not sign. Ukraine will never go for it 01

"THE COMPENSATION MECHANISM CONSISTS OF THREE COMPONENTS"

- Recently, it became known that the US Congress supports a bill to transfer frozen assets to Ukraine. What does this mean? What is the current stage of this document?

- This is not yet a decision of the Congress, it was a meeting of the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Lower House of Congress, where this bill was actually considered. Let me remind you that it was introduced to Congress in June this year. It is a bipartisan bill, and it was introduced in the Lower House at the same time. We assessed that the chances of its further advancement were quite high.

We are well aware of the draft law, as we were involved in its development to a certain extent, as it is about helping Ukraine, and, of course, nothing should be done without Ukraine. We provided our expert opinion to ensure that it correlates with the UN General Assembly resolution on reparations.

The draft law is very optimistic in terms of making a decision on the confiscation of Russian sovereign assets. I would like to emphasise that it is about sovereign assets, not all of them.

It recognises Russia as an aggressor state. This is done, of course, on the basis of the resolutions that already exist - the UN General Assembly of March 2022 and subsequent ones, which recognise the aggression of the Russian Federation. Therefore, if Russia is recognised as an aggressor state, the US President will be granted administrative powers of confiscation. In other words, it will be an administrative process, and it is fully in line with the concept that we proposed when we submitted the proposal to the General Assembly.

This draft law also stipulates that if an international compensation mechanism is established, and this is what we are trying to do with our international partners, such assets should be transferred to the so-called Ukrainian compensation fund. And this fund is part of the compensation mechanism.

This document also authorises the President to negotiate with other countries to establish this compensation mechanism. This is exactly what we need, because today we understand that no court is able to make a quick, effective, full decision on compensation for losses caused by the war. This could be done in arbitrations, investment arbitrations, as it has been done in Crimea since 2014, but unfortunately, no judicial institution can give us such a decision in relation to this full-scale invasion after 24 February 2022. That is why last year we came to the realisation that something new must be created. And this new thing must also have some kind of legal basis. That is, ideally, as was the case with the Iraq-Kuwait armed conflict, it could be a decision of the UN Security Council. Unfortunately, in our current situation, we will not get it. That is why we went to the General Assembly for the so-called political approval. And we received political support from 94 countries for the creation of such a compensation mechanism.

In fact, this draft law, which was supported by the committee, regulates the President's measures aimed at creating an international coalition to establish such a compensation mechanism. According to the latest data, there is not much money accumulated in the US. Previously, there was information that there was about $39 billion there, but now, according to the latest information, it is about $8 billion.

This draft law provides that these funds cannot be returned to Russia in any case until certain circumstances occur. And these circumstances are listed. These are the cessation of military aggression, full reparations, Russia's recognition of its obligation to pay reparations and participate in this compensation mechanism if it wants to, and there are a number of other grounds on which these funds can be released from arrest or sanctions.

Deputy Minister of Justice Irina Mudra: If Russia thinks that it will sign a settlement agreement without reparations - will not sign. Ukraine will never go for it 02

- Once approved by the committee, will this document be put to a vote?

- It still needs to be supported by the Lower House, and then by Congress.

- Who should create the Ukrainian compensation fund? Ukraine or the US, if Congress supports the bill?

- The compensation fund is part of the compensation mechanism. Let me remind you what the compensation mechanism means. We call it Ukrainian, but it is an international mechanism because it is created together with partners.

So, the resolution of 14 November 2022 provides for three main things. The first is that Russia has an international obligation to pay reparations and must do so. The second is that there is an approved need to create a mechanism for obtaining reparations, because it is understandable that Russia will not pay voluntarily. And the third is a recommendation the countries to create an international register of damages.

The compensation mechanism consists of three components. The first is an international register of losses, which should accumulate all information from those who make a claim to this register, providing supporting documents, evidence of losses, damage, or injury. This can be both material and non-material damage.

The compensation commission will work with the information collected in the register. It will be an administrative body that will award each applicant a certain amount of compensation. Such applicants will be individuals and legal entities - businesses, both private and state-owned. And the state itself, represented by municipal authorities, represented by the balance sheet holders of a particular property that has been damaged. We are currently discussing in the government how to do this optimally. We are also discussing how to help citizens, understanding that it will be difficult for a citizen from a village who has lost property or suffered damage to submit himself to this register, especially the international one, which will be located in The Hague.

