Russia committed the first crime of aggression against Ukraine back in 2014 by occupying Crimea, but holding Russia\u2019s high-ranking officials accountable became one of the major priorities for Ukraine\u2019s international policy after Russia\u2019s full-scale invasion.<\/p>\n
Russia can veto resolutions in the Security Council of the UN, and the International Criminal Court still doesn\u2019t have jurisdiction<\/a> to judge for the crime of aggression (plus, Russia called off its signature from the Rome Statute after the annexation of Crimea). So Ukraine and its allies searched for other options to get justice.<\/p>\n In January 2023, the Ukrainian delegation, along with representatives of the European Commission, the Council of Europe and other legal experts, led the first meeting of the Core Group for Establishing a Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression against Ukraine within the framework of the Council of Europe.<\/p>\n At the beginning of February 2025, the Core Group held its 13th meeting. The European Commission reported<\/a> that the participants laid down legal foundations for the establishment of the tribunal and agreed on key elements of the \u201cSchuman draft statute\u201d, the core legal document of the future tribunal. The final meeting is set to happen in March.<\/p>\n Aid 46 paramedics provide first aid to an injured man after a Russian missile strike on the outskirts of Kharkiv, 23 January 2024. Photo: Ivan Samoilov, Gwara Media<\/p>\n<\/div>\n While the Council of Europe and Ukrainian officials hoped the tribunal would be established this year, President Donald Trump made a sharp turn in the USA\u2019s views on Ukraine and refused to acknowledge that it was Russia and Russian aggression that started the war in the country. Gwara Media talked to legal experts about the future tribunal and new and old challenges awaiting Ukraine and the Core Group in holding Russia accountable through it.<\/p>\n American representatives in the UN refused to call Russia an aggressor and, on 24 February, voted against<\/a> Ukraine\u2019s resolution condemning Moscow\u2019s aggression.\u00a0Andrii Mikheiev, an international law expert at the International Center for Ukrainian Victory, says that the current American position is not a surprise (e.g. because the USA also withdrew its signature from the Rome Statute of the ICC). Nevertheless, he notes, the matter of establishing a tribunal can become leverage for future negotiations that America will actively utilize \u2014 mainly during bilateral talks with Russia.<\/p>\n \u201cIt is rather easy to predict that the issue of the tribunal will be brought up at negotiations,\u201d Mikheiev says. \u201cIt is not established yet, so this idea could be cheaply and painlessly sold: here, we [i.e. USA] agreeing that the tribunal will not happen, and you [i.e. Russia] yield something else to us.\u201d<\/p>\n It\u2019s a very likely scenario, which is why the most important question of the tribunal\u2019s creation isn\u2019t its statute, or key institutions, or regulations, but the speed [with which it can be established].<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Mikheiev says that it is vital to ensure the tribunal exists before it comes up as leverage in negotiations. \u201cA tribunal that has already been established, that has a statute and a known list of judges and participant countries will be very hard to eliminate. It will be almost impossible to force all countries to withdraw their signatures. At the same time, it will very easy to get rid of the tribunal that doesn\u2019t exist yet.\u201d<\/p>\n On 21 February, The Telegraph<\/em> wrote <\/a>that during the 13th meeting of the Core Group, American envoys refused to label Russia as an \u201caggressor\u201d. Without acknowledging aggression, they cannot participate in granting the tribunal jurisdiction to investigate the said aggression. European diplomats told journalists that the loss of the USA would be a \u201cmajor blow\u201d to the project.<\/p>\n \u201cUkraine uses the European system of human rights protection, so the representation of [countries] on the European continent matters for us first and foremost,\u201d Oksana Cherviakova, representative of the Ombudsman in Kharkiv Oblast, told Gwara<\/em>. \u201cBut we\u2019d want to involve as many countries as possible because then they\u2019ll accept responsibilities to physically arrest the criminals and transfer them [to the established court].\u201d\u00a0 Cherviakova stressed that the massive involvement of the Council of Europe and 40 countries is already a signal that \u201cmilitary and political leadership of the aggressor country will be held accountable\u201d.<\/p>\n Enabled by the new direction of Washington, Vladimir Putin is slowly emerging from political isolation, while European leaders such as Orb\u00e1n and Fico want Ukraine to be \u201ca buffer<\/a> between Russia and the West\u201d, saying Zelenskyy \u201cneeds this war<\/a>\u201d. In view of these developments, lawyers and human rights experts emphasized the importance of speaking out about Russian war crimes more and advocating for holding Moscow accountable.<\/p>\n During the three years of the full-scale invasion, Russia has killed 2,809 people and destroyed over 37,000 residential buildings in the Kharkiv Oblast alone<\/a>. Tamila Bespala, legal expert of Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group, says that, in her experience, not all lawyers from other countries \u201cbelieve that we have a real war, that all crimes that were committed here really have been committed\u201d. Changing this is only possible by shedding more light on the consequences of the Russian aggression, Bespala believes.<\/p>\n Russia systemically lies<\/a> and denies committing war crimes (or even their existence), using different mediums and different languages. These methods of hybrid war are so effective in Europe because, Oksana Cherviakova notes, \u201cpeople are not prepared and not protected\u201d.<\/p>\n \u201cIn Ukraine, people already have experience [of dealing with misinformation], they live through it and overcome challenges. Europe, being away from the frontline, has news\u2026 But the further they are from the frontline, the more credibility news from Russian and other sources have,\u201d says Cherviakova.<\/p>\n Andrii Mikheiv says that to counter the influence of Russian narratives, Europe has to \u201ccommunicate as much as possible that the tribunal will be created. Communicate that no peace agreements, no compromises, no ceasefire can cancel out the crimes that have already been committed.