*/
On the first anniversary of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Mark Guthrie looks at progress on prosecuting Russia’s war crimes and useful lessons to be learnt from the courts of Bosnia and Herzegovina
One year of war in Ukraine has seen the country demonstrate not only its military capacity and resilience, but also its commitment to the rule of law.
As soon as the war began and the nature of the destruction which Russia inflicted on the people of Ukraine became apparent so did discussion of the prosecution of perpetrators of war crimes.
The Prosecutor General of Ukraine began the investigation of war crimes and there has been at least one prosecution of a low-ranking soldier for war crimes. At the international level the International Criminal Court has sent a team to Ukraine and has indicated it is prepared to prosecute war crimes arising out of the conflict. In addition, there has been discussion of establishing a special tribunal to prosecute Russia for the crime of aggression. International assistance has been given to Ukrainian investigators and prosecutors.
However, the reality is that the prosecution on a large scale of the perpetrators of war crimes is unlikely to take place until after the end of the war and upon a significant change in political circumstances.
The fact that Vladimir Putin and senior Russian military officials are in Russia and are likely to remain there is an obstacle to their prosecution. However, that is not to say that Putin and his military leaders will not be prosecuted. It is not impossible that, in the future, circumstances will lead to their prosecution.
This time should be used to devise a strategy as how war crimes committed in Ukraine are investigated and prosecuted effectively and efficiently. There are some useful lessons to be learnt from the investigation and prosecution of war crimes committed during the 1992-95 war in Bosnia Herzegovina.
The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) attracted much attention for its prosecution of high-profile figures such as Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic. But less well known and recognised has been the role of the courts of Bosnia and Herzegovina in the prosecution of war crimes.
The ICTY transferred some of its cases to the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina (the ‘Court BiH’). Since the ICTY completed its case load, the Court BiH has had sole jurisdiction over the prosecution of war crimes. However, it has transferred some of the less complex cases to local courts across the two entities of Bosnia Herzegovina.
Nearly 30 years after the end of the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina, many war crimes cases have yet to be prosecuted. No one should expect an early end to the investigation and prosecution of war crimes arising out of the Ukrainian conflict.
The lessons to be learnt are as follows:
Pictured above: Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky with Speaker of the House of Commons, Sir Lindsay Hoyle and Speaker of the House of Lords, Lord McFall during Zelensky's visit to London on 9 February 2023.
One year of war in Ukraine has seen the country demonstrate not only its military capacity and resilience, but also its commitment to the rule of law.
As soon as the war began and the nature of the destruction which Russia inflicted on the people of Ukraine became apparent so did discussion of the prosecution of perpetrators of war crimes.
The Prosecutor General of Ukraine began the investigation of war crimes and there has been at least one prosecution of a low-ranking soldier for war crimes. At the international level the International Criminal Court has sent a team to Ukraine and has indicated it is prepared to prosecute war crimes arising out of the conflict. In addition, there has been discussion of establishing a special tribunal to prosecute Russia for the crime of aggression. International assistance has been given to Ukrainian investigators and prosecutors.
However, the reality is that the prosecution on a large scale of the perpetrators of war crimes is unlikely to take place until after the end of the war and upon a significant change in political circumstances.
The fact that Vladimir Putin and senior Russian military officials are in Russia and are likely to remain there is an obstacle to their prosecution. However, that is not to say that Putin and his military leaders will not be prosecuted. It is not impossible that, in the future, circumstances will lead to their prosecution.
This time should be used to devise a strategy as how war crimes committed in Ukraine are investigated and prosecuted effectively and efficiently. There are some useful lessons to be learnt from the investigation and prosecution of war crimes committed during the 1992-95 war in Bosnia Herzegovina.
The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) attracted much attention for its prosecution of high-profile figures such as Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic. But less well known and recognised has been the role of the courts of Bosnia and Herzegovina in the prosecution of war crimes.
The ICTY transferred some of its cases to the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina (the ‘Court BiH’). Since the ICTY completed its case load, the Court BiH has had sole jurisdiction over the prosecution of war crimes. However, it has transferred some of the less complex cases to local courts across the two entities of Bosnia Herzegovina.
Nearly 30 years after the end of the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina, many war crimes cases have yet to be prosecuted. No one should expect an early end to the investigation and prosecution of war crimes arising out of the Ukrainian conflict.
The lessons to be learnt are as follows:
Pictured above: Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky with Speaker of the House of Commons, Sir Lindsay Hoyle and Speaker of the House of Lords, Lord McFall during Zelensky's visit to London on 9 February 2023.
On the first anniversary of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Mark Guthrie looks at progress on prosecuting Russia’s war crimes and useful lessons to be learnt from the courts of Bosnia and Herzegovina
The Bar Council continues to call for investment for the justice system and represent the interests of our profession both at home and abroad
By Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs
AlphaBiolabs has made a £500 donation to Sean’s Place, a men’s mental health charity based in Sefton, as part of its ongoing Giving Back initiative
Q&A with Tim Lynch of Jordan Lynch Private Finance
By Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs
By Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth Management
Little has changed since Burns v Burns . Cohabiting couples deserve better than to be left on the blasted heath with the existing witch’s brew for another four decades, argues Christopher Stirling
Six months of court observation at the Old Bailey: APPEAL’s Dr Nisha Waller and Tehreem Sultan report their findings on prosecution practices under joint enterprise
The Amazonian artist’s first international solo exhibition is wholly relevant to current issues in social and environmental justice, says Stephen Cragg KC
Despite its prevalence, autism spectrum disorder remains poorly understood in the criminal justice system. Does Alex Henry’s joint enterprise conviction expose the need to audit prisons? asks Dr Felicity Gerry KC
It’s been five years since the groundbreaking QC competition in which six Black women barristers, including the 2025 Chair of the Bar, took silk. Yet today, the number of Black KCs remains ‘critically low’. Desirée Artesi talks to Baroness Scotland KC, Allison Munroe KC and Melanie Simpson KC about the critical success factors, barriers and ideas for embedding change