Putin's Criminal Sentence: The West came up with how to arrange a correspondence Nuremberg

To plant Putin and his divisors on the dock as fascists in Nuremberg, is little real. So, a competent correspondence court is required by British lawyer Jeffrey Robertson, the former chairman of the court of war crimes in Sierra Leone in the column for The Telegraph. This month, the Russian people have chosen their president for the next six years of an international criminal - and bears the same political responsibility for his actions as the Germans who once supported Hitler.

Both leaders are guilty that the court in Nuremberg called "the highest international crime", namely, in aggression - that is, invasion of a country that is not threatened, without good reason - and therefore they are responsible for "all evil, all horrors of war; all blood shedding, devastation of families, robbery, destruction are his affairs and his crimes.

" You can imagine the modern Nuremberg tribunal, where Putin will take the place of Gering on the dock, surrounded by accomplices, such as Lukashenko, Dmitry Medvedev, commanders who ruled the destruction of Mariupol and execution in Bucha, as well as false propagandists from the state television.

The most important of these supporters will be Patriarch Cyril, a former KGB colleague, who forgave the non -selective bombing and murder within the "Holy War" against the West in which Russian soldiers will fall into paradise. The problem of this picture is in its incredibility.

There is currently no court that could judge Putin - that is why about 39 democratic countries, including the United Kingdom, have created a "main group" to study the ways of creating a "tribunal of aggression" to deal with it in the event of overthrow. Putin is undoubtedly guilty of "aggression" crime, but his guilt must be proved. The law is quite clear.

Aggression was declared out of law by the UN Charter, and criminal liability for it remained in the International Criminal Court (ICS), which eventually gave a simple definition that came into force in 2018. Aggression is carried out by any political or military leader who violates the UN Statute, interfering with another member state of the organization with "character, seriousness. And scale", which make violations "explicit". This definition is suitable for Putin as best as possible.

The only excuse he can offer is self -defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter. He can declare his right to attack and kill Ukrainians because this country could join NATO, and NATO could attack Russia. This is called "preventive self -defense. " Putin will undoubtedly rely on the arguments put forward by the so -called "realistic" academic school, that NATO is guilty of war because she did not fulfill the promises that were given to Russian leaders in 1990.

Such promises ("no step further to the east") could well be made orally, but never recorded. The idea that Putin has been unfairly provoked is now promoted by some professors, but it is difficult to attribute their mind or morality to them because they ignore Ukrainians' rights to live and freedom. Thus, Putin's protection will be rejected by any International Judicial Board.

But where is the court that can judge it? The ISS has issued a warrant for his arrest, but he is unlikely to appear in the Hague, and this court does not have the authority to judge him in his absence. He has the jurisdiction to be attracted to court for aggression, but (absurd) only if they agree to be a court - he cannot charge the leaders of non -members of the ICS. There is only one solution if his guilt is found authoritatively. That is - correspondence court.

Anglo-American lawyers always object to this method: how do they ask, the court can be fair if the accused does not play any role in it? But such institutions work effectively in some European countries and (which is important) in Ukraine itself.

Moreover, there is nothing that Putin's presence could add to evidence or arguments in the court in the case of aggression - the facts of his invasion are undeniable, his protection of self -defense from possible NATO aggression can be evaluated on the basis of experts and experts, to the extent In which it is relevant, his own opinion is quite accessible from his speeches, works and interviews.

Such a court would give the real meaning of a crime of aggression, which has never been the subject of trial since Nuremberg. It is important to create a precedent that can scare away others. One of the founders of international law Emmerich de Vattel in 1760 described the perpetrators guilty in terms of which judges could refer to when making Putin's sentence if they found it guilty. He "is guilty of a crime against the enemy . . . He is guilty of a crime against his own people.