A Ukrainian court has, for the first time, convicted a Russian prisoner of war of rape of a woman in Donetsk oblast. 51-year-old Sergei Karpilovych did not deny having sex with the woman but claimed that it had been ‘consensual’ and that there had been “romantic relations” between them, something she herself categorically denied. He also asserted that she “could have left”, although he and two other Russian fighters were living in the same basement as the woman precisely because anyone venturing outside was in very real danger of coming under fire and being killed.
Sergei Karpilovych is one of the many Russians recruited from prison colonies to kill Ukrainians in exchange for their release. First imprisoned for robbery when he was 18, the 51-year-old from Karelia had spent 32 years behind bars when, in 2025, he signed a contract with the Russian defence ministry and was sent to Donetsk oblast, rather than serve the last year of his latest sentence.
The details here about the trial are based on the report from Anastasia Zubova, writing for the Media Institute for Human Rights, however Karpilovych has had plenty of opportunity to present his version, including in a long interview for Slidstvo before the trial.
Karpilovych left prison in June 2025 and spent three months in training before arriving in Donetsk oblast in August 2025 as part of the Russian armed forces 114th Separate Motor Rifle Brigade. He and two other soldiers from the brigade, like him men released from prison colonies, were ordered to establish a foothold in the village of Zolotyi Kolodiaz in the ‘grey zone’ along the front line.
The victim’s name is, of course, not given, and here she is referred to as P. [from ‘poterpila’ – the victim]. During her testimony, P. explained that she had ended up in the village during evacuation and that there, she had been caring for a man who was alone and very ill. The house where they were living had come under fire at the end of August and she had sought shelter in the basement, while the man had remained outside, under the awning of the devastated building.
According to P., the three Russians bust into the basement soon after that, with Karpilovych telling her that he had orders to kill civilians, but that “all will be fine” if she had sex with him. She had looked after him, she said, when he was injured because she was frightened. He had not only threatened her with his machine gun, but had later said that he didn’t need the weapon, as he could simply wring her neck. The first sexual violence occurred, she told the court, two days after the Russians turned up. It continued through the night although she complained of pain, and says that all of this continued on a nightly basis until December, when Ukrainian soldiers arrived and took the men prisoner. There were only Russians in the basements that were still intact, and there was nowhere she could run to, and no one to whom she could turn. Any words or behaviour on her part that could be interpreted as being in a voluntary relationship, she insisted, were because she was frightened for her life and notes that Karpilovych could grab for his rifle in order to frighten her.
The psychiatric assessment of P. found that she demonstrated signs of both physical and psychological trauma.
Karpilovych, as mentioned, denies this, claiming that there were “romantic relations” between him and P. and that sexual intercourse, which he says took place once or twice a week, was consensual. Although he denied having threatened or terrorized P., he did acknowledge that the Russians’ machine guns lay near them in the basement. Having claimed that P. could leave freely, he did acknowledge that she had nowhere to go. The other two Russians testified in court to the sexual intercourse between Karpilovych and P., however one of the men claimed this to have been ‘an affair’. While denying that Karpilovych had used his weapon to threaten P., they both acknowledged that the machine guns had been permanently lying near them in the basement, and that the woman could not leave because of the intense shelling outside. All three denied having been ordered to kill civilians, however one did say that he had heard about such an order from other fighters.
Even without a war raging and invading Russian soldiers with machine guns, rape prosecutions are difficult. Where sexual intercourse cannot be denied, the man will generally assert that it was consensual, with the grilling that women get having long been one of the reasons why many women choose not to bring rape charges.
P. was evacuated in the same vehicle as the three Russians who have been held as prisoner of war since early December 2025. As soon as she arrived on safe territory, she reported the sexual violence and rape over which Karpilovych was on trial.
The trial took place before the Amur-Nyzhyodniprovskyy District Court in Dnipro, with the verdict announced on 11 August 2026, and the ruling now published on Ukraine’s Single Register of Court Rulings. The trial itself was behind closed doors, because of the nature of the charges.
The court rejected Karpilovych’s claim that the sexual intercourse had been voluntary and called the claim that there had been romantic relations between them “invented and untenable”. Karpilovych had had a weapon, and had threatened to use it against P., and the supposed ‘romantic relations’ were while three Russians were all in the basement with P., who as a civilian, and a woman, should have been treated in accordance with the Geneva Convention and not subjected to any form of sexual violence or coercion. You cannot talk about voluntary relations when P. could not leave the extremely small area where she spent two months with three armed Russians, and where any sexual intercourse was with the other two Russians an effective audience. The court also referred to the psychiatric assessment which found that P. had endured psychological trauma as a result.
It, therefore, concluded that Karpilovych, “as a representative of the armed forces of the aggressor state, threatening to kill if he met with disobedience, carried out violent acts of a sexual nature against a civilian who was under occupation and deprived of any possibility of defending herself from the armed soldiers of the aggressor state, nor from leaving the place and seeking help.” Karpilovych was convicted of the rape as a war crime, under Article 438 § 1, and sentenced to 12 years. He and his lawyer have 30 days in which to file an appeal.
Anna Rassamakhina, an analyst and consultant on international humanitarian law for the Media Institute for Human Rights believes that the court’s verdict was correct and that the weight of evidence did point to Karpilovych being guilty of the charge. The court quite rightly concluded that you cannot talk of romantic relations when you are holed up with three armed Russian soldiers, there are battles raging outside and there is no way of safely fleeing.
See also:
Vladimir Ivanov Russian soldier sentenced to life for killing two Ukrainian POWs in cold blood
Sergei Tuzhilov Russian sentenced to life for the killing of Ukrainian prisoners of war in Kharkiv oblast
Dmitry Kurashov Russian solider Dmitry Kurashov sentenced to life for gunning down an unarmed Ukrainian POW
Yan Petrovsky Russian neo-Nazi mercenary sentenced to life in Finland for war crimes in Ukraine