\u201d<\/p>\n Jurisprudence and justice have to be beyond politics, beyond political compromises and above them. This is why, no matter what, the tribunal has to be created, it has to work, and its work has to lead to sentences. For Europe, it\u2019s important to show its conviction in this matter.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Residential building targeted by a Russian attack on Kharkiv on 26 February 2025 \/ Photo: Oleksandr Manchenko, Gwara Media<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Countries helping Ukraine with prisoners of war exchanges or in returning children that Russia had abducted from the occupied territories often don\u2019t want their involvement to be made public. Similarly, few people know which 40 states are included in the Core Group. Confidentiality protects participating envoys.<\/p>\n Tamila Bespala believes that the pressure Russia might put on the countries supporting the tribunal is one of the threats to its future existence. Cerviakova agrees that limited public information about participants and <\/em>about the contents of the tribunal\u2019s statute is necessary. \u201cThe less information those who want to disrupt the process have, the fewer obstacles will exist during creation and voting for [the statute].\u201d<\/p>\n Andrii Mikheiev agrees that the confidentiality of the Core Group makes sense but says there\u2019s a risk: \u201cWhat countries\u2019 envoys are saying, doing, and what conclusions they\u2019re coming to [at these meetings] has to be known to the leadership of their countries,\u201d Mikheiev stresses. \u201cFor instance, if Germany (theoretically) opposes establishing a procedure for criminal proceedings in absentia, <\/em>it shouldn\u2019t be because one person, one envoy, opposes it. It has to be a thought-out position of the Bundestag, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Justice that is conveyed through this envoy.\u201d<\/p>\n Accountability and transparency, established in this way, will make the stances of the participating states predictable and consistent and allow the right focus of diplomatic cooperation to be found, Mikheiev believes.<\/p>\n The special tribunal is capable of overcoming the immunity of Russian high-ranking politicians: Vladimir Putin, prime minister Mikhail Mishustin, and the head of Russia\u2019s Foreign Affairs Ministry, Sergei Lavrov. Experts say that the issue of immunity is the most controversial question in the tribunal\u2019s establishment.<\/p>\n First, envoys fear that further regional tribunals will be created by those who want to investigate their countries\u2019 political leadership for the crime of aggression. Secondly, they are anxious about possible ramifications from Russia\u2019s side. Finally, the legitimacy of the future tribunal\u2019s decisions about arresting or detaining political leaders \u2014 and any other verdicts \u2014 is debatable. Currently, the tribunal\u2019s establishment is supported by only 40 states, which means it doesn\u2019t have proper international coverage, unlike previous ones (e.g. the Statute of Rome, which was ratified by 60 countries).<\/p>\n \u201cWhile the European Council is a powerful organization, it is regional. Not enough non-European countries support the tribunal,\u201d says Andrii Mikheiev. Another challenge, Mikheiev says, is the lack of consensus over trying the accused in absentia<\/em>. Because the ICC and past international tribunals generally haven\u2019t had problems with arrest and extradition, in absentia <\/em>procedures weren\u2019t necessary. \u201cThis time,\u201d says Mikheiev, we \u201cwon\u2019t see defendants in court\u201d. Without them, he continues, there will be no verdicts, and proceedings will eventually come to a halt.<\/p>\n This matter is important not only for sentencing but also for establishing additional financial obligations for the crime of aggression: \u201cApart from imprisonment, there has to be confiscation of assets and fines and a founding of the compensation fund for victims of aggression, at least via the ICC model,\u201d argues Mikheiev.<\/p>\n Not enough attention is paid to finding people guilty of the crime of aggression post-mortem<\/em> [after death]. \u201cAggression is the supreme crime, the father of all other crimes. It is wrong to simply stop the investigation because the [accused] is dead. There has to be at least a commission\u2019s conclusion, without a full verdict, that, if the [accused] were alive, they would be found guilty. A quasi-verdict of sorts. Then, justice will have been done.\u201d<\/p>\n Currently, the Council of Europe and European Commission keeps the establishment of the Special Tribunal in focus (as does the Ukrainian political leadership). In 2023, the Council of Europe created<\/a> the Register of Damage Caused by the Aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine and is currently developing a mechanism for damage compensation. The General Secretary of CoE, Alain Berset said to European Pravda<\/em>, a Ukrainian media, that the Council\u2019s ambition is to establish the Tribunal in 2025.<\/p>\n The more ICC orders stop working \u2014 Mongolia, for example, accepted Putin\u2019s plane despite having ratified the Rome Statute \u2014 and the more acceptable international relations with Russia become, the more hope Ukraine\u2019s society and leaders place in the tribunal\u2019s establishment and restoration of justice.<\/p>\n \u201cInternational humanitarian law is being violated by the Russian Federation every day. But we still see no consequences for that. The international community has to consider what to do about it. At this level, only agreements and unity in decisions between countries can be productive,\u201d Oksana Cherviakova says.<\/p>\n \u201cUkraine is demanding new norms for international law with its blood. But what\u2019s clear for Ukraine today \u2013 this outrageous unfairness \u2013 is taking time for the rest of the world to accept. To admit that existing norms do not work.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote><\/div>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.eurozine.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/1-1-1-5-1024x640.jpg\")
<\/p>\nTribunal has to be established urgently<\/h2>\n
\n
Russian disinformation<\/h2>\n
\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.eurozine.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/img_0611-1024x683.jpg\")
<\/p>\nTwo sides of Core Group\u2019s confidentiality<\/h2>\n
Immunity under international law<\/h2>\n
\n