Interview with Senator Rodrigue Demeuse: Fighting Impunity for Violations of International Law in Russia's Renewed Invasion of Ukraine

In this interview, Senator Rodrigue Demeuse, a member of the Senate of Belgium, discusses the creation of a report within the framework of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly that addresses the violations occurring in Ukraine and the urgent need for tangible responses. Senator Demeuse emphasizes the importance of fighting impunity and ensuring that all perpetrators are held accountable for their actions. The interview delves into the role of parliamentarians in addressing these crimes and proposes actionable steps they can take, including supporting Ukraine’s justice system and advocating for the establishment of an international tribunal. Lessons learned from previous cases, such as the situation in Georgia, are examined, along with the challenges involved in implementing court decisions.

Before we delve into the details of the report itself, I’d like to inquire about the process behind its creation. Could you tell us who was involved and provide some background information?

Certainly. The report originated from our concerns regarding the numerous violations occurring daily in Ukraine. We aimed to address these violations and provide tangible responses. Initially, it surprised me to see the scarcity of effective legal measures and research conducted in the early months of the conflict. With the assistance of the NATO PA team, who dedicated significant effort to the report, we recognized the need for a comprehensive examination of the challenges we face in combating impunity. I wanted the report to encompass both political and legal aspects, rather than focusing solely on either one. By delving too deeply into the legal intricacies, we risked losing sight of our primary goal: to fight impunity and ensure that all perpetrators of crimes are held accountable, regardless of the specific legal avenues pursued. This perspective guided our approach. We consulted with specialists and conducted extensive research to explore all available options for achieving our objectives. However, it is important to note that this is by no means an easy task. Nevertheless, there have been some attempts and opportunities, as evidenced by the growing number of reports emerging on this topic. Naturally, the situation continues to evolve rapidly, even after the initial draft of the report was nearly completed. For instance, there was recently an ICC warrant issued against Putin, which constituted a significant development. While we briefly addressed this in the draft report, the final version will place greater emphasis on this crucial action. Overall, I believe this report is timely and relevant to the current circumstances.

One of the initial decisions you had to make was regarding the timeframe covered by the report. Could you elaborate on that choice and its significance?

Indeed, deciding on the timeframe was an important consideration. Given the limitations of maintaining the report within 15 pages, we opted to focus on the renewed invasion rather than starting from the 2014 annexation of Crimea. However, we did make sure to acknowledge the events that transpired since 2014 in order to provide necessary context. This choice was highlighted and emphasized in the report itself.

Moving forward, I understand that the current version of the report is in the draft stage and has undergone revisions. Prior to its final issuance, could you share the main comments, suggestions, and remarks received from the audience during the review process?

The feedback we received primarily revolved around the role of parliamentarians in aiding the prosecution of these crimes and ensuring their eradication. Many questions were raised regarding the actions that parliamentarians can take in this regard. There were also comments regarding the involvement of organizations like Wagner and how to address their integration into the prosecution process. The establishment of a special tribunal to handle cases of aggression was another prominent topic. Additionally, there were remarks on recent developments, such as the warrants issued against Putin and the agreements among multiple states to compile evidence of war crimes. These are essential aspects that we will incorporate into the final version of the report.

What can parliamentarians do to address these crimes and violations?

There are several actions that parliamentarians can take to confront these issues head-on. Firstly, it is crucial for us to adopt a strong stance within our respective parliaments in support of Ukraine. This demonstrates our unwavering commitment to justice. It is vital that we do not compromise on this principle because true peace cannot be achieved without justice. If we pursue peace while neglecting justice, we are merely perpetuating violence, and the war will inevitably resurface, either in Ukraine or elsewhere. By failing to hold accountable the perpetrators of these crimes, we send a dangerous message that human rights violations can go unpunished. This opens the door for similar atrocities to occur in different parts of the world. Therefore, my first recommendation is for us to stand firm on the pursuit of justice, prosecuting and punishing all those responsible for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and potentially genocide, if proven. This includes everyone involved, from the lowest-ranking soldier to Vladimir Putin himself, as well as the Belarusian authorities. If we fail to do so, we run the risk of witnessing a recurrence of such events in the future.

In addition, as parliamentarians, we can advocate for the establishment of an international tribunal specifically addressing the crime of aggression. While we are aware of the legal challenges associated with this, we must explore creative solutions to overcome these obstacles. Furthermore, we need to allocate sufficient budgets to finance international justice efforts and support the judicial system in Ukraine. By empowering Ukraine’s justice system, we provide them with the means to collect evidence, conduct fair trials, and prosecute crimes within their jurisdiction. This is crucial because they represent the primary avenue for justice in the region. We must learn from our past mistakes, such as our inadequate support for Georgia 15 years ago, and ensure that we do not repeat them. As parliamentarians, we can also assist civil society in Ukraine by supporting their evidence-gathering efforts and providing humanitarian aid. These collaborative measures will contribute to our collective fight against impunity.

