Amnesty International used the testimonies of people who were in filtration camps and prisons in the temporarily occupied territories to prepare the scandalous report – which means that the interviews were selected under obvious pressure.

As the Center for Strategic Communications and Information Security found out, independent journalists and volunteers in Mykolaiv, Kharkiv, Donetsk, and Luhansk oblasts were involved in the process of collecting testimonies.

At the same time, the majority of materials for the report were obtained during interviews with persons evacuated to the temporarily uncontrolled territories of Ukraine: the territory of Donetsk and Luhansk regions or Crimea.

In particular, the material was collected on the territory of filtration camps and prisons, the interview was conducted among those “willing” to provide this kind of information.

Such information collected on the territory of the camps should not be used at all in the preparation of the report. Because such interviews were selected under obvious pressure from the security forces of the Russian Federation (administration of the institutions), which were carried out on an ongoing basis.

Sometimes such a “correct” interview was the only chance to pass filtering and leave the occupied territories.

In addition, the materials collected by journalists and hired volunteers were also checked by the administration of the institutions and, in some cases, by the Russian Federal Security Service.

As is known, the international human rights organization Amnesty International published its report accusing the AFU of using civilian objects.

The AI report was criticized by representatives of the Ukrainian authorities, ( ( organizations, and lawyers (

The Ukrainian office of the AI also stated its disagreement with the report – it was not included in the preparation of the report. This led to a split in the organization and the dismissal of several employees of the Kyiv office.

AI apologized for the “suffering and anger” caused by its latest report on Ukraine but stated that it did not reject the conclusions outlined in the report