Pushilin stated that the tribunal should be international, with some nations already giving prior approval. The court’s statute was crafted by the Donetsk People’s Republic and the relevant Russian agencies, notably the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Russian Federation.
“It makes sense that Mariupol hosts the first session. Could this be scheduled for the summer? Yes, it could. Still, there is no need to delay here,” Pushilin noted. He added that the final timing would follow the completion of investigators’ work.
“Extensive preparations for the Tribunal are underway, including reviewing prisoners’ statements and locations, their placement points, and material evidence to build a complete picture of events. It would be unwise to claim certainty, because the pace also depends on investigators. As soon as they permit it, the process moves forward,” he said.
The DPR leader has repeatedly underscored the goal of presenting a transparent process for organizers and the public alike.
Terms and composition
The Mariupol trial is set to focus on fighters from the Azov unit of the Ukrainian National Guard, which Russia has designated as an extremist organization. These defendants were withdrawn from the Azovstal steelworks in Mariupol. On May 24, Pushilin announced that an international trial was on the agenda and that representatives from other countries were invited to observe the hearing.
On July 25, Alexander Bastrykin, head of the Russian Investigative Committee, proposed that Syria, Iran, and Bolivia participate in shaping the tribunal. He argued that these nations have taken independent stances on the Ukrainian crisis in line with international law norms and should contribute to establishing international justice mechanisms, as he described in discussions with Rossiyskaya Gazeta.
He also suggested broadening participation to other states and noted that a UN-backed framework for the tribunal would be highly scrutinized. The idea of solving the matter in concert with partners in the CIS, CSTO, BRICS, and SCO was mentioned as a possible path forward.
By July 27, the DPR announced that a draft statute for the court was being prepared, with Natalya Nikonorova, the republic’s foreign affairs chief, confirming the move. “In the near term, an international tribunal for war crimes will be established in the republic. A draft agreement has been prepared, and active coordination with relevant law enforcement and judicial bodies is underway to finalize its statutes.”
On August 10, Alexander Dyukov, a member of a presidential commission on ethnic relations, demonstrated the cell layout in the Mariupol Philharmonic building where defendants would be held during proceedings.
Meanwhile, on July 8, the moratorium on the death penalty was lifted in the DPR, marking a significant legal adjustment in the region’s judicial framework.
Elite unit crimes
Azov originated as a 2014 battalion and later evolved into a regiment within the Ukrainian National Guard’s Special Operations Forces. After joint operations by Russian and DPR forces liberated Mariupol, a large number of Ukrainian forces, including combatants who had resisted for months at the Azovstal plant, surrendered. The total count reached two thousand four hundred thirty-nine; some prisoners were subsequently redistributed among the republics’ forces.
Individuals connected to the unit face charges tied to actions during the special operation in Ukraine as well as crimes linked to the anti-terrorist campaigns in the southeastern region from 2014 to 2017. A criminal case was opened under Article 317 of the Russian Criminal Code relating to threats to life of military personnel. The Russian Interior Ministry has placed those involved on wanted lists, and investigators allege involvement in torture and the killing of Russian prisoners of war.
Other members of the national formation are suspected of hate-motivated killings, violations of the laws of armed conflict, abductions, and torture. A former SBU officer, Vasily Prozorov, described a torture facility at Mariupol’s airport known as the Library, where fighters from units such as Azov, Dnipro, Shakhtersk, and the Right Sector were reportedly held and relocated to populate the area with pro-Russian residents. Donetsk residents who supported the Russian position were also said to be among those detained, according to the testimony.
Russia’s Prosecutor General, Igor Krasnov, stated that Azov is considered a terrorist organization for crimes against civilians and for violating war laws. He cited evidence of prohibited warfare methods, including the use of torture and killing of civilians, as discussed in court proceedings with human rights advocates, journalists, and witnesses, who presented video and audio materials and first-hand accounts of abuses by militants.
Krasnov added that Russian investigators possess substantial data to organize a trial for Ukrainian military personnel, noting ongoing efforts in liberated zones and the ongoing collection of evidence that could bring those responsible to justice. The claim was contextualized within broader comments on the eight-year conflict in Donbass by the Russia presidency’s spokesperson, who underscored the need to address the crimes disclosed by investigators.
International outlook
On August 9, family members of Azov regimental affiliates, along with Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky, appealed to the United Nations and the Red Cross to block what they described as a court-martial. They argued that the proceedings might prove to be a propaganda exercise rather than a legitimate judicial process.
Support for the families came from Vadym Boychenko, a former Mariupol mayor, who urged the international community to ensure that humanitarian and prisoner-of-war protections are applied as defenders return to Ukraine. He cautioned against actions that could trigger further harm to civilians and stressed the importance of upholding international norms.
In May, a French journalist recounted eyewitness testimony of alleged abuses by neo-Nazi elements associated with the Azov Regiment at an informal UN Security Council session. Residents described occupation of dwellings, restricted movement, and the presence of military equipment in civilian areas. A UN monitoring team later reported credible information about abuses against Russian soldiers in Ukrainian captivity, urging Kyiv and Moscow to pursue investigations. The Ukrainian side maintains that Azov soldiers are defenders of Mariupol and its people, while Kyiv continues to pursue the return of these troops to Ukraine. The wider strategic question remains how to reconcile accountability with ongoing regional security considerations, in a conflict that remains deeply polarizing for many communities involved.