Putin tribunal. Why the sentence to the President of the Russian Federation will make it impossible to negotiate peace with him

According to the plan, not only commanders who planned specific operations, but also the Russian authorities, in particular, Russian President Vladimir Putin, who is the Supreme Commander -in -Chief of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation and gave orders should be on the dock. And the court must begin without waiting for the end of the war and the prohibition of judicial persecution - that is, loss of immunity of the highest leadership of the Russian Federation.

In other words, Ukraine insists that the world should mobilize and unite for the punishment of international criminals of all levels now. This is what the Deputy Head of the Presidential Office Andriy Smirnov and the Ambassador of the Foreign Ministry Anton Korinevich, who are the main speakers from Ukraine on the creation of the appropriate tribunal, spoke about this all this time.

It is worth recalling that aggression is one of four international crimes, including military, crimes against humanity, genocide. Ukraine stopped on it because it is the easiest to prove. You do not need to collect a lot of evidence.

It is possible to take into account only the evidence that on the surface - the order of Russian President Vladimir Putin about the beginning of a "special military operation" in Ukraine, that is, the beginning of the aggressive war, as well as a number of public statements of the highest political leadership of Russia and the facts of air shelling or occupation.

Therefore, the prosecution can be prepared in a few months and it is necessary to prepare orders for arrest, because the crime of aggression is essentially a crime against peace, as it was called in the Nuremberg process. And then - to start a fairly fast process. And the sentence can sound soon. And he will have political consequences - with Putin as President of the Russian Federation, no one will be able to conduct peace in Ukraine.

However, all this time, this Ukrainian idea has not been supported by international partners. But in the case of Ukraine, the ISS cannot take up the case, because Ukraine, although it has signed the Roman statute, but has not yet ratified it. Russia has recently revoked its signature.

And in accordance with the so -called Campal amendments to the Roman Statute, it is necessary for consideration in the ISS that the state that performed the attack is ratified by the Roman Statute and these amendments. These amendments are a testament to how the States Parties to the Roman Statute are cautious about granting the ICS powers to open a case for a crime of aggression, since only 45 of the 123 member countries of the Roman Statute have agreed and ratified these changes.

Of course, changes to the Statute could be amended to simplify the ISS Case Procedure for Aggression. But this process would be long, and Ukraine cannot expect. Not to ratify amendments, but to start the process, it would be possible to adoption a special submission to the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the UN Security Council. However, this option is also not possible. Russia is a permanent member of the Council and blocks this initiative.

Ukraine noted that it was possible to make a decision through the UN General Assembly so that most participating countries would support the creation of a tribunal on aggression. But this would be a declaration, since the decision of the General Assembly is not obligatory for execution - it is an advisory body, so further decisions of such a court may be doubtfully legitimate, countries may refuse to execute them, which will undermine the UN system.

In addition, there is another obvious reason for abandoning this option - it is not the creation of a precedent to create a politically strong institution bypassing the UN Council. In such a situation, the world tried to find a solution. One of them is to create a hybrid tribunal, with the involvement of the Ukrainian judicial system. Ukraine strongly opposed. At the same time, it is necessary to admit that the problems of mechanisms for creating a special court are minor.

Political arguments are leading. And most importantly, the highest political leadership of all countries has special immunity that no one is violated at the UN level in the case of conviction for aggression. "Aggression is a crime for which persons who control the political or hostilities of the state or manage them during the planning, preparation, initiation or committing of the act of aggression. The lawyer, the manager of the AMBrel's JSC Yakovlev Andrew.

- But they have so -called personal immunity from judicial prosecution. Personal immunity is terminated after the term of stay in office. " And this is such a concept of law. No one wants to break it. Because today the current president of the Russian Federation for aggression in Ukraine may be on the dock, and tomorrow the President of the Western State may be accused.

"We can assume that the quality of the country that does not support Ukraine, with the support of the Russian Federation, can once create their international tribunal. Therefore, the most that the state wants to maintain existing legal stability and certainty," the lawyer adds.

That is, in a situation where the UN Security Council cannot create a tribunal, Ukraine did not ratify the Roman Statute, and Russia withdrew its signature, it is impossible to create a special court on aggression in the current system. If not resorted to sharp changes. And for them, we emphasize, the world is not ready. However, it is ready for compromises.

