The International Criminal Court in The Hague issued an arrest warrant for Vladimir Putin. He, as well as Presidential Commissioner for Children’s Rights Maria Lvova-Belova, is suspected of illegally deporting children from the occupied territories of Ukraine to Russia. The court stressed that there are “reasonable grounds” to believe that Putin is personally responsible for this. About what the consequences of this decision will be, Meduza spoke with in the field of international law.
What does the decision of the International Criminal Court (ICC) mean? Will it have any real consequences? For example, if Putin goes to another country for a visit, can he be arrested there?
– These two people (Putin and Lvova-Belova) should be arrested and handed over to the ICC – the states that have ratified have one. States that have not done so have no obligation. Accordingly, these two people are likely to be careful in their movements.
Although even being on the territory of a participating state does not guarantee arrest, as we remember from the history of the visit to South Africa. Until the ICC, or any other Tribunal, has a friendly police presence in the accused’s territory, arrests are unlikely to occur.
– Is there any liability for countries that ratified the Statute, but did not arrest the person for whom a warrant was issued?
– The explanation of the decision of the ICC states that Putin and Lvova-Belova are suspected of illegally deporting children from the occupied territories of Ukraine to Russia. What evidence or evidence is usually sufficient for the ICC to make such a decision?
— Full evidence of guilt is not required to issue a warrant. This is the subject of the proceedings on the merits – many who appeared before the ICC were acquitted.
— Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide understands under genocide, including “the forcible transfer of children from one human group to another.” Does this mean that Putin is suspected of genocide? And why was it the accusation of deporting children that became the reason for issuing a warrant, and not, for example, the massacres in Bucha?
– The warrant means that (now) the suspicion is precisely in, and not in genocide. For (suspicion of) the crime of genocide, a specific intent to destroy the protected group in whole or in part is required. It is very difficult to prove it.
Actually, (now) the warrant looks like it was issued for something to prove, and not for something that would be a more serious charge. Typical MUS.
– How realistic do you think the international trial of Putin is in the coming years?
– It’s highly unlikely.