As Ukraine negotiates EU membership, the strength and independence of its human rights institutions have become a core test of the rule of law. Against that backdrop, on 26 May 2026, the Verkhovna Rada adopted in the first reading draft law No. 13181, a new version of the law on the Verkhovna Rada Commissioner for Human Rights and the most far-reaching reform of the Ombudsman since the founding law of 1997. Registered as a Euro-integration bill, it aims to align the institution with the UN Paris Principles and European standards for national human rights institutions. The reform could turn the Ombudsman into a more effective partner, but civil society has concerns about key questions, including how the Ombudsman is selected to how far its oversight reaches.
Key elements of the reform and prevailing risks
The reform's direction is broadly welcome. Currently the Ombudsman acts mainly through non-binding recommendations, whereas the new draft allows for the Ombudsman`s responses to be formally considered by authorities and would strengthen its independence. It also expands the Ombudsman's role on wartime challenges, including monitoring temporarily occupied territories and protecting displaced people. This could open significant opportunities for civil society to work with the Ombudsman on human rights monitoring, alternative reports, documentation of violations and advocacy, making the office a potentially powerful ally for organisations defending freedom of association, expression and non-discrimination. Aligning the institution with the Paris Principles also matters directly for Ukraine's EU path, where the independence and effectiveness of rights bodies are a baseline criterion.
The reform also carries risks for civil society that need attention before the second reading. The draft significantly expands the Ombudsman's parliamentary-control toolkit, including the power to initiate temporary special or investigative commissions on human rights matters. Experts warn that this could politicise individual disputes and increase pressure around contentious public-interest issues. It also broadens the consequences for ignoring the Ombudsman's demands, and without clearly drawn limits on engagement with the non-state sector, civil society organisations, charitable foundations and professional associations could face added administrative load in responding to requests. The draft does not introduce state control over associations or restrict freedom of association, so the concern is indirect: broadly worded powers could be read expansively in the absence of settled practice.
Human rights organisations also argue that the draft does not fully meet the Paris Principles or the Council of Europe's Venice Principles, because the procedure for selecting the Ombudsman remains closed and gives no role to civil society: only the parliamentary Speaker or at least a quarter of MPs may nominate a candidate. They also warn that the draft extends the Ombudsman's oversight to include public associations, which they see as going beyond the institution's mandate and as raising constitutional concerns, and caution that, in its current form, it falls short of the Rule of Law Roadmap the government approved in May 2025. At the same time, these groups acknowledge the draft contains provisions the community has long sought, such as lowering the eligibility age for the post.
Next steps
The draft now moves toward a second reading, the decisive moment to resolve these questions. The clearest asks across the analyses converge: open, merit-based selection of the Ombudsman with a meaningful role for civil society, precise limits on how the institution engages non-state actors, and proportionate external accountability for its expanded powers. This shall lead to a stronger key rights institution without adding pressure on the civic sector it is meant to protect. Civil society has a narrow but genuine window to shape that outcome, and have a strong, independent Ombudsman as a valuable ally.