When War Crimes Became Routine
How one local court had to overcome staff shortages and a lack of experience to deliver wartime justice.
Also see
Calls for Radical Reform of Ukraine’s Justice Procedures
Experts argue that practical solutions could boost the state’s capacity to process an overwhelming number of cases.
When Vladyslav Kukhta, now the chair of the Chernihiv District Court, was at university more than 20 years ago, he never dreamt that he would have to hear cases related to war crimes.
“Before 2022, we had no established practice of applying the Geneva Conventions and this type of offence didn’t exist for us,” Kukhta said. “Now, it’s routine.
“From the beginning of the full-scale invasion until October 2025, we have received 13 cases concerning war crimes. Nine of them already have verdicts, while the rest are under review.”
This initial lack of knowledge in war crimes jurisprudence was one of a number of challenges Ukraine’s judicial system faced in 2022, compounded by other issues including a lack of personel and capacity.
Kukhta and his colleagues underwent specialised training on international law organised by national and international partners, with judges and prosecutors from the UK serving as instructors.
"When the trials of war criminals began and our colleagues were issuing the first verdicts, we analysed them together as judges during our training,” Kukhta recalled. "We were taught how to best formulate the verdicts and why it was critical to cite the specific articles of the Geneva Conventions that were violated. In this way, we learned as we went, gradually building the case law from the ground up.”
Over four years into the full-scale war, Ukraine has documented more than 200,000 potential war crimes. Notices of suspicion have been issued to over 1,000 Russian military personnel, nearly 800 indictments have been sent to court and some 200 individuals have already been convicted. The majority of these convictions were handed down in absentia.
According to Kukhta, there have been no significant objections within the expert community to the use of in absentia proceedings. The primary objective is to ensure a fair trial, as guaranteed by Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
“Some UK experts have expressed reservations about in absentia proceedings, but their situation is different,” Kukhta explained. “The UK has experience with military tribunals from the war in Afghanistan. However, their defendants were either British citizens or Afghans who had cooperated with them, so their presence at trial could be secured. In our situation, that’s impossible in most cases, we therefore proceed with trials in absentia.”
It was crucial to hold trials now, he continued, to get the accounts of witnesses and victims on the record.
“Over time, people forget certain details; they want to forget what they’ve been through, not hold on to the horrific experience. Some witnesses move abroad or they pass away. If we postpone these war crimes investigations, a great deal of testimony could be lost,” he said.
While the defendants were not physically present in the courtroom, Kukhta noted, they were well represented by their defence counsels.
“I must say, the attorneys are quite active,” he continued. “They are posing challenging questions, including to the victims. In my view, the defendants’ right to a fair trial has been fully upheld.”
This is crucial, as it determines whether convicted Russian soldiers could be extradited to Ukraine if apprehended abroad. Kukhta explained that the extradition process works as follows: a Ukrainian court tries the case and passes a sentence in accordance with national law. Once the verdict becomes legally binding, an international arrest warrant is issued. If they are detained in another country, it is up to that nation’s court to decide if there are grounds to extradite the individual to Ukraine to serve their sentence or face further proceedings
As a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights, Ukrainian courts focus on ensuring that sentencing procedures comply with Article 6 of the Convention. However, Kukhta is sceptical as to whether most of those convicted will ever be brought to Ukraine.
“The vast majority of them live deep within Russia and never leave the country,” he noted. “It’s also likely that many have already been killed in the war."
The Chernihiv District Court has handled cases that sparked intense public scrutiny. A notable example was the first trial of the Russian soldiers who forced more than 350 civilians into the cramped basement of a Yahidne school and held them captive for 27 days. The proceedings drew significant media attention. Initially, prosecutors brought a case against several of the accused. The commander’s identity was discovered later and he was subsequently charged.
“The situation was that the trials against the subordinates were already proceeding while the commander was still under a pre-trial investigation,” explained Kukhta. “The defence counsel argued that all identified individuals should be tried together. Later, the commander’s case was also brought before us. However, it’s crucial to understand that the court doesn’t determine who is charged - we only rule on the case presented in the indictment.”
There was some public debate that the initial trial was not thoroughly investigated, an opinion largely formed by the defence attorney’s statements on the matter. According to the judge, a substantial body of evidence was collected in the Yahidne case, with dozens of victims and witnesses testifying in court.
“The verdict in that case is voluminous,” the judge said. “It’s difficult for someone without a legal background to digest such a large and complex text. After the hearing, the defence attorney presented his position in simple, understandable language, and that’s why it can seem more persuasive. We, as judges, are ethically constrained from commenting on our colleagues’ cases and verdicts, much less arguing with a defence attorney after a ruling has been issued.”
“It is possible to challenge the validity of a trial court’s verdict by filing an appeal, a step most defence lawyers take. However, verdicts in war crimes cases are usually left unchanged.”
Despite this, Kukhta said he saw no evidence of public pressure on judges, pointing to the fact that the maximum sentence was reserved for only the most extreme cases.
Perhaps the greatest problem facing the judicial system is a lack of personnel. The Chernihiv District Court, for instance, is supposed to have six judges but in reality only has four.
“All courts are facing staffing problems,” the judge noted. “If we had enough judges, we would hold a meeting and assign specialisations. It would be both proper and logical to have dedicated judges handle matters of military justice. But instead, our judges are simultaneously handling cases of robbery, traffic accidents, AWOL, divorce and everything else. There is an ongoing debate about re-establishing military courts, but that’s not about war crimes - it’s about general offences committed by service members. That’s not a short-term prospect.”
He explained that the lack of judges was caused in part by a complex and lengthy selection process that takes from five to seven years.
“We have to strike a balance,” Kukhta said. “On the one hand, we should meet public demand for a thorough selection process to prevent unqualified individuals from ending up on the bench. On the other hand, the process should be organised efficiently enough to ensure we have enough staff to fill vacancies.”
