The International Criminal Court in The Hague has issued an arrest warrant for Vladimir Putin. He, along with Presidential Commissioner for Children’s Rights Maria Lvova-Belova, are suspected of illegally deporting children from occupied territories of Ukraine to Russia. The court stressed that there are “reasonable grounds” to believe that Putin is personally responsible for this. About the consequences of this decision, Meduza spoke in the field of international law.
What does the decision of the International Criminal Court (ICC) mean? Will it have real consequences? For example, if Putin goes to another country for a visit, can he be arrested there?
– These two people [Путин и Львова-Белова] must be arrested and handed over to the ICC – states that have ratified it have one. States that have not done so have no obligation. As a result, these two people are likely to be cautious in their movements.
Although even being on the territory of a participating state does not guarantee arrest, as we remember from the story of the visit to South Africa. Until the ICC, or any other court, has a friendly police presence in the defendant’s territory, arrests are unlikely to occur.
– Is there a responsibility for countries that have ratified the Statute, but have not arrested the person against whom a warrant has been issued?
— No.
– The explanation of the ICC decision indicates that Putin and Lvova-Belova are suspected of illegally deporting children from the occupied territories of Ukraine to Russia. What evidence or evidence is generally sufficient for the ICC to make such a decision?
— Full proof of guilt is not required to issue a warrant. This is the purpose of the proceedings on the merits – many of those who have appeared before the ICC have been acquitted.
— Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide understand 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 exactly the accusation of deportation of children became the reason for issuing a warrant, and not, for example, the massacres of Log?
— Order means that [сейчас] the suspicion is precisely in, and not in the genocide. For [подозрений в] The crime of genocide requires the specific intent to destroy the protected group in whole or in part. It is very difficult to prove it.
Actually, [сейчас] the warrant appears to have been issued for something to be proven, not something that would be a more serious charge. Typical MUS.
– How realistic do you think Putin’s international trial is in the coming years?
– It’s highly unlikely.
Checked in Kristina Safonova