As for the first component, all legal decisions are in place. The register has been created. It was supported by 43 states and the European Union as the forty-fourth participant. As for the states, they are both members of the Council of Europe and non-members of the Council of Europe. Among the non-members are the United States, Japan, and Canada. We also expect Mexico and Guatemala to join. So now, on the basis of this international organisation, which has been established as a legal entity, we have begun discussing the creation of a compensation commission.

The creation of the commission is somewhat more complicated: we do not have Russia's participation in this process, i.e. the party that causes the damage. Thus, without Russia's participation, we must bring it to justice and force it to pay reparations.

There is no need to formally recognise its responsibility because it has already arisen by virtue of international law. We need to find a mechanism to force Russia to fulfil its responsibility.

Deputy Minister of Justice Irina Mudra: If Russia thinks that it will sign a settlement agreement without reparations - will not sign. Ukraine will never go for it 03

- This has never happened before and something new needs to be created. There is nothing like this in international law.

- The Iraq-Kuwait case was somewhat similar, but not identical. But why do I say somewhat similar, because there, by a decision of the UN Security Council, Iraq was obliged to take part in reparations payments. Their conflict ended in early 1991, and a commission was set up at the same time, which operated for 30 years. The last payment was made in February 2022.

What was the nuance there? As I said, it was created by a decision of the UN Security Council, and the UN Secretariat acted as the secretariat of this commission, and the source of the compensation fund that was created in this structure was Iraq's income from the sale of oil and oil products on international markets. Accordingly, Iraq was forced by this binding decision to transfer 30% to this compensation fund. However, the decision on specific payments was not made by Iraq, but by this commission, which was created with the participation of commissioners, appraisers, and lawyers. That is, there were nine panels of commissioners. And everything was created under the auspices of the UN. In our case, it will not be under the auspices of the UN, but on the basis of an international agreement. We envisage that the international agreement should definitely include those countries that have frozen Russian assets. We need this to be as legitimate an instrument as possible to avoid situations where Russia and African countries set up their own tribunal or compensation commission and confiscate Western money for some past conflicts that involved our Western partners. Therefore, legitimacy should be global. This should not be a story between Ukraine and Europe. It should not be a story between Ukraine and America. It should be an international and global story. It should also involve the states of the global South.

There are states that are friendly to us - Australia, New Zealand, Guatemala, Mexico - with whom we are also negotiating to get them to join this mechanism. We need to provide a mechanism with the understanding that it is not exclusively for the needs of Ukraine. This is precisely addressing those weaknesses in international law that have no response to acts of aggression, and that this precedent will provide such a response. If there is an understanding that this war will be very costly for the aggressor, and that its assets abroad are at risk, then the aggressor will probably think twice before starting a war. But we are not saying that this new system of accountability should consist only of a compensation mechanism. It should also include a tribunal and investigations into war crimes and crimes against humanity, with the perpetrators brought to justice. Such a comprehensive mechanism should give future aggressors an understanding of whether to launch aggression or not.

- War crimes are being investigated in Ukraine and in a number of other countries. As for the tribunal, unfortunately, it has not yet been established. None of the major countries, such as the United States, Germany, the United Kingdom, or France, have yet come out in support of such an initiative. If there is no tribunal, will the idea of a compensation mechanism work?

- Absolutely. They are not interdependent, they simply create a single comprehensive system of responsibility.

And I would not be so sceptical about the tribunal. I'm not ready to comment on this issue in detail, because it is not the responsibility of the Ministry of Justice, but of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. But what I see in my negotiations with our partners is very significant progress compared to last year. Even the fact that the UK, France, and the US are members of coordinational groups that discuss not whether to create a tribunal or not, but the modalities of this tribunal. That is, in what form it should be created. Ukraine has its own position. We believe that there should be a fully international tribunal that will allow us to lift the immunity of the top three leaders of the country.

Our partners have a vision that this should be a so-called internationalised tribunal. That is, the law of Ukraine is used, but the tribunal is located in the jurisdiction of another country. For example, in The Hague, where there will be foreign judges and foreign prosecutors alongside Ukrainian ones. We see this option as a risk that the issue of lifting immunity will not be resolved. This process will not be impartial. And the lifting of immunity is unlikely. And to create a tribunal and not reach those who are guilty of the crime of aggression is not what Ukraine and Ukrainians want. This is not what justice demands. But this is the option offered by our partners, and as far as I know, the latest status of the work of this coordinational groups is that they have now developed a third option, which is a mixture of the first and second. That is, this work is being actively pursued, and I think that this third, modified option will be discussed.

