OSCE Statement on Conflict-Related Sexual Violence

Some official statements are easy to skim past. This one is not. In a joint statement published on GOV.UK for the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, Norway spoke on behalf of Canada, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Ukraine, the United Kingdom and itself to mark 19 June, the International Day for the Elimination of Sexual Violence in Conflict. The message was plain: survivors deserve recognition, and governments cannot treat this issue as a side note to war. If you are new to the topic, it helps to name it clearly. Conflict-related sexual violence is sexual violence linked to war, occupation, detention or organised armed violence. The statement asks us to see it not as random cruelty, but as something that can be used deliberately to frighten, punish and control.

The joint statement says the global picture is deeply alarming. Recent United Nations reporting shows a sharp rise in verified cases, with increasing brutality. Women and girls are affected most heavily, but men and boys are also harmed, which is a point public debate often misses. **What this means:** when officials say verified cases, they are talking about incidents that monitors have been able to confirm. That matters because sexual violence is widely under-reported. Shame, fear, community pressure and the risk of retaliation can all keep the recorded numbers below the real scale of the abuse.

The statement also points to three pressures that make the problem worse: shrinking humanitarian access, reduced funding for survivor services and persistent stigma. Those can sound like distant policy phrases, but they describe very real failures. They can mean a clinic that cannot stay open, a counsellor who is no longer funded, or a survivor deciding it is safer to stay silent than to seek help. When conflicts drag on or spread, those pressures intensify. Systems break down. Families are displaced. Detention becomes more common. Armed actors can operate with less scrutiny. That is why the statement argues that sexual violence grows not only from individual cruelty, but from the conditions that long wars create.

In Ukraine, the statement points to repeated findings from UN reporting, successive OSCE Moscow Mechanism reports, ODIHR interim reports and other independent monitoring. Together, they have documented conflict-related sexual violence linked to Russia’s ongoing aggression, including in detention settings. The wording here matters. The statement says sexual violence has been used in detention as torture and ill-treatment, with survivors including women, men and detainees subjected to serious abuses. **Why that matters:** this is not only a human rights issue. It is also a question of evidence, criminal responsibility and whether international law is treated as real law rather than optional language.

The countries behind the statement are clear that sexual violence in conflict violates international humanitarian law and international human rights law. For many readers, that language can feel remote, so let us translate it. These are rules meant to protect civilians and detainees even during war. When sexual violence is used as a tactic of war, terror or repression, it is not simply immoral. It is unlawful. The statement also calls it a threat to international peace and security. That matters because this kind of violence does not end with the immediate attack. It can fracture families, deepen displacement, damage trust inside communities and leave people carrying trauma for years. The harm spreads far beyond one place and one moment.

One of the strongest parts of the statement is its insistence on a survivor-centred response. That means the safety, dignity, rights and needs of survivors should guide every decision, from medical care to legal processes. Too often, institutions work the other way round, asking survivors to fit themselves into systems that are slow, sceptical or unsafe. A survivor-centred approach also means practical support, not symbolic sympathy. The statement points to justice, protection, essential services and psychosocial care. If you want a simple test, it is this: does the response make life safer and more liveable for the survivor, or does it only produce strong words for the record?

The statement also asks governments not to treat children as an afterthought. Child survivors, children born as a result of conflict-related sexual violence and children affected indirectly all need responses designed for their age and circumstances. A child-sensitive approach is not a softer version of justice. It is a more accurate one. That matters because children experience violence differently and may communicate harm differently too. Support has to fit child protection, health and education systems, not sit outside them as a temporary extra. If states fail here, stigma and exclusion can follow people into adulthood, repeating the damage long after the fighting has moved on.

Accountability runs through the whole statement. The argument is straightforward: without justice, there is little deterrence, and without accountability cycles of violence keep going. The countries call for stronger national and international efforts to investigate and prosecute these crimes, while also making sure survivors can seek redress and reparations. This is an important distinction to hold on to. Justice is not only about punishment. It is also about recognition, record and remedy. When institutions document crimes carefully and pursue them seriously, they make denial harder and help survivors carry less of the burden alone.

The OSCE matters here because it does more than host speeches. As the statement notes, its field operations, security work and independent institutions can help prevent abuse, monitor what is happening and support accountability. That is why the countries involved say its work on gender equality and on sexual and gender-based violence in armed conflict should remain a priority. The closing point is bigger than one meeting. The signatories connect this issue to the Women, Peace and Security agenda, to the fight against gender inequality and discrimination, and to women’s meaningful participation in peace processes and decision-making. They end by calling for multilateral cooperation to prevent these crimes, support survivors and end impunity. If we read the statement as an explainer as well as a diplomatic text, the lesson is clear: protecting people in wartime means treating sexual violence as a major security issue, not a side note.