What are the lessons learned from previous cases, such as Georgia, and how can we approach the situation in Ukraine differently?

The attention and global response to the situation in Ukraine have been significantly greater than what we witnessed in the case of Georgia, for instance. This is an important distinction. The Ukrainian context offers an opportunity to not only apply the lessons learned from the Georgian case but also improve upon them. In terms of Georgia, one of the major lessons is that the international community did not provide sufficient support to the Georgian jurisdiction. To avoid a similar outcome, we must provide greater assistance to Ukraine’s legal system. This will involve relying on internal justice systems to prosecute the crimes, as the International Criminal Court (ICC) alone does not have the capacity to handle all cases. Therefore, we need to ensure that Ukraine’s justice system receives the necessary resources and international support. This is the first crucial lesson.

The second lesson we can learn from Georgia is the importance of securing and preserving evidence. In Georgia, evidence was not adequately protected due to the unsafe and volatile conditions in the region. Consequently, prosecuting crimes and holding perpetrators accountable became a significant challenge. In Ukraine, we must prioritize the secure collection and protection of evidence, while also discerning between reliable and unreliable sources amidst the proliferation of fake news. This meticulous approach will be critical.

Lastly, we should address the jurisdictional limitations of the ICC regarding Russian responsibility for the crime of aggression. In the Ukrainian case, we can explore the creation of an international tribunal through the UN General Assembly or alternative.

In terms of execution, what is your experience and opinion regarding the challenges faced in implementing decisions made by international courts, especially in cases where Russia has been found guilty?

It is indeed a very complex issue with numerous discussions among experts on how to address the problem of execution. In my opinion, we must prioritize finding real and adequate compensation for the victims. The compensations provided by international courts like the ICC and ICJ may not be sufficient, considering the scale of damages in cases like Ukraine and Georgia. Additional options could include establishing a system similar to the UN Compensation Commission for Kuwait after the Gulf War. However, there is always the risk of a veto, which requires involvement of the General Assembly to ensure progress.

Another option worth exploring is utilizing the assets of Russian oligarchs to rebuild Ukraine and compensate for the damages caused by Russian and Belarusian forces. These are potential solutions, although it’s important to acknowledge that there is no perfect approach. That is why I strongly advocate for the creation of a special international tribunal dedicated to prosecuting the crime of aggression in Ukraine. Such a tribunal would ensure that individuals, including Russian and Belarusian authorities, cannot evade their responsibility by claiming innocence for their orders to invade Ukraine. Personal accountability could be brought before this tribunal, and one of its advantages is that there would be no statute of limitations, allowing prosecution for these crimes for many years to come. This approach is crucial to ensure that all those guilty of their actions face punishment and are held accountable. I believe it is the only viable option if we genuinely want to eliminate impunity.

You mentioned the creation of a new tribunal. Could you provide insights into the current stage of this idea? Who are the advocates, and are there any opposing viewpoints?

Ukraine strongly supports the idea of creating an international tribunal, and many countries share this strong support. However, there is no unanimity on the matter yet. The Parliamentary Assembly of NATO has passed multiple resolutions calling for the establishment of such a tribunal, and other organizations have done the same. The debate primarily revolves around determining the appropriate mechanism for its creation. While almost all countries condemning the Russian aggression are convinced of the necessity, the question remains as to which tool should be used. This debate involves not only experts but also countries themselves.

Creating a tribunal through the UN General Assembly would require overcoming the potential problem of undermining the power of the Security Council, which some countries may find challenging. However, if we want to proceed without the risk of a Russian veto, this may be the only viable option. Another alternative could be establishing a regional agreement between Ukraine and an international organization like the European Union or the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). However, this raises questions of legitimacy and jurisdiction, as well as the issue of immunity. Addressing these concerns and ensuring accountability on an international level, I believe that creating a tribunal through the UN General Assembly would provide the best answer. Still, some experts suggest that Ukraine could prosecute Putin and other responsible individuals by using self-defense arguments to bypass immunity, although this would require a progressive interpretation of international law.

Thank you for sharing your insights on this topic. Is there anything else you would like to mention that we haven’t discussed?

I would like to reiterate that no perpetrator of crimes and violations, such as those occurring daily in Ukraine, should be allowed to escape their responsibility. It is a matter of justice, but it also aims to prevent such acts from happening elsewhere in the future. Therefore, fighting impunity is of utmost importance. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this crucial issue, as it requires our unwavering commitment. Thank you for recording this conversation.