EVIDENCE OF RUSSIAN war crimes litters Ukraine, but no one—least of all Vladimir Putin, Russia’s president—is likely to spend a single day in prison for them. Nonetheless, it is important that the atrocities are investigated. This is partly to commemorate those who were tortured, raped and murdered. It also exposes the Kremlin’s lies to a world too inclined to let them pass. And public indictments of Russian troops would serve as a warning that may help deter the next round of killing.
Ukraine’s prosecutor-general said on April 3rd that 410 civilians had been killed around Kyiv. Many more bodies will be found. The Economist saw the corpse of the mayor of Motyzhyn, a suburb of the capital, blindfolded and shot, apparently by Russian forces, along with her family. We heard details of the summary execution of a group of Ukrainian men in Bucha, ordered by a Russian commander. Human Rights Watch, a charity, reports that Russian soldiers threw a smoke grenade into a basement in Vorzel, near Irpin, then shot a woman and her child as they emerged into the light.
Evidence like this—and it is distressingly common—has rightly caused a worldwide outcry. Ukraine’s president and Poland’s prime minister have accused Russia of genocide. Joe Biden, America’s president, has called the enormities in Bucha a war crime. The former UN chief prosecutor for war crimes in Yugoslavia and Rwanda has demanded that an international arrest warrant be issued against Mr Putin. And the UN secretary-general asked for an investigation into the killings, alongside the several already under way.
These investigations are likely to show that Russian forces should be indicted, even if they have not killed on such a systematic scale as to have committed genocide. The Geneva Conventions, which Russia has signed, outlaw war crimes, including wilful killing, causing great suffering and targeting civilians. The summary executions at Bucha would count. So would the bombing of the Mariupol theatre which had the Russian word for children written large enough to be seen from the sky. Russia’s invasion was itself a crime of aggression, as defined by the International Criminal Court (ICC), which tries individuals for actions under international law. And Russia’s vast and indiscriminate shelling of Ukrainian cities is a crime against humanity, defined by the ICC as participation in and knowledge of “a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population”.
Unfortunately, indictments are unlikely to bring Russian war criminals to justice. Having been thrown out of the Council of Europe on March 16th because of the invasion, Russia has stopped responding to the European Court of Human Rights. Neither since 2016 has it recognised the authority of the ICC. Although that does not stop the ICC bringing a case or issuing arrest warrants against Russians, enforcement needs the UN Security Council (UNSC) to refer Russia to the court—and, as a permanent member, Russia could veto any such move. Russia does recognise the International Court of Justice, which hears disputes between governments, but that court also enforces its rulings in the UNSC.
However, all the courts should press on with their investigations and indictments regardless. Russian forces are treating the Ukrainian people they have a duty to protect with utter contempt. One reason to back Ukraine in the war is because the West rejects the view that people are a means to an end. That means taking pains to show that every life matters. The legal process will also shed light on Russia’s shameless lies, to the embarrassment of Mr Putin’s international backers. Even now the Kremlin has said the atrocities were faked, then blamed the Ukrainians, demanding a UNSC meeting to discuss its “heinous provocation”. And if Mr Putin’s regime should fall, indictments may help ensure that war criminals lose power with him. Who knows, they may even end up in a jail cell.
By The Economist