However, it is important to note that the ISS is unacceptable processes in absentia, that is, correspondence - the accused must be on the dock. "We are actually told that it is possible to create an instance and condemn others. This means not only to agree to condemn others, but also to give up our ambitions to condemn Putin," - said lawyer Yakovlev. And such an instance can be created in the Netherlands in the Hague. It will act under the Dutch legislation. Pre -Dutch government has already agreed.

This country is a victim of Russia's actions, and has already had an experience in considering Russia's involvement in the MH17 fluttering liner in 2014. In addition, the Dutch law has the definition of a crime of aggression, transferred from the campaign document - the country one of the few ratified the treaty. Such a scenario has been hinted at the International Conference "Special Tribunal on Aggression Against Crime Against Ukraine. Justice should take place" in Kiev.

The deputy chairman of the Presidential Office Andriy Smirnov stressed that the main, most legitimate and truly authoritative for Ukraine is the model of creation of the International Tribunal on the basis of the adoption of the UN General Assembly resolution and the Agreement between Ukraine and the UN. "The doctrine of international law is hostages in global policy, in geopolitics.

And some of our partners fear that this precedent will be used against them, because they also conduct military campaigns abroad. And it is necessary to speak honestly about it," Smirnov said. In other words, he stated that the Ukrainian idea was not supported, because there is fears that "according to the Russian scheme" can be harvested and others.

At the same time, Smirnov says: "Ukraine will not agree to any hybrid format of the tribunal, where its creation as part of the Ukrainian judicial system is considered. " "The reasons are more than sufficient: except for the need to amend the Constitution of Ukraine, which is impossible during martial law, the risk of narrowing the legal assessment of the crime of aggression to the level of armed conflict of the two countries is obvious.

The crime of aggression committing Russian above political and military leadership against Ukraine, - - It is a crime against the whole civilized world. We do not need the decision of the tribunal in the name of Ukraine - it is needed by the name of the civilized world, "he said. It is now said that the Council of Europe should join the Hague Special Court.

At the conference in Ukraine, the Director of Legal Consultations and International Public Law of the Council of Europe, Jorg Polykevych, spoke. He noted that the Council of Europe can assist in launching the tribunal - for example, in the selection of judges. It is unknown how this court will technically be created. The decision may be approved by the decision of the Council of Europe, and perhaps an intergovernmental treaty of Ukraine and the Netherlands, as also noted by Polyakevich.

The most important condition is that the court's creation is approved by the UN General Assembly with its separate decision. And if it is approved by more than one hundred Member States of the UN, then this body will become simply international. And this option is acceptable to the United States - it is this country that is not a participant in the Roman Statute through participation in conflicts, as well as the main opponent of Putin's rapid condemnation, hoping for future negotiations.

There, after the hesitation, they decided that the hybrid tribunal was possible. In a recent interview with Babel, a US State Department representative of global criminal justice, Bet Van Skaak, said: If Ukraine is creating an internationalized tribunal, we can contact the General Assembly to approve the resolution that will encourage states to find ways to cooperate with this institution. responsible for the aggressive war and all military crimes.

I think to get a resolution of the General Assembly that would bless this initiative and encourage cooperation is much easier than obtaining a resolution that would actually create the institution itself. " Such a special court can become not just international, but sufficiently legitimate. After all, the legitimacy of the court in the current circumstances is an important problem. It is clear that the process itself, its decision must be recognized and executed by most UN member countries.

What gives the creation of such a special court is that the common position on the existence of the immunity of the heads of states remains unchanged. And it does not depend on the name and actions of a particular person. That is, politically will indicate that Putin will remain legitimate steering, as well as Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin, as well as Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov.

That is, the world, and above all the United States, prefer to leave them legitimate for the start of further negotiations, including peace in Ukraine. "If Putin is called a criminal and to condemn too quickly, it will be impossible to lead with him in absentia," Andrei Yakovlev notes. He does not reject the option that this story is not so much about justice, but but about the pressure method. So let's return to the ISS.

Yakovlev notes that it is difficult to understand why the Ukrainian authorities have decided to stop at the crime of aggression, while there are more clear and obvious ways to prove the guilt of the highest leadership of the Russian Federation in the International Criminal Court. And this process has already been launched - a warrant for Putin's arrest has been issued.

Of course, it would be much better if Ukraine had ratified the Roman Statute, that is, it could influence the court policy, not be a third -party observer. However, there is no such political will in Ukraine, despite all calls and statements. The argument "against" ratification is simple, although not announced in the past one and a half years in public, it is the fear of attempting to condemn Ukrainian commanders in Hague for war crimes.