Can President Putin be charged with war crimes?
Yes, the president and any other Russians involved in decision-making about the invasion of Ukraine and the prosecution of the war on the ground can be brought before the International Criminal Court in the Hague.
Does it matter that Russia is not a member of the ICC?
Russia is not a signatory to the treaty that founded the court in 1998 but if Putin or any other Russian is delivered to the court, they can be prosecuted and sentenced if convicted.
How likely is it that Putin or any of his cronies will be charged?
It is looking increasingly likely that Karim Khan QC, the court’s chief prosecutor, will indict some senior Russians and potentially Putin himself. Khan has already instructed his team to investigate potential war crimes and judging by evidence collected so far by reporters and by Ukrainians, there would seem to be at least a prima facie case for an indictment. However, legal experts say that one of the biggest problems is verifying the many files of video evidence captured by civilian mobile phones.
Does that mean Putin will be hauled in front of the court?
That is very unlikely while he remains in the Kremlin. But indicting Putin could put a crimp in his future travel plans as any state that is a signatory could arrest him.
Could the court try Putin or other Russian leaders in absentia?
International legal experts have said that the court’s judges are resistant to trying defendants who are not appearing before them.
Advertisement
Critics of the court have complained since its inception that the body is too political and there is a fear that trying defendants in absentia would provide fodder for those claims.
The likely route to a prosecution of Putin would involve a coup at the Kremlin and a new regime that was prepared to hand him over. As the court itself states, it “does not have its own police force or enforcement body; thus, it relies on co-operation with countries worldwide for support, particularly for making arrests, transferring arrested persons to the ICC detention centre . . . freezing suspects’ assets, and enforcing sentences”.
What sentence could Putin face if he and others were convicted by the ICC?
The court can hand down sentences involving the payment of reparations or jail time. In 2019, the court handed down its harshest prison sentence when it sent Bosco Ntaganda, a Congolese rebel commander, to jail for 30 years.
If handed a custodial sentence, where would the Russian leader serve his time?
The ICC has a detention centre but it is only used to hold defendants during their trials. Those given jail sentences are sent to prisons in one of the countries that has “concluded agreements on enforcement of sentences with the ICC and have accepted to place a particular convicted person or persons within a national facility”.
How many people have been indicted by the court and how many have been convicted?
In total, 45 people have been indicted, nine of whom have been convicted. Six cases — including allegations concerning the war in Ukraine — have been started and are being investigated by the court.
Advertisement
What is the difference between the two UN courts?
The International Court of Justice is much older. It was founded in 1946 and succeeded the Permanent Court of International Justice, which was set up in 1920 by the UN’s predecessor organisation, the League of Nations. The ICJ hears disputes between UN countries, excluding war crimes and crimes of aggression.
The International Criminal Court hears allegations of war crimes and has indicted international figures including Omar al-Bashir, the former president of Sudan, and Charles Taylor, the former president of Liberia.
Could the ICC look at allegations other than war crimes?
Legal experts point out that from 2017 the court has brought within its jurisdiction allegations of crimes of aggression — in other words, using armed force to commit a “manifest” breach of the UN’s rules by invading a sovereign country.
According to Geoffrey Robertson QC, the leading human rights barrister, the ICC’s chief prosecutor “should have no difficulty proving that the invasion of Ukraine was an act of aggression, given its scale and its appalling consequences in death and destruction and over a million refugees. The prosecutor would only need to call evidence of these facts — a Ukrainian government minister, a few victims who witnessed or were injured in the bombings, and transcripts of Putin’s own public speeches. There would be ample photographic evidence to provide proof.”