So I wouldn't say that countries are unwilling, they are looking for options. It is more difficult than the compensation mechanism, because there is civil liability, and here it is criminal liability, and our partners are more concerned about some precedents in this area. But I won't say that the compensation mechanism is easy. It's just that we have also moved from talking about the feasibility to a concrete discussion of a step-by-step plan to create this compensation mechanism. And it will be created by a multilateral international agreement.

Deputy Minister of Justice Irina Mudra: If Russia thinks that it will sign a settlement agreement without reparations - will not sign. Ukraine will never go for it 04

"TO LIMIT SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY, ANOTHER SOURCE OF LAW IS NEEDED"

- Let's return to the issue of creating the fund. Where will the transferred funds be accumulated?

- As I said, the second component is a commission that will make a decision with the amount awarded, and the third component, which is integral to the second, is the fund. A decision without a fund is meaningless, because with it you will not go to the courts to legalise it, it will not be enforced. Therefore, there must be a source of monetisation of these decisions. And this fund will be created under the auspices of this commission. It will not be a Ukrainian fund in Ukraine. It will not be a fund in any one jurisdiction. This will be a full-fledged institution with its own governing bodies, with international partners in these bodies, which will actually manage the funds of this fund. This American bill also refers to a Ukrainian compensation fund to be created with international partners, in which the United States should participate. The document stipulates that the United States must be a party to both the compensation mechanism and this fund. That is, it will be a decision of international partners, but again, according to this draft law, all this should be done in cooperation with the Ukrainian government.

Right now, there is no such fund. If there is a vision that some ready-made fund can be used as this compensation fund, then perhaps this will be discussed. For example, the Ukrainian Facility, a fund to support the financing of Ukraine's reconstruction needs with indicative funding of up to €50 billion from the EU, is currently being created. It could be used as an existing fund for the purposes of the compensation mechanism or a new one could be created from scratch. But this will be the decision of international partners. All this will be described in an international agreement.

- When will it be?

- This is a different issue, because an international agreement requires diplomatic conferences and ratification. We have now started negotiations on the terms of this agreement. We have presented our vision of the concept of this agreement, i.e. what legal grounds can be used to make countries parties to it, and the design of this agreement.

- What countries are you negotiating with?

- We are currently communicating with the G7, the Netherlands, because they have a registry, and the European Union as a regional organisation. Recently, the UN General Assembly held a week of international law, which brought together senior legal advisers from countries. We discussed the first steps with these legal advisers from the Netherlands, the European Union and the G7. In fact, we drew up a roadmap for the creation of this international agreement. And now Ukraine has to provide a step-by-step plan with a draft agreement. The way we see it, this draft will contain a section on the creation of a compensation commission and a section on the creation of a fund. It is precisely this agreement that will address the issue at the level of international law regarding the confiscation or re-profiling of Russian assets.

- Will this allow countries to make decisions on confiscation?

- This will allow countries to amend their legislation - as the US does and as Canada has done and the UK intends to do - to enable this confiscation.

- Can't they do it without an agreement?

- The sovereign immunity enjoyed by state assets is a doctrine of international law and is governed by the conventions on sovereign immunities. And to limit sovereign immunity, you need another source of law. That is, either the existing conventions need to be amended, which is very problematic. Or, another source of international law must be created that will allow limiting sovereign immunity. And in our case, this source of international law will be an international agreement.

How did countries introduce restrictions on sovereign immunity into their legislation? On the basis of international conventions. As, for example, is the case in the EU. The European Convention on the Immunity of States has been adopted, and then countries make appropriate changes to their legislation. It is the same in our case. As soon as there is such an umbrella for the possibility of limiting sovereign immunity, it will become a basis for them to amend their legislation.

The US does not need to do this, as they have their own American law on sovereign immunities (Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act). In Canada, this issue is also provided for by law, which they can amend. Unfortunately, this is not possible in the European Union. The European Parliament must pass a legislative act that will either automatically apply it or allow countries to amend their legislation. And if there were an international agreement, it would give all countries that are parties to this agreement the right to automatically make changes.

