The horror of Bucha, the devastation of Mariupol, the senselessness of a war that is killing victims in every corner of Ukraine, including between women and children. The Russian atrocities led to a renewed condemnation of the Kremlin. “Genocide” is the term used by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
Even the American president, Joe Biden, said that what happened in Bucha was a war crime and that Vladimir Putin should go to an international tribunal for what he did. While the UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres has asked for another investigation, in addition to those already underway. Former UN chief prosecutor for war crimes in Yugoslavia and Rwanda, Carla del Ponte, called Putin a “war criminal” and called for an international arrest warrant to be issued against him.
The unfolding picture of Russian war crimes is always becoming clear. Human Rights Watch also found several cases of violations of the laws of war by Russian military forces against civilians in the areas of Chernihiv, Kharkiv and Kiev.
The NGO report speaks of repeated rape, two cases of summary execution and other cases of illegal violence and threats against civilians in the period from February 27 to March 14. “Those who committed these abuses are responsible for war crimes,” writes Human Rights Watch.
Hugh Williamson, the organization’s director for Europe and Central Asia says “murders and other violent acts against people in the custody of Russian forces should be investigated as war crimes.” On February 27, in the village of Staryi Bykiv in the Chernihiv region, Russian forces rounded up at least six men and executed them. On March 4, however, a Russian soldier threatened to execute a 60-year-old man and his son in Zabuchchya, a village northwest of Kiev, after ransacking their home and finding a shotgun and petrol in the backyard. The testimony came precisely from man.
“Evidence from the battlefield confirms that the Russians committed at least three types of crimes in warfare,” writes The Economist. The first, it reads, are what we call war crimes: the Geneva Conventions, which Russia signed, define war crimes – willful murder, intentionally causing great suffering, deliberately targeting civilians and stealing their property. . This category also includes summary executions in Bucha and the bombing of the Mariupol theater, which was the largest bomb shelter in the city.
The Geneva Conventions determine what the international legal obligations are in all military actions. It does not matter that Russia did not formally declare war on Ukraine: it had to respect them equally.
Second, the invasion of Russia was itself a crime, regardless of how it was carried out: it is a crime of aggression according to the statutes of the International Criminal Court (ICC) which tries people according to the international law. For the Court, the term “aggression” includes invasion, military occupation, land annexation, bombing and blocking of ports.
Finally, third and final point, the scale of Russian actions around Kiev (and elsewhere) suggests that Russia is guilty of crimes against humanity: the International Criminal Court defines crimes against humanity as participation in and knowledge of “a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population ”.
To date, thousands of Ukrainians have been killed and over 4 million have been forced to flee.
Some legal proceedings have already started and have brought Russian leaders to international courts. Two sentences have already arrived in favor of Ukraine. In the first, on March 16, the International Court of Justice (the Hague Tribunal), which rules on disputes between states, ruled that Russia “should immediately suspend military operations” which began on February 24.
The question hinges on the definition used by Russia when it started the invasion: Putin defined it as a “special operation” to prevent “a genocide” in the Russian-speaking separatist regions. Ukraine defended itself by saying that the definition was false under the UN Genocide Convention. And the International Court not only agreed with Kiev, but called for the full withdrawal of Russia with its sentence.
The other ruling came to the European Court of Human Rights, which is part of the Council of Europe – the international body which aims to promote democracy, human rights, European cultural identity. On 1 April it confirmed an earlier ruling according to which Russia must “refrain from military attacks on civilians and civilian objects, including schools and hospitals”.
Again, the court upheld Ukraine’s terms expanded their meaning, adding that Russia committed a violation when it forced Mariupol refugees to flee to Russia rather than to a place of their choice.
“But it is one thing to pronounce, another is to bring a Russian person before an international court, not to mention the difficulties of bringing his Head of State there,” reads The Economist. In fact, incriminating Russia and Putin is anything but simple.
Russia was expelled from the Council of Europe on March 16 and stopped responding to requests from the European Court. And since 2016 it has not recognized the authority of the International Criminal Court: this does not mean that the court does not issue arrest warrants against the main perpetrators of these atrocities. But such actions would require the UN Security Council to refer Russia to court and Russia would veto.
Russia accepts the authority of the International Court of Justice, the Hague International Tribunal, the, at least in theory. In fact, however, she did not appear at the court hearings. As with the International Criminal Court, also in this case the only way to enforce the judgments of the is through the United Nations Security Council. “If Putin remains in power – writes the Economist – or even if he resigns but continues to be protected by his successors, international justice will not be very effective”.
Legal proceedings are very likely to go ahead and inflict further setbacks to the lawsuit and Russia’s diplomatic stance. Meanwhile, Ukraine’s allies will have to find other means to increase pressure on Putin: hence the idea of many Europeans to insist on sanctions and the sending of arms to Ukraine.
Start a new Thread