Can Putin finally be prosecuted for war crimes in Ukraine?

THE war in Ukraine counts almost months with the dead on both sides now in the thousands, millions having fled to neighboring countries or been displaced from their areas and entire cities almost flattened. The atrocities taking place in the war zones of Ukraine are many with Russia and the West “fighting” over the corpses of civilians.

The “Buka massacre”, as the Western media called it, Ukraine, the US and the EUthe horrific events that took place when Russian troops withdrew from the outskirts of Kiev and the dozens of corpses thrown in the streets, or those found tied up and with execution signs in houses, basements and even cellars, have shocked the world.

Russia speaks of excellent US directing and execution by Ukraine, while the West increasingly reports that investigations into alleged war crimes.

Volodymyr Zelensky went to Buka where the massacre of civilians took place -with the images going around the world and causing horror- and directly blamed Russia for war crimes in the war in Ukraine.

US President Joe Biden has called for the prosecution of Vladimir Putin for war crimes after the discovery of mass graves in Bouka and bodies of tied-up civilians who were shot at close range. But referring the Russian president to trial would not be easy, the Guardian explains.

What are war crimes?

The International Criminal Court (ICC), the first permanent tribunal war crimes in the world, defines them as “serious violations” of the Geneva Conventions, a set of humanitarian laws to be observed in war.

Jonathan Hafez, a scholar of international criminal law and national security at Seton Hall University School of Law, told Reuters that the execution of civilians, as reported in the Bouka case, was “the quintessence of war crime.”

Russia continues to deny its guilt. The Ministry of Defense insisted a few days ago that “not a single civilian has faced any violent action by the Russian army.”

How can a case for war crimes be made?

Jake Sullivan, the U.S. National Security Adviser, told reporters Monday that there are four main sources of evidence:

• Information gathered from the US and its allies, including from intelligence sources.

• Ukraine’s own efforts on the ground to develop the case and document the criminological evidence of the killings.

• Material from international organizations, including the United Nations and NGOs.

• Findings from global independent media with photos, interviews and documentation.

Can Putin be held personally responsible for the actions of his troops?

The prosecution could argue that Putin and his inner circle committed a war crime by directly ordering an illegal attack or knowing that crimes were being committed and failing to prevent them. This hypothesis may be difficult to prove individually, but if it fits into a broader pattern throughout Ukraine, it becomes more convincing. The US had accused Russia of war crimes even before Bukha.

Philip Sands, a professor at University College London, told the Associated Press: “You have to prove that they knew or could have known or should have known. There is a real danger that we will end up with trials of middle-class people in three years and that the main perpetrators of this horror – Putin, Lavrov, the Secretary of Defense, the people of the secret services, the military and the financiers who support it – escape the clutches of the law “.

Who would conduct such a trial?

The ICC opened 20 years ago to prosecute perpetrators of genocide and crimes against humanity. But the United States, China, Russia and Ukraine are not members of the tribunal, which has been criticized for focusing too much on Africa and administering “selective justice”. While there are many cases where documents from US and allied war operations have brought images of horror to the fore.

The ICC’s chief prosecutor, Karim Khan, said in February that he had launched a war crimes investigation in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Although it has not signed the ICC, Ukraine has previously approved an investigation dating back to 2013, which includes the annexation of Crimea by Russia.

The ICC will issue arrest warrants if prosecutors can prove “reasonable grounds” to believe war crimes were committed. But there is little chance that Russia will comply and the ICC can not try anyone in absentia. The US reluctance to attend the trial is also diplomatically inconvenient and is likely to provoke cries of “Western hypocrisy”.

“As far as America is concerned, the ICC has no jurisdiction, no legitimacy and no power,” Donald Trump once told the UN General Assembly. His government has announced that the United States will impose a visa ban on ICC officials involved in a possible anti-American court investigation into alleged crimes in Afghanistan.

But Sullivan said Monday: “The United States has in the past been able to cooperate with the International Criminal Court in other ways, despite the fact that they are not signatories. “But there are several reasons why one might consider alternative sites.”

What are these “alternative sites”?

The United Nations seems to be an obvious starting point. But one problem with going through the UN Security Council is that Russia is a permanent member. “It would be hard to imagine that they would not try to veto something in order to block something,” Sullivan said.

Another option could be a special court organized by a group of countries. The Nuremberg tribunal was set up by the United States, Britain, France and the Soviet Union to hold Nazi leaders accountable after World War II.

Possible models for Ukraine could include tribunals set up to prosecute war crimes committed during the Balkan wars in the early 1990s and the Rwandan genocide in 1994. Another example was the UN-backed expert Sierra Leonean court set up in 2002 to bring to justice those responsible for atrocities committed during the country’s 1996 civil war.

How about a different category?

It would be easier to prosecute Putin for the crime of aggression after waging an unprovoked war against another sovereign country. The International Criminal Court has no jurisdiction over Russia over the crime of attack because Moscow has not signed it.

Last month, dozens of prominent lawyers and politicians, including Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmitry Kuleba and former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, launched a campaign to set up a special tribunal to try Russia for the crime of attacking Ukraine.

How long would a prosecution take?

Probably many years. The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) indicted the first head of state, then-Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic, in 1999 and remanded him in custody in 2001. His trial began in 2002 and was ongoing when he died in The Hague. 2006.

Charles Taylor, the former president of Liberia, has been found guilty of complicity in war crimes and crimes against humanity in support of insurgents who committed atrocities after four years of hearing in the Sierra Leone Special Court in The Hague.