Executive Summary
This report analyses the fate of the servicemembers of the Ukrainian Azov regiment who ended up in Russian captivity, as well as the broader context — how Russian propaganda and the judicial system shape their image, use it to justify the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, and affect the treatment of prisoners in detention.
The Azov regiment was created in 2014 as a volunteer unit after the Russian Federation annexed Crimea and unleashed a hybrid war in the east of the country. Initially, a significant number of its members held far-right views, and international organizations repeatedly documented cases of human rights violations by Azov fighters in the first years of the war. By the end of 2014, Azov was integrated into the National Guard of Ukraine, leading to its institutionalization, strengthened oversight, and gradual depoliticization. In subsequent years, international organizations did not document confirmed violations by the unit, and international inspections did not substantiate accusations of serious crimes. In 2024, the 2015 amendment adopted by the U.S. Congress prohibiting military aid to Azov was repealed, as Azov’s involvement in human rights violations was considered unproven.
Nevertheless, Azov’s image as a far-right formation became entrenched and proved persistent, particularly in the Russian information space.
After Russia’s full-scale invasion began in 2022, the Azov regiment became one of the key symbols of Ukrainian resistance, especially during the defense of Mariupol and the Azovstal steelworks. The defense of the city lasted nearly three months under conditions of complete blockade and massive shelling. In May 2022, the garrison, following orders from the Ukrainian command, ceased resistance and left the plant’s territory. The exit took place with the participation of the United Nations and the International Committee of the Red Cross. In public communications, this step was frequently described as a transition into “honorable captivity”, implying a subsequent prisoner exchange.
However, in practice, the subsequent fate of the prisoners proved far more severe, and in the context of Russian captivity, Azov servicemembers became the most vulnerable group. A significant portion of the prisoners was sent to a colony in Olenivka, where, according to numerous testimonies, they were held in harsh conditions: lack of food and water, unsanitary conditions, absence of medical care, as well as systematic beatings and torture. Men were subjected to particularly brutal treatment, while women faced more psychological pressure, threats, and degrading conditions of detention. Violence was also used during interrogations, where methods of physical and psychological coercion were employed to obtain “confessions” to crimes.
One of the most tragic episodes was the explosion in Olenivka on the night of 28–29 July 2022 in the barracks of the “Azov members”, which, according to United Nations data, killed more than 50 people and wounded 151. The Russian side claimed that the cause was a strike by the U.S.-supplied HIMARS rocket system fired by the Ukrainian armed forces. Still, numerous testimonies and assessments by international organizations do not confirm the version’s consistency with the factual evidence. Ukrainian authorities, as well as several experts and human rights defenders, believe that the explosion was the result of a deliberate action by the Russian side. A full investigation proved impossible, as Russian authorities do not allow international experts to the site of the tragedy and are blocking the investigation.
After Olenivka, surviving prisoners were distributed to other detention facilities, including pre-trial detention centers in Taganrog and Donetsk, where conditions proved even harsher. Inmates reported systematic torture, prolonged beatings, humiliation, sexualised violence, as well as the absence of medical care even in severe cases. So-called “priyomki” — mass beatings — were practiced, along with methods of physical exhaustion and psychological pressure aimed at breaking the individual. The large number of testimonies collected by human rights organizations and their consistency with one another attest to the systemic nature of the described practices.
In parallel, a large-scale propaganda campaign unfolded in Russia in which Azov became a symbolic instrument upon which an entire information strategy is built — one that substantiates and justifies Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Through the image of Azov, Ukraine is presented as a “Nazi state”, a war against which becomes not merely justified but morally necessary.
The criminal prosecution of “Azov members” became one element of this propaganda. This report analyses the system of show trials of Azov regiment servicemembers, formed after its designation as a “terrorist organization” in Russia. Despite the servicemembers’ belonging to the regular armed forces of Ukraine and the fact that they are prisoners of war, “Azov members” are tried as “terrorists” — often solely for the very fact of their service, which contradicts the norms of international humanitarian law. Thus, in the “Case of the 24”, the defendants included people with various roles, such as cooks and general laborers, while individual responsibility was effectively not established.
The criminal prosecution of “Azov members” is accompanied by systemic violations: the use of torture to obtain confessions, prolonged detention in isolation without contact with the outside world, and the absence of access to medical care. Defendants are often forced to sign documents without the opportunity to review the case materials, and their right to a defense is effectively ignored. The trials themselves are perfunctory: they proceed quickly, without a full examination of evidence, using boilerplate charges and pre-prepared testimony.
After the “Case of the 24”, which proved a failure for Russian propaganda, the practice shifted to so-called “solo” cases. After torture, prisoners are compelled to admit guilt and agree to simplified and often remote judicial procedures, with promises of exchange. These cases are heard one at a time, in an accelerated manner, with minimal participation of the defense and a perfunctory evidentiary base. Human rights defenders have documented cases of the same individuals being convicted repeatedly on similar charges, violating the principle of the inadmissibility of double punishment. The charges are built on boilerplate formulations, and the evidence often appears groundless. Even under strict information control, many defendants openly state that they were tortured and that the cases were fabricated, undermining trust in the official prosecution narrative. In many cases, human rights organizations recognize the convicted individuals as political prisoners.
Thus, the report demonstrates that a comprehensive system has been formed around the Azov regiment, encompassing extremely brutal treatment in detention facilities, criminal prosecution, and propaganda. This system not only determines the fate of specific individuals but also serves a broader purpose — justifying war and constructing the image of an enemy who is stripped of human rights and may be subjected to any treatment.
This situation requires the consistent application of international legal mechanisms for the protection of prisoners of war, including ensuring full access by the International Red Cross, regular visits to prisoners, documentation of violations, and the use of existing procedures of international accountability.
Under conditions of minimal possibilities for direct influence on the practices of POW detention in the Russian Federation, particular importance is assumed by the efforts of mediating countries in the negotiation processes aimed at intensifying prisoner-of-war exchanges as a key mechanism for ending brutal treatment, unlawful prosecution, and returning detained persons.