Deputy Minister of Justice Irina Mudra: If Russia thinks that it will sign a settlement agreement without reparations - will not sign. Ukraine will never go for it 05

- Will Russia be able to demand the return of its assets in court?

- If we are talking about sovereign assets, i.e. money that belongs de facto to Russia and de jure to the Central Bank of Russia, there are practically no existing legal and judicial instruments.

For example, Russia can apply to the International Court of Justice on the basis of certain conventions. At present, they cannot claim under any of the possible conventions to assert its claims for the confiscation of sovereign assets. 

Thus, they cannot apply to the International Court of Justice.

Theoretically, they could have applied to the European Court of Human Rights if they had not withdrawn from the Council of Europe and denounced the Convention. Thus, they will not be able to apply to the ECHR either.

- What about investment arbitration?

- Theoretically, if they prove that a particular country has expropriated their investments, and if there is a treaty on mutual protection of investments between these countries, they could start such processes. But, firstly, not all countries have such treaties with Russia. For example, the United States does not. So this way is theoretically possible, but whether Russia will be able to prove to the investment tribunal that their investment was illegally expropriated is a question. Because expropriation, if it is carried out within the framework of international law that allows it, as part of countermeasures in response to aggression, in violation of the UN Charter, international law, international humanitarian law, will not be considered illegal. Therefore, they will have a rather difficult situation with proof in foreign courts. Understanding this, they are now making such extensive propaganda against the confiscation of Russian assets. What they said recently - that if the West makes such a decision, they will mirror all Western assets - shows that they are really concerned about the confiscation of sovereign assets.

- Since the beginning of the full-scale invasion, many assets of Russian oligarchs have been subjected to sanctions, and they are also currently frozen. Did I understand you correctly: they have nothing to do with confiscation for the sake of compensation, and we will not receive them?

- These assets are frozen under the sanctions legislation. Sanctions legislation is limited to freezing - restricting the right to dispose of these assets, possibly the right to use them, but it does not deprive them of the right to own them. Such assets can only be confiscated in criminal proceedings. In other words, theoretically, this could be the case if a particular oligarch is convicted in Ukraine under an article that is reflected in the criminal law of another country. For example, let's take Germany. Under an article contained in the German Criminal Code. And in Germany, there is an asset of this oligarch in respect of which a verdict has been passed and civil forfeiture has been applied in Ukraine. Theoretically, in this situation, Ukraine could apply to Germany to enforce the decision of the Ukrainian court. There are no such precedents yet.

Other countries can confiscate assets under their criminal laws, but they do not have the appropriate provisions to allow the transfer of these assets to Ukraine. That is, they can confiscate, but according to their legislation, these assets must go into their budget. Then they will be able to allocate funds to Ukraine from their budgets, but these will be the funds of their partners, not the oligarch.

"SANCTIONS WILL NOT BE LIFTED FROM THE FUNDS FOR SURE"

- EU leaders have approved a plan to use the proceeds of frozen Russian assets to help Ukraine. What is the mechanism for implementing this plan?

- In 27 of October, the EU leaders' summit made a political decision that the profits generated by financial institutions holding frozen funds of the Russian Federation could be transferred to Ukraine. It was also stated at the summit that the European Commission's lawyers should develop a step-by-step plan by December. What does this plan look like? It consists of three stages. The zero stage, as they call it, provides for the possibility for financial institutions to generate profits from the funds accumulated in their general accounts and received as a result of the redemption of securities of the Russian central bank, since the Russian central bank in the European jurisdiction has been keeping its money mainly in securities. And when the maturity date came, these securities were converted into cash. These funds in this particular case were kept in Euroclear (but there are other financial institutions) and frozen. They could not be returned to the client, the Russian central bank, because of sanctions. Accordingly, the funds were immobilised.

Since they are being hold on the accounts of a financial institution, the financial institution controls them. The financial institution has an obligation to return these funds to the client, but only when the sanctions are lifted. And until the financial institution is able to return them, something needs to be done with them, in other words, they need to be managed. Therefore, initially, the zero stage, as they call it, is to empower financial institutions to invest these immobilised assets and earn money on them.

They do not have this power today. Therefore, the European Union must first of all give it to them.

