Research on access to redress

Evidence requirements without additional barriers

“Access to evidence: what RD4U rules actually require” compares rules, forms and official explanations. Its central conclusion is to distinguish required information, possible evidence and editorial suggestions. A convenient checklist should not turn a recommendation into a new admissibility condition.

Navigation with minimal data

“Digital navigation without excessive data collection” compares Ukrainian data protection rules with the GDPR within its applicable scope. A general pathway can be explained without a passport or personal history. Casework has a different purpose, data requirements and legal grounds; a charitable purpose does not remove processing obligations.

Parallel remedies

“Parallel remedies: claims, decisions and previous payments” distinguishes recording harm, assessing a claim, an award, payment and another procedure. Using several pathways depends on their respective rules: there is no universal promise of double compensation or general instruction to wait for one mechanism while delaying all others.

Reading the conclusions

Each note states its question, document set, analysis, conclusions and limits. Editorial conclusions are distinguished from legal rules and official guidance. Document analysis establishes what the rules say; it does not measure refusal rates, successful applications or the experience of everyone affected.

For a practical starting point, use “Where to start”. To propose a specific contribution or review, open “Cooperation with the Foundation: guidance and research” and identify the document and conclusion concerned. Personal case material is unnecessary for that discussion.