Investigating Ecocide in the Kharkhiv Region
Five senior Russian commanders have already been charged over environmental crimes in the oblast.
Also see
A War Crime Against the Environment
Could the destruction of the Kakhovka dam be prosecuted by the ICC?
Russia’s invasion of the northern eastern Kharkhiv region of Ukraine has caused a huge amount of environmental damage. As elsewhere in Ukraine, investigators are pursuing cases of “ecocide,” defined as actions including the mass destruction of flora or fauna and poisoning of the atmosphere or water resources. IWPR contributor Yuriy Larin spoke to Oleksandr Suziy, a prosecutor from the Kharkiv prosecutor’s office, about the challenges of documenting such allegations, especially amid active hostilities.
Yuriy Larin: Russian forces have committed numerous war crimes in Kharkiv oblast, some of which bear signs of ecocide. How many cases classified as ecocide are currently under investigation?
Oleksandr Suziy: At present, law enforcement agencies in Kharkiv oblast are investigating two criminal cases under Article 441, ecocide, of the criminal code of Ukraine. These criminal cases have undergone a series of investigative actions, with clear signs of the crime established, expert opinions obtained and the relevant information entered into the unified register of pre-trial investigations One more case has already completed the pre-trial investigation phase and an indictment submitted to the court. There are also other criminal cases where environmental damage has been documented.
Every shelling has an environment impact as it damages various natural resources both within and beyond populated areas. However, we categorise these incidents based on the type of target. For example, the shelling of the Kharkiv Institute of Physics and Technology (KIPT) is considered a single-target case; there was one target and one criminal investigation. Another category involves incidents like the shelling of forests. In such cases, a single criminal investigation covers all instances in Kharkiv oblast, where forests were burned or destroyed. The focus is either on a specific target or on natural resources. In Kharkiv oblast, there are dozens of ongoing criminal investigations, with environmental damage totaling billions of Ukrainian hyrvnia.
What do the three criminal investigations for ecocide involve?
The first case involves the shelling of the KIPT. The second one concerns the attack on the Oskil hydropower facility. The third case relates to the shelling of an ammonia pipeline. The pipeline was targeted by Russian military forces in the Kupiansk district, resulting in an ammonia leak. These actions have been classified under Article 44, ecocide, and Article 438 concerning the violations of the laws and customs of war.
It has been established that from March 2022 to September 2022, Russian forces systematically shelled the KIPT using various types of weaponry. A total of 74 different projectiles struck the facility, including FAB-500 aerial bombs, artillery shells and rockets fired from multiple launch systems such as Grad, Uragan and Smerch as well as shells from Pion self-propelled artillery units.
During the pre-trial investigation, prosecutors from the specialised environmental prosecutor's office of the Kharkiv oblast prosecutor's office, in cooperation with Ukraine security service investigators commissioned and obtained the results of a series of expert examinations. These findings identified the types of munitions used, the points of impact and the directions from which the attacks were launched. The investigation determined that these actions could have led to an environmental disaster. The attacks were deliberate, as Russian forces were fully aware of the Institute’s location, given its long-standing operation since Soviet times.
As a result of the investigation, five senior commanders of the Russian army have been charged in absentia. According to criminal procedural law, the court has granted permission for a special pre-trial investigation, which has now been completed. The indictment against the specified individuals has been submitted to the court for substantive consideration.
The damage from the shelling of KIPT has been assessed and confirmed. According to expert findings, it amounts to more than UAH 14 billion (336 million US dollars).
What were the main challenges in investigating this case?
First, documenting the attacks was difficult because the Russian army continuously targets Kharkiv. Second, the facility covers a vast area. Additionally, complex forensic examinations were carried out for this case. Some of the experts involved were conducting such research for the first time in their careers. They submitted requests for additional materials, and input was needed from various scientific and design institutions across Ukraine. The investigation even sought expert opinions from specialised institutions in Kyiv.
This is the first case of its kind for us, where a pre-trial investigation has been completed and brought to court. It is also the first war-related criminal case prosecuted under the charge of ecocide. In fact, there are very few similar cases in Ukraine or globally where investigations have been conducted, evidence gathered, examinations completed, and an indictment submitted to court. The pre-trial investigation took place amid active hostilities, and both the subject and the object of the investigation are unique.
The second case involves the destruction of the Oskil reservoir. Could you explain its significance?
The reservoir in question was one of the biggest in eastern Ukraine and served multiple functions. First and foremost, it was a popular recreational area for residents of Donetsk, Luhansk and Kharkiv oblasts. Many people from other parts of Ukraine also traveled there for leisure and health retreats. Secondly, it was an agglomeration; the reservoir, recreational facilities, industrial zone, fish farming and more – all these elements contributed to its social function. Thirdly, the reservoir played a crucial role in regulating the water levels of nearby river basins, including the Oskil river, as well as water bodies connected to the Siverskyi Donets river. Thus, it regulated levels, directly influencing the water supply for local communities that depended on these basins.
Additionally, the now-destroyed dam housed a hydropower plant that contributed a relevant share of electricity to the overall energy grid. The reservoir played a vital role in the region’s functioning. The destruction of this hydro facility, which led to the loss of the reservoir, has therefore had severe social and environmental consequences. The reservoir was also home to many aquatic life forms, and its flora and fauna were destroyed. Restoring what has been lost will take many years.
The Oskil dam had been repeatedly shelled since the beginning of the war but was destroyed in September 2022. During the Ukrainian armed forces' counteroffensive, Russian troops retreated, having first mined the dam and then detonated it. However, they did not stop there. Over the following days, they continued to launch heavy attacks on the dam using various types of weaponry, including artillery, aviation and tanks.
Among the discovered munitions there was one of the most powerful aerial bombs at the time - FAB-1500. It fell near the dam but failed to detonate. There are photographs confirming this. It is an extremely large bomb with devastating destructive power, which indicates that the occupiers attempted to inflict even greater damage on the dam after the initial explosion.
The motive behind the destruction of this dam was to prevent a counteroffensive by the armed forces of Ukraine and to leave devastation in their wake.
As with the previous case, the main challenge was conducting an on-site inspection. Many of the damages had to be documented meticulously, centimetre by centimetre. Additionally, a large number of unexploded bombs remained at the scene. The inspection by investigators and prosecutors was carried out in parallel with the work of bomb disposal experts. The pre-trial investigation is now in its final stage.
The third case concerns the shelling of the ammonia pipeline in the Kupiansk district, in an area currently under occupation. Is it even possible to investigate the case?
It should be noted that law enforcement agencies have documented the incident, and everything that could be done at the time and can be done now - has been done. Witnesses have been questioned, and relevant data on the pipeline and the consequences of the shelling have been obtained from the entity responsible for its maintenance. All investigative actions necessary to document the crime and gather as much evidence as possible have been completed. Moving forward, once the territory is de-occupied, the case materials will be further refined on-site. We are committed to seeing this case through to the end.
How would you characterise Russia’s overall attitude toward environmental preservation? It seems that in many places, they are rendering the land uninhabitable. How unique is Kharkiv oblast’s experience?
I believe they have no regard for Ukrainian land, given the sheer scale of the shelling - the frequency, the impact zones, the density and, most importantly, the indiscriminate nature of the attacks. There are numerous documented cases where enemy actions have led to massive forest fires. Many instances of destruction have affected large areas of protected natural reserves and agricultural land. There is also significant evidence of air pollution caused by shelling and subsequent fires.
Undoubtedly, war crimes affecting the environment, including acts of ecocide, are being documented in other oblasts as well. The actions of the Russian army are impacting the ecological balance of the entire country.