Next is stage one. It implies that the profits received from managing these assets are taken from the general account and accumulated in a separate special account. It can be called an escrow account or something else. They already understand, as in the situation with Euroclear, that in 9 months of 2023, they generated €3 billion of such profits. That is, they can take it and transfer it to an escrow account. And what they transfer will no longer have the nature of Russian money. These are no longer Russian assets. What remains in the general account is Russian assets. Although these are the funds of a financial institution, the financial institution has an obligation to return them when the situation allows it. And what it has earned is no longer Russian. Why not Russian? Because the financial institution would not have earned these funds if not for the sanctions. These are unexpected excess profits that could not have been foreseen when they entered into the relationship with their client.

Deputy Minister of Justice Irina Mudra: If Russia thinks that it will sign a settlement agreement without reparations - will not sign. Ukraine will never go for it 06

- What should I do with these funds?

- Resolving this issue is step two. There is political will that these funds should be transferred to Ukraine. Because they would not have been generated if not for Russia's war in Ukraine and the introduction of the sanctions regime. And Ukraine has the right to claim these funds. Therefore, the use of these revenues to rebuild Ukraine was also politically supported on 27 October. Then the lawyers were told: here are three stages, now you have to develop a step-by-step plan for their implementation. This will include changes to European legislation. First of all, it should be a decision of the EU Council, which should be introduced by Josep Borrell. It must be a decision of the European Commission to change the legislation, and it must be a decision of the European Parliament to approve this legislation. So when we say that something will happen in December, it will be this step-by-step plan. There will be no decisions yet, they will only be developed.

Many directorates and departments in the European Union are working on the implementation of this plan.

What else is planned to be done? This is where we should return to the Ukrainian Facility. Funds from this fund should be used for priority reconstruction projects agreed with the European Union. And Ukraine has to present a reconstruction plan. But this plan is already being discussed in detail by the Ukrainian government and the European Union. And when this plan is agreed upon, these excess profits should be transferred to this plan in addition to the EUR 50 billion.

- When do you think this might happen?

- We hope that next year.

- Aren't you afraid that while the compensation mechanism is being developed, sanctions will be eased and seizures of Russian assets will be lifted?

- The sanctions will not be lifted for sure. All leaders are saying this. Until Russia stops its aggression and pays compensation, sanctions on its sovereign assets will not be lifted.

We have made great progress in that the West has finally calculated how much money there is. Until recently, this was not known either. Now we know that about 300 billion euros have been accumulated in Europe. In the US, it is $8 billion. There is information that it is less, but it is in Canada, Australia, and Japan. We do not yet know exactly how much money is there. That is, what was initially said about $350 billion is more or less true. I would say between $320 and $350 billion.

Deputy Minister of Justice Irina Mudra: If Russia thinks that it will sign a settlement agreement without reparations - will not sign. Ukraine will never go for it 07

- From time to time, the question of possible negotiations is raised. Will the compensation mechanism remain relevant for us if we do start negotiating with Russia?

- It will be mega-relevant, and Russia should be interested in it first. Because if Russia does not have a single platform for resolving compensation issues, it will be torn apart in courts around the world. Investment arbitrations, lawsuits. That is, everything that happened in Crimea, but we see it in small quantities there. In different jurisdictions, in different courts. All this will happen all over the world. Wherever there are assets of the Russian Federation, investors who have lost their assets here will come forward. Therefore, it is much more beneficial for Russia to have one platform where this will be resolved with their participation, if they want to be part of it. But to be part of it, they have to fulfil a number of requirements. And one of the requirements is to fill the compensation fund. Therefore, it should be profitable for them. And they should insist on it first and foremost. If Russia thinks it will sign a settlement agreement without reparations, it will not. Ukraine will never agree with that. And the world will not, because someone has to pay these reparations. If not Russia, then who?

- The register is international and is physically located in The Hague. It should start working next spring. How will Ukraine transfer data there and what kind of data?

- We have learnt the lessons from the work of the compensation commission in the Iraq-Kuwait conflict. There, the register was completely documentary, they worked with pieces of paper. We want to move away from this completely and do everything digitally. And now, the executive bodies of the registry, together with IT donors, have to write a technical task for the development of an IT platform by the end of the year. It is expected that such an IT platform will be developed during the first quarter of 2024. At least for certain categories that will be in the registry.

The register will be much broader than the register in Diya for damaged property.

The international registry will include several dozen categories. It will focus on an individual, a legal entity and a state. And each entity will have subcategories.

If we are talking about individuals, this is material damage and non-material damage. Victims of violence, torture, those who lost their relatives in the war, those who were forcibly displaced will also be able to receive non-pecuniary damage.

