Atrocities reported in cities like Bucha and Borodianka followed the withdrawal of the Russian forces, which had once stood as a shield against further advances toward Kyiv. The findings of unarmed civilians, some handcuffed with clear signs of execution, shocked the world. Kyiv directly blamed Moscow, while Russia described the events as an order. Calls grew for accountability in international courts, with many labeling the incidents as war crimes and some arguing genocide.
Despite the upheaval surrounding these discoveries, the brutal assault on Mariupol, the bombing of hospitals, and the indiscriminate strike on a train station in Kramatorsk have shown how civilians waiting to flee can become targets. Some researchers point out that identifying those responsible and pursuing justice will be a long process, potentially spanning years and facing numerous obstacles.
International law defines multiple crimes under the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the Rome Statute of 1998. Crimes against humanity involve widespread or systematic attacks against civilians, with exceptions for military targets. War crimes include specific acts by individuals during armed conflict. In addition, genocide demands proof of intent to destroy a national, ethnic, or religious group, and the crime of aggression was formally recognized by the International Criminal Court in 2018, reserved for acts that threaten another state’s sovereignty, territorial integrity, or independence.
All such charges must be proven through the collection of testimonies from survivors and witnesses, along with physical evidence such as satellite imagery, ground photographs, and digital material circulating on social media. A number of non-governmental organizations use mobile apps to help residents document crimes and share information.
town to town
Ukrainian investigators travel from town to town gathering evidence and consulting with coroners about medical findings. The Washington Post reports that Ukraine’s Attorney General has mobilized tens of thousands of personnel from various government sectors to assemble evidence for potential war crimes prosecutions against Vladimir Putin and the forces involved in the invasion.
Experts in international law, including Sergei Petukhov and former Ukrainian Deputy Justice Minister, along with officials like attorney Renée Victoria Massimino of the Lemkin Institute, affirm signs that these crimes occurred and note that technology plays a key role in documenting them. They emphasize that war crimes require clear elements and careful proof, even as investigations continue.
Petukhov warns that while the crime of aggression has a basis in UN sentiment and Russia’s public statements, any legal process could take years, especially if hostilities persist. He also notes that hundreds of victims mean legal action may be pursued from multiple angles, including witness testimonies from soldiers who offered information in exchange for protection.
With support from dozens of countries, the ICC prosecutor’s office began an inquiry into crimes in Ukraine last March. Yet significant questions remain about where accountability can be pursued and who bears responsibility for the crimes.
The main challenge lies in choosing the most viable court. Russia’s withdrawal from the Rome Statute in 2016 complicates the issuance of international warrants, and detentions would hinge on national jurisdictions willing to act.
Kyiv approval
Ukraine itself is not a party to the Rome Statute, which means ICC actions require Kyiv’s consent. Historically, Ukraine accepted ICC jurisdiction after the 2014 Crimea invasion. It remains uncertain how a Ukrainian national accused of harming Russian detainees would be treated under Russian or international law. The question of applicable law for prisoners of war continues to generate debate.
Some experts advocate for a dedicated international court, an idea championed by jurists such as Philippe Sands. A model similar to the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia is cited, but broad political backing is essential to create an ad hoc tribunal. Without wide support, such a tribunal risks repeating past ICC concerns.
A third route involves the UN International Court of Justice, which handles disputes between states. Moscow has signaled resistance to jurisdiction there, and many analysts doubt consensus on this path. The debate over which forum is best to pursue accountability remains highly political and unsettled.