Ukraine: “No One Will Do This For Us”

Myroslava Chaiun in Ukraine

Contributor

Tuesday, 4 March, 2025

The link has been copied

Ukraine’s Prosecutor General’s Office has registered over 152,000 criminal cases related to war crimes and crimes of aggression since Russia launched its full-scale invasion.

Global support has included financial and technical assistance, universal jurisdiction measures, arrest warrants issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC) and potential policy changes from Interpol.

However, in the face of the enormity of the task ahead, Yuriy Belousov, head of the war crimes department, told IWPR correspondent Myroslava Chaiun, “We need to prepare ourselves for a long-term effort rather than expecting immediate results.”

Myroslava Chaiun: What progress has the Prosecutor’s Office made in bringing cases to court?

Yuriy Belousov: Our guiding principle has been that no one will do this for us. No international partner will arrive to investigate, prosecute or hold accountable all those responsible for war crimes.

There are already 800 suspects, those whom the Ukrainian state has formally charged with war crimes. Out of these, 582 cases have been brought to court and by now 148 individuals have been convicted.

Besides, we are conducting a major investigation into the crime of aggression. This is a so-called elite crime, committed by those who wield power in Russia.

For example, this includes the administration of the President of the Russian Federation, the senators and deputies of the State Duma, the heads of intelligence agencies and the Security Council of the Russian Federation.

There is also an economic bloc. For instance, the head of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation. And there is a major component of what is known as information aggression. This includes propagandists, but [they] are simply the ones relaying messages handed down from the top. We are examining every level of the hierarchy.

Within the aggression case alone, we have identified 735 individuals.

What are the prospects for investigating war crimes in occupied territories and areas within the conflict zone?

We are not waiting for the war to end. We understand that we should collect evidence while it’s still available – because evidence disappears, people perish or flee. After five to ten years, collecting data will be incredibly difficult.

I would distinguish between two aspects; the process of investigation and bringing individuals to actual accountability. Our objective is to document everything that has happened as thoroughly as possible. We should gather everything and identify who is behind the crimes, then take every possible measure to track them down and hold them accountable.

The worst-case scenario would be if we end up not knowing when the war will end or if we ever be able to apprehend the accused, thereby losing the motivation to gather evidence. Then, five years later, the accused might have fled abroad or there could be a change in the political regime in the aggressor’s country that leads to their extradition - and we would have no evidence.

Most defendants are either convicted in absentia or exchanged. Can we really talk about accountability when Ukrainian court decisions only have force within Ukraine, and there remains widespread scepticism about trials conducted in absentia?

We never exchange a person if there is an ongoing investigation into them or if there is evidence that they may be involved in war crimes. As the Prosecutor General’s Office, we have the final say on whether to approve or deny an exchange. We have a clear rule: if someone is implicated in sexual violence, torture or murder, they will not be exchanged.

There may be exceptions. We understand that our mission is, on the one hand, to punish those responsible and deliver justice for the victims, and on the other hand, to bring our people home from the dreadful conditions in which they are held.

Regarding the in absentia procedure, I also had reservations for some time. However, a remark by British expert Jeremy MacBride who has helped Ukraine in modernising its legislation completely changed my perspective. He stated that in absentia trials ensure, above all, the victim’s right to be heard in court. That shifts the focus entirely.

The whole world is moving toward a victim-centred approach. However, in reality, we tend to focus on the suspect, ensuring that their rights are not violated, rather than on the rights of victims who might not live to see the trial. We determine the victim’s fate based on whether the perpetrator is willing to face punishment. It sounds somewhat cynical.

Given the scale of crimes, the number of perpetrators and the conditions of armed conflict, I believe this mechanism is justified.

Interpol has unlocked the possibility of issuing Red Notices for suspected Russian war criminals. What does this mean for Ukraine?

For a long time, Interpol maintained a policy of neutrality regarding war crimes and did not issue international warrants for war criminals. This was the established stance until the end of last year, when new elections brought in a new president.

Currently, our National Interpol Bureau and the Prosecutor General’s Office together with our partners are pushing for a change in Interpol’s stance. We have a series of meetings planned, and I am optimistic that we will soon have a definitive policy.

Will American sanctions against the ICC impact the investigation into Ukrainian cases?

Not at all. However, we are unquestionably committed to ensuring that the highest-ranking war criminals are held accountable in international judicial institutions. That’s why Ukraine is advocating for the establishment of a special tribunal on the crime of aggression.

I can outline some of the trends the ICC are following. The investigation into the deportation of children is ongoing. This is the case where arrest warrants were issued for Putin and Lvova-Belova. The ICC is pursuing cases involving the deportation of children, since a wide range of people is implicated in this crime.

Secondly, there have been attacks on energy infrastructure that resulted in four other people receiving arrest warrants, including the then-Minister of Defence, Shoigu. This work is also ongoing. Indeed, the operations persist because the period during which those arrest warrants were issued did not cover, for instance, 2024. And in 2024, there were numerous strikes on the energy infrastructure under the new leadership of the Ministry of Defence.

The main avenues that the ICC is pursuing include torture, sexual violence and brutal treatment in places of detention. Based solely on our data, nearly 150 detention sites are used for holding our prisoners of war and civilians on occupied territories and within Russia itself. Every one of our soldiers and civilians captured endures violence. This network is so extensive that it potentially amounts to a crime against humanity.

More than 20 countries have opened proceedings on Russia’s war crimes. Which are currently engaged not only in gathering evidence from victims but also in investigating them?

The US led the way, issuing four indictments and referring the cases to its own courts. I sincerely hope this will continue.

Lithuania followed, announcing charges against six individuals for war crimes. Then there are other countries, like Estonia and Latvia. We anticipate that a Finnish court will soon deliver a verdict in the case of Jan Petrovsky [accused of participated in the killing of 22 Ukrainian servicemen in 2014] who ended up on Finnish soil. This clearly underlines that justice can be patient. He likely never expected to be detained there.

Other nations involved include Germany, Britain, Poland and Slovakia. Moreover, investigations are ongoing in Canada and several European countries.

What are the prospects for considering and advancing these cases in courts exercising universal jurisdiction?

If Interpol truly shifts its stance, I believe the number of countries taking action will increase. While nations cannot prosecute individuals in absentia, they can launch investigations. Consequently, there will be a rise in the number of fugitive cases and corresponding travel restrictions.

When it comes to high-ranking officials, they are used to jet-setting around Europe and owning property in Britain. In absentia investigations let us arrest their assets and accounts abroad, creating problems for them.

We need to prepare ourselves for a long-term effort rather than expecting immediate results. Planning for action tomorrow or the day after is unrealistic and only serves to demotivate us. I often cite the example of the Nazis in World War II, who have been hiding all their lives long. Expecting every knock at your door to signal that you're about to be apprehended is a form of psychological punishment in itself.

The UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine confirmed an increase in executions among Ukrainian prisoners of war. Have cases already been handed over to courts?

So far, we have verified that 243 prisoners of war have been killed since February 2022, including those in Olenivka. Some of them are executed on the battlefield, while others perish later during captivity.

If we focus on those executed on the battlefield, there are 194 cases under investigation. An increase is evident: eight people were executed in 2022, 11 in 2023 and 149 in 2024. At present, six individuals are suspects, with indictments issued for three of them. Two have been convicted in absentia, and we have others in our custody. I hope that the first verdict will come in Zaporizhzhia, where a Russian prisoner of war implicated in an execution is now in our hands.