- A draft law on immediate reparations for victims of sexual violence has been registered in parliament. What do you think of this initiative?

- It is inappropriate to say that they will be in the priority categories for the registry, because the registry accumulates data and does not make decisions on compensation amounts.

- This is understandable. It is about the order of payments.

- Victims of sexual violence will definitely be in the international register. Therefore, if the state is going to pay some kind of compensation at its own expense, because it can only do so at its own expense, it will be able to claim this amount in the register. Or the victim of sexual violence will submit an application there.

So how do we make sure that all these registers that exist in Ukraine and the Netherlands are interconnected and that information can be taken from one and automatically transferred to the other? We understand that it is quite difficult for individuals who do not have such technical capabilities to communicate with the registry and transfer this information. That is why we are now trying to create certain databases of victims. This is what the Ministry of Social Policy is doing with regard to victims of sexual violence. Along with information about the victims, evidence confirming the fact of violence will also be accumulated. Then this entire database should be transferred to the international registry, so as not to pull the survivor once again to come back and prove something for the new registry. We are planning to create databases for such vulnerable groups, which will then migrate to the international registry.

We want to do this on the basis of the Diya app. We are currently negotiating this with the Ministry of Digital Transformation.

Regarding payments. If there is a vision to create some additional registers and make payments in Ukraine, it should be done in such a way that there is no duplication with the international register. In any case, the decisions of the 5th Commission based on information from the international registry will be implemented at the expense of the compensation fund, that is, primarily Russian funds. Payments under the Ukrainian registers are all budgetary expenditures.

Deputy Minister of Justice Irina Mudra: If Russia thinks that it will sign a settlement agreement without reparations - will not sign. Ukraine will never go for it 08

- People are gradually receiving compensation for damaged housing.

- Yes, but citizens must provide a receipt for the assignment of the right of claim for the amount for which the certificate is issued. This is included in the set of documents that citizens submit.

As for sexual violence, this is our goodwill. But there are still many ideas such as a register and payments in case of sexual violence. That's why every time I communicate with either the parliament or the government, it comes down to the fact that we have to synchronise all this with the international registry. And if we want to launch a registry here, we need to understand whether we have the funds in the budget to pay for it. No one wants to touch this. From a social point of view, this is wrong, because we have to take care of our citizens. On the other hand, we don't know where to get the money from. And any legislation on compensation that is not backed up by financial justification and a budget leads to the fact that a person will have the right to go to court to recover this compensation. There is legislation, is she entitled to compensation? She is. They will go to court because the state has no money to pay them. She will receive a decision that will not be enforced. They will apply to the ECHR, and the number of unenforceable judgements will increase exponentially. Therefore, I repeat: when there is a legislative initiative to pay compensation, it should be clear where we will get the money from.

- Will citizens or business representatives be able to submit applications and transfer data to the international registry on their own, without the involvement of government agencies?

- Yes. It is designed to allow people to file themselves. As soon as the IT platform is launched and the registry becomes operational, the Ministry of Justice will launch an information campaign for citizens. Businesses will definitely find out everything themselves - they have lawyers. Perhaps we will set up administrative hubs in the most affected regions to provide consultations, we are thinking about this now.

Second, the registry will have a satellite office in Ukraine. And the main task of the employees of this office is to provide citizens with information on how to use the registry and how to apply.

A form for such an application will be developed and will be available in Ukrainian and English. Therefore, citizens will not need translation.

Deputy Minister of Justice Irina Mudra: If Russia thinks that it will sign a settlement agreement without reparations - will not sign. Ukraine will never go for it 09

- Do you need any expert examinations to establish the amount of damage in a final way?

- The registry will not award specific amounts, and therefore will not assess them. The Registry only accepts documents and requires that the evidence base contain documents that would confirm three main criteria: that the damage was caused on the territory of Ukraine after 24 February 2022 and due to Russian aggression.

The application form, rules and categorisation of losses - all this should be developed by the Registry Council. It should also specify what evidence base each category should be supported by. We, as the government, which is primarily interested in getting this done as quickly as possible, are not sitting on our hands. We have prepared our vision of the categories. The Ministry of Justice has submitted proposals to the government on the categories of losses, which, once approved by the Cabinet of Ministers, will be sent to the international register of losses.

The next step is to formulate our proposal for the evidence base.

Tatiana Bodnia, Censor.NET