Significance of new ICC arrest warrants for top Russian officials — expert interview
Oleksandr Pavlichenko, acting head of the Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union, spoke in an interview with NV Radio on June 25 about the arrest warrants issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC) for former Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu and General Staff Chief Valery Gerasimov.
NV: How would you evaluate these arrest warrants?
Pavlichenko: [It’s] a very good day of legal decisions. In addition to the decision of the European Court of Human Rights, on June 24, the ICC also made its decision to issue two arrest warrants for Sergei Shoigu and Valery Gerasimov, adding their names to the list of those suspected of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity. Articles 7 and 8 of the Rome Statute apply here. These two persons were previously missing from the list of those who were accused of committing criminal acts during Russia’s aggression in Ukraine.
First of all, this isn’t the end of the process. We don’t know how many cases that the ICC and its prosecutor continue to investigate. But adding these two people to the case, which was designated as a war crime... Let me remind you that two arrest warrants were issued for [Russin Navy Admiral Viktor] Sokolov and [Lt. Gen. Sergei] Kobylash in March of this year, who were subordinate to both Gerasimov and Shoigu. Now, the court has moved up the chain of command. These two persons received arrest warrants on charges of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity by giving criminal orders to destroy civil infrastructure, particularly Ukraine’s energy infrastructure.
The warrants pertain to suspected crimes committed between October and March 2023.
NV: ICC arrest warrants only apply in countries that have ratified the Rome Statute. But Ukraine never ratified it, we are only a signatory to the document. Does this strike you as bizarre?
Pavlichenko: A very good question. I can say the issue of Ukraine’s ratification of the Rome Statute has come up again. The President’s Office is discussing this issue to make an appropriate political decision. The issue has now entered a political dimension.
The paradox is that the Rome Statute partially applies in Ukraine, because a signatory state is obliged to refrain from violating the Rome Statute’s norms but does not have to enforce it. These are international law standards regarding contractual documents. Ukraine has no obligation to arrest and deliver [criminals] to the ICC. There’s no such obligation until Ukraine ratifies the Rome Statute.
I think Ukraine will ratify the Rome Statute sometime by the end of the year, because, I think, this process is now in motion.
NV: Going back to the recent warrants, would you say the ICC is moving quite quickly with investigating Russian aggression in Ukraine?
Pavlichenko: As for the ICC, I would say their progress on this is not just quick, but positively meteoric. Because the previous work of international bodies that preceded the ICC—special tribunals on Yugoslavia and Rwanda—had a rather long period of time between the crimes being committed and investigations producing first arrest warrants. It was a few years at best.
We see that we already have four arrest warrants for Russian military commanders, based on events that took place in 2022-2023. I would say this is a very quick and efficient result for the ICC.
I think we’ll see the bench of those accused of committing war crimes continue expanding in the near future, with the investigation moving on to 2024.
At any rate, ICC prosecutors have collected a sufficient evidence base to proceed with these indictments.
And of course, Russia continues its attacks almost daily, usually targeting energy infrastructure facilities. Nothing has changed in terms of crimes committed. Instead, there are some new commanders, e.g. [Andrei] Belousov instead of Shoigu, who will also [likely] become a suspect. I think he should just automatically get the same arrest warrant because he continues to commit the same crimes. This should be a clear-cut decision for the ICC.
This is a powerful signal that international prosecution will be applied to all those who commit these crimes, regardless of what positions they occupy in the hierarchy of authority.
NV: If we look at the post-WWII tribunals, they divided suspected war criminals into two classes: A and B. Do you think the ICC will eventually pursue mid- and low-level Russian military personnel who, for example, ultimately press a button to fire a glide bomb at a Ukrainian city?
Pavlichenko: In fact, I think we shouldn’t expect a large number of people prosecuted by the ICC, which is authorized to exercise individual criminal responsibility against specific persons.
They will instead focus on “big fish,” after which it will be possible to examine the chain of command and determine who participated and what role they played in the execution of the criminal orders.
When it comes to the direct perpetrators—those who fly the planes, press the buttons, who directly operate military equipment, shelling civilian infrastructure, committing other types of war crimes—they are combatants and can be punished if their responsibility for a specific crime is established.
NV: Russia hopes it will eventually compel Ukraine to surrender. Could they perhaps think that all these criminal cases will go away is Moscow triumphs in the war?
Pavlichenko: Firstly, these arrest warrant may be standing for five or 10 years. Practice shows that some suspects were apprehended after nearly 20 years. We remember the story with Rwanda, when the producer of the Thousand Hills Radio was being searched for across different countries. And by the time he was finally caught, he was an old man suffering from Alzheimer’s, no longer able to stand trial.
Still, justice catches up. These arrest warrants may serve as a deterrent to others who might in the future consider committing war crimes.
This is a war, let’s say, not of civilization against civilization, but it’s a model for how justice will be ensured, given there are different options for ending this war. Because Russia hopes to win, while the international community declared that Russia cannot be allowed to win, because it would be a loss for democracy and for the civilized world. And, accordingly, other resources should be provided to ensure Ukraine’s victory in this war, to prosecute and punish the perpetrators of this aggression.
This is the biggest war on the European continent since WWII, in the last 75 years. Accordingly, we hope this will be, as in the post-war period after WWII, a trial of the defeated, because Russia must be defeated.
[U.S. historian] Timothy Snyder said the only and necessary condition for the administration of justice, both at the national and especially at the international level, is a clear victory over Russia. That is, Russia must be on its knees, forced to implement these legal rulings.
The military war may be swinging in our favor, but the information war continues.
Just as an army needs soldiers, so does a free society need its journalists to ensure that people have access to honest, trustworthy voices to understand the world around them.
For the past five years, The New Voice of Ukraine has been working tirelessly to push back against Russian narratives and defend democracy. But we cannot do it alone.
Please consider supporting us on Patreon for just $5 a month – your donation does directly to supporting journalists and ensuring that this front of the infowar says solid and defended.
Thank you.
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Google News
