“People over Punishment”: Why Ukraine Exchanges War Criminals
Legal experts argue that trials in absentia – or release in a prisoner exchange – still play an important part in ensuring justice.
Also see
Pilot Who Bombed Kharkiv TV Tower Convicted
However, as a valuable exchange asset, Maksim Krishtop will not spend time in prison.
Shortly after the start of the full-scale invasion, Russian Su-34 pilot Aleksandr Krasnoyartsev was shot down following a bombing raid over the city of Chernihiv in north-eastern Ukraine.
Having ejected, the 36-year-old pilot landed in the yard of a private residence and, trying to hide, using his personal firearm to murder a civilian. Krasnoyartsev was captured shortly afterwards.
In November 2023, he was sentenced in absentia to 14 years in prison and ordered to pay two million hryvnias (47,000 US dollars) in moral damages.
However, the pilot was long gone, having been exchanged in a prisoner swap a month after his capture and before he was even officially named as a suspect in the crime.
For some Ukrainians, the situation was hard to understand.
“He took so many lives. And Ukraine exchanged him. And now they’re putting a photograph on trial - very inventive,” read one comment on a Suspilne Chernihiv Facebook post.
“That animal bombed the city. How could this scum be released?” read another.
However, legal experts argue that trials in absentia – or release in a prisoner exchange after conviction – are still an important part of ensuring justice, noting the imperative of using any means possible to free captured Ukrainian soldiers and civilians.
The majority of war crimes cases in Ukraine are tried in absentia due to the lack of physical access to Russian military personnel and the occupied territories.
Some Russians suspected of committing war crimes do appear in the dock, albeit rarely. Andrii Leshchenko, deputy prosecutor general of Ukraine, told IWPR that as of December 16, 2025, 28 Russian servicemen had faced in-person prosecution, resulting in 20 convictions.
Leshchenko explained the urgency of bringing POWs back from Russian detention, even if this involved freeing figures such as Krasnoyartsev.
“The goal of the state and of all bodies involved in prisoner exchanges is to bring our defenders home from captivity,” he said, “because the conditions for Krasnoyartsev in our captivity and the conditions for our defenders in Russian captivity are vastly different. Even independent observers, like the UN monitoring missions, have confirmed that the absolute majority of Ukrainian prisoners of war are subjected to torture and abuse while in captivity.”
Unlike Ukraine, Russia did not adhere to the norms of international law which grants combatant immunity to ordinary soldiers who do not commit war crimes.
“In Russia, however, units like Azov and Aidar, which they have designated as terrorist organisations, are prosecuted solely for being a member of a particular unit and are accused of terrorist activities.”
Some Russian captives were also of particularly high value in prisoner exchanges, he continued.
“There are certain categories of servicemen who, as we understand, are of great interest to Russia,” Leshchenko said. “For example, the Kadyrovites [Chechen fighters], pilots or those with rare specialties – skills that take a long time to train. Consequently, Russia demands their return first. And there are times when the issue is presented as an ultimatum: either the exchange happens with this specific person included or there will be no exchange at all.”
Yurii Bilous, a lawyer representing victims of Russian war crimes, said that Ukrainians generally understood that such exchanges were necessary in order to bring home captured soldiers and illegally detained civilians.
“However, when viewed through the lens of a specific person and the crime committed against them or their relatives, this is of course deeply frustrating. People want a specific individual to be held accountable for a specific crime. This is precisely the major advantage of an in-person trial over an in absentia one.”
Leshchenko said that the Coordination Headquarters for the Treatment of Prisoners of War were in charge of decisions on exchanges.
“They send us requests to approve certain individuals for exchange,” he said. “We then review the list and decide whether to approve or deny the exchange.”
The Coordination Headquarters declined to comment on the process for exchanging war criminals, citing the sensitivity of the topic.
In Absentia
Another case in Chernihiv involved Russian tanker Leonid Shchotkin, sentenced in absentia to 11 years in prison for ordering a subordinate, Senior Sergeant Mikhail Kulikov, to fire a high-explosive fragmentation shell at an apartment block in the city on February 26, 2022. The strike damaged a tenth-floor apartment.
Like Krasnoyartsev, he was captured on the same day the offence was committed was part of a prisoner exchange before he was formally notified of the charges.
In contrast, Kulikov - also captured that day - was tried in person represented by a Chernihiv-based lawyer, Pavlo Kostiuchenko and participated in the pre-trial investigation and court proceedings. The court sentenced him to ten years in prison.
His lawyer told Suspilne media company that he filed an appeal, but the verdict was upheld. Kulikov was exchanged after the sentence took legal effect.
According to Andrii Yakovliev, a lawyer and expert at the Media Initiative for Human Rights NGO, Russians convicted of war crimes do not appeal the verdicts of Ukrainian courts, with the exception of appeals filed by their state-appointed lawyers.
“Overall, it’s a complicated legal situation,” he continued. “The length of the appeals process depends heavily on the appellant: the Russian national filing to have their case reviewed. If they admit to the facts of the killing but disagree with the legal classification or severity of the crime, they might not want a complete retrial. Instead, they could proceed directly to a cassation appeal at the Supreme Court. However, if they claim they did not commit the crime at all, they would first have to go through the appellate court before reaching the Supreme Court.”
Exchanging Russian soldiers does not mean their criminal cases are closed. Ukrainian law permits the transfer of even those convicted as part of prisoner exchanges to ensure the swift return of Ukrainian soldiers.
A clear legal framework exists for this process, specifically the Cabinet of Ministers’ resolution on the procedure for transferring prisoners of war and releasing Ukrainian defenders.
For convicted individuals, Article 84-1 of the criminal code of Ukraine, as amended in July 2022, applies. This article provides for release from serving a sentence, but not from criminal liability. This means the court’s verdict remains in force; the person retains the status of a convicted individual and a criminal record. The state simply ceases their detention in Ukraine and transfers them to the Russian Federation.
The verdict is not overturned and the convicted person remains legally guilty.
A similar procedure is applied to individuals suspected or accused of war crimes who are still under investigation. To facilitate a prisoner exchange, an investigating judge, at the prosecutor’s request, will cancel the suspect’s pre-trial detention. The individual is then released from custody and handed over for the exchange.
In these cases, criminal proceedings are not terminated. Instead, the case is either suspended or continues as an investigation or trial in absentia. This approach ensures that the crime is officially recorded and legal accountability is maintained, even after the individual has been transferred out of Ukraine.
Bilous noted that the exchange of war criminals who have been convicted in person affects the perpetrators themselves, creating a sense of internal amnesty.
“When they know that no matter what they do in Ukraine, no matter what crimes or destruction they inflict on civilian property, civilians, soldiers, or prisoners of war, the worst they can expect is detention in a pre-trial facility and participation in court proceedings - but not serving their sentence here - this certainly shapes their perception of accountability.”
And Bilous said that all of his clients were clear that they would prefer to see in person trials, adding, “of course, everyone wants to look the perpetrator in the eye in the dock, and when such individuals are exchanged, this inevitably causes a certain level of disappointment in society”.
