Lasting peace in the world is possible only in the case of fair punishment for the aggressor country as a state and for its leaders and other big players of the aggression. Therefore, at the moment, the easiest and most efficient way to defend the interests of Ukraine will be to prove the crime of aggression committed by Russia through the establishment of the Special Tribunal. This opinion was voiced by Olha Aivazovska, Chair of the Board at Civil Network OPORA and co-founder of the International Center for Ukrainian Victory, during the discussion “Women and Human Rights” within the Sixth Ukrainian Women's Congress on 28 November.
According to the expert, the International Criminal Court collecting data on war crimes, due to certain casuistic circumstances, in accordance with their own statute and the peculiarities of decision-making on the conviction of the aggressor state and its leaders, cannot hear the crime of aggression.
“Today, we have both, the state of Ukraine and society, who now have a proactive role in promoting the idea of establishing the Special Tribunal. There is a realistic task to make use of all available political tools to build a decision on the establishment of this tribunal by those participants in the potential process who wish to join it and realize that neither the Russian Federation nor the Putin authorities, or other high-ranking officials of the Russian Federation, will manage to keep their faces. Not only because the crime of aggression has taken place, and it started in 2014, with the illegal annexation of the Crimean peninsula, but also because after February, 24, the scale of war crimes against humanity and the facts of genocide in the twenty-first century became unacceptable for any political dialogue or diplomatic track. Therefore, we have not many options to choose from.
The same as after the Second World War, in the new reality following the colossal scale of the global disaster, societies and the winning states opted for cooperation and consensus in developing the international law provisions, the rules for co-existence of states and societies. Even now, we need to find a mechanism that will allow us to condemn and start a process against officials who now have a certain diplomatic immunity. vladimir putin, despite the fact that we do not recognize the last elections as free and fair, as well as many previous ones in the russian federation, nevertheless, has a formally representative mandate — he is the president of the russian federation.
In order for this tribunal to emerge, we have only a few mechanisms. This is the United Nations Organization. But the UN Security Council is a special caste of countries indispensable for all practical decision to be made. Therefore, we are aware that even if we found a formula for removing the russian federation from a decision making where they have a de facto conflict of interest, because it is an aggressor country, there is a state such as China, who will obviously not vote for the establishment of the Special Tribunal for an act of aggression. We could continue the difficult dialogues on UN reform but they will not be helpful. On the other hand, there is a mechanism that applies to the European region — it is the European Union or the Council of Europe. They could help us in the beginning of the track of building that alliance. Those could be bilateral treaties between the state of Ukraine and an organization, such as the EU or CoE, and the supporting countries can also join it through bilateral treaties. I very much hope that they would include the United States of America, with who we are actively working. However, unfortunately, the history of the United States in various conflicts is also sensitive. So, sometimes states have to make decisions based on their own interests, so that, for example, no alliance of Arab or Eastern countries is buil that could decide to establish such a tribunal against the United States, as a highly active military and geopolitical player. Canada, Japan, the G7 countries, the countries that actually support us, can be added to that alliance.
What do we need for that? Obviously, the term "political will" is extremely ambiguous. In the near future, there will be high-level meetings of the G7, and we very much hope that from the debate and discussions about the need to establish a tribunal, this alliance of world countries will show leadership and move to practical solutions. However, when we ask what the problem or the concern is regarding the establishment of a tribunal on the crime of aggression, when we try to identify whether there are legal issues (for example, the search for some specific solutions to unblock the crime of aggression in the International Criminal Court), or whether there are political reasons, quite often we hear the answer that international law is rather about politics than the law. Therefore, in order to have the tribunal established, we need a solid pressure and the unification of stakeholders, such as the state, the political circles, civil society, analysts, and those who understand that the historic chapter of the 21st century war in the middle of Europe will never be turned unless the conviction is in place to put an end to it,” — Aivazovska said.
She also shared her thoughts on how international law and the possibility of prosecution for war crimes are perceived by those Ukrainians who suffered the war crimes committed by russians. In general, civil society is highly active in the area of preliminary documentation of war crimes. In particular, OPORA established in Warsaw the Center for War Crimes Documentation because the city hosted the highest numbers of Ukrainian refugees.
“When we talk to victims, I am shocked by people's reactions. Very often, victims do not know that they are victims. As scary as it may sound, they are confident that war is the moment when murder, torture, and abuse are normal. They do not understand that historically, as it happened after the Second World War, when 75 million people died around the world, of whom 10 million people were killed in Ukraine, that the rules of war were designed. Moreover, those rules are violated today on a daily basis, starting from the fact that this aggression is unprovoked, and ending with how war crimes and crimes against humanity are systematically used in order to reduce resistance from Ukrainian society.That is why it is critical that the state explains to Ukrainian society and to common citizens who might not have any legal background or experience. The state needs to explain about the types of war crimes, and why the rules of war shall not be violated, even under those circumstances,” — the expert shared.
Olga Aivazovska believes that there is no lasting peace without justice. According to her, neither side will ever reach the point to accept defeat, or even the victory, in a situation where the chapter is closed in legal terms.
"When we talk about the number of victims now, referring to the UN data, it is quite insignificant. Because while the Prosecutor General's Office declares 45,000 criminal proceedings, the UN testifies to 7,000 fatalities in connection with the armed aggression after February, 24. And that is not normal. All over the world, it is common to document the number of victims and casualties only in terms of persons who have been injured, lost their homes, or lost their family members or lives, but also in terms of the generations who have turned mentally sensitive because of the armed aggression,” — she highlighted.
According to Aivazovska, today, the crime of aggression is the easiest provable type of crime. “It is the most efficient in terms of defending Ukraine’s interests and the right to recovery and reparations to Ukrainian citizens, and to the financial provision for the generations of Ukrainian people affected by the aggression. The state of the russian federation should be punished by establishing requirements for the next generations of leaders of this country within certain borders regarding financial retribution for crimes committed in Ukraine. Our citizens do not need court decisions only, although the demand for justice is by far the highest. They do not wish to find a specific perpetrator and put him in a Ukrainian prison, but they want justice. "
In her opinion, the demand for justice raised by Ukrainian society is logical and obligatory, because the russian federation is part of the crime of aggression not only as a state, but also as the society. Because this crime broke out due to the high mental support for armed aggression and aggression against Ukrainian society and the Ukrainian state. It is only justice and condemnation through the Special Tribunal that will contribute to the establishment of lasting peace.
"The demand for justice can be satisfied through the establishment of the Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression. I am deeply convinced that if everyone who speaks this out makes every effort not to deny the right of Ukraine to restore justice and to the right of individual citizens who suffered in the long term, the solution will be found. The solution must be found at the negotiating table of the G7, the countries of the European Union and those countries who understand that the war will continue if the act of aggression is not condemned. Because any other country in the world where the system of public administration migrates from democracy to authoritarian type, will have a dangerous precedent of impunity for the occupation, for the illegal annexation, and for the commission of mass crimes on the territory of an independent state,” — said she.
Watch the full version of the speech from 3:41:37