kyiv seeks an ally for an initiative that has already been explicitly supported by the European Commission
MADRID, 3 Dic. (EUROPA PRESS) –
The Government of Ukraine has redoubled in recent days its calls in favor of a special court whose main mission would be to judge crimes committed with Russia, an ambitious task for which kyiv seeks the help of its main international allies, in the absence of defining where and how the hypothetical trials could take place.
The Ukrainian Constitution establishes in its article 125, explicitly, that “the establishment of extraordinary and special courts is not allowed”, a legacy of the post-Soviet context in which an à la carte Justice was feared as in the USSR.
However, the Ukrainian president, Volodimir Zelensky, does not hesitate to demand a “special court” to judge “all those responsible for this criminal war”, as he emphasized this week during a speech to the nation in which he appealed to the collaboration of other European countries.
The experts do not see this claim as incompatible with Ukrainian law, as long as the concept of ‘international’ is added to the court claimed by Zelensky, in such a way that, even if it could be established in Ukraine, it is done within a framework outside the Ukrainian judicial system itself, notes the Just Security portal.
Zelenski has received key support from the president of the European Commission, Ursula Von der Leyen, who, when exposing a series of measures, proposed the creation of the aforementioned special court so that “the horrible crimes of Russia do not go unpunished” and the Vladimir regime Putin “pay” for them.
In this context, Brussels proposes that, “while continuing to support the International Criminal Court”, progress is made towards the creation of a “specialized court” backed by the United Nations to “investigate and prosecute Russia’s crime of aggression”.
It is precisely this crime, that of aggression, on which Zelenski also focuses, aware that pointing out Moscow for the start of the conflict itself is not possible under the umbrella of the TPI, a court with which he does want to continue, however. collaborating.
The Rome Statute, which gave shape to the ICC, provides for aggression as a crime to be prosecuted, but its definition was not supported by all parties, which prevents it from exercising jurisdiction over it. It would only be possible if the country of origin of the alleged aggressor, in this case Russia, accepts the jurisdiction of the court.
The CFI Prosecutor’s Office has launched its own investigation, for possible war crimes and crimes against humanity, and kyiv has actively promoted these investigations. Not in vain, the Government of Ukraine already decided to submit to the jurisdiction of the court based in The Hague in 2014, when the conflict broke out in the east of the country and Russia absorbed the Crimean peninsula.
A hypothetical trial of Putin for crimes that do fall within the jurisdiction of the CFI is in sight, in any case, since it would depend on whether, in the event of being accused of war crimes or crimes against humanity and having an outstanding arrest warrant, arrest, travel to a country that does collaborate with The Hague where he could be detained.
Community sources acknowledge that, for the claims set forth by Von der Leyen, the court will need “the support at the political, financial and administrative level” of the United Nations, an organization that, on the other hand, has one hand tied behind its back by the right veto control enjoyed by Russia in the Security Council, the main executive body.
It would be possible to question the UN Secretary General, António Guterres, and seek legitimacy in the General Assembly, where all member states are represented and no country has the right of veto. In the Assembly, Ukraine has already achieved several diplomatic accolades in the form of resolutions in recent months.
Guterres’s office, for now, prefers to stay out of it. “Any decision to establish this court, with or without the involvement of the United Nations, rests with the member states,” the main spokesman, Stéphane Dujarric, said this week at a press conference.
The TPI also avoids entering the debate and a spokesman consulted by Europa Press limits himself to saying that the body “is focused on fulfilling its own mandate.” However, he adds: “We welcome any effort that brings more justice to the victims, wherever it is.”
The UN already has a precedent in the establishment of special courts, such as the one claimed by Sierra Leone in 2000, with a direct request to the then Secretary General, Kofi Annan, which led to a Security Council resolution in which it was summoned to negotiate to establish this mechanism.
Three years earlier, Cambodia also asked the UN for help to try the Khmer Rouge leaders. In this case, the collaboration led to the setting up of a Cambodian court that had foreign participation and to which international standards were also applied.
The Ukrainian Executive has redoubled its round of international contacts in search of the court it is claiming, with meetings in the main European ones and also in Washington. At the head of this group is Andriy Yermak, a key figure in the Presidency and one of the highest confidence for Zelenski.
The Foreign Minister, Dimitro Kuleba, has also attended the NATO and Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) meetings with the issue under his arm, the latter entity of which Russia continues to be a part.
The French government, which has already declared itself in favor of the initiative and has confirmed the start of contacts with other partners, hopes to “obtain the broadest possible consensus within the international community” in the case of Ukraine, although it seems Of course, he has already marked positions.
The successive resolutions adopted within the UN have made it clear in recent months which allies Russia has, either thanks to explicit support or an equidistance such as that adopted by China, another of the five countries with the right of veto in the Security Council.
Moscow makes it clear that it will not abide by any court created ‘ex profeso’ to review what it continues to define as a “special operation”, which it continues to justify by virtue of alleged risks to national security. These efforts “will have no legitimacy, we will not accept them and we will condemn them,” Kremlin spokesman Dimitri Peskov said on Thursday.
