"When we first arrived in Brussels in the summer of 2022 as part of a delegation that began discussing the idea of a tribunal against people who committed crimes of aggression, the then European Commissioner for Justice said that this would never happen. Never!‘ said Serhiy Vlasenko. ’When we first arrived at the Council of Europe, we were told: “This is not our mandate, we will not deal with this.” And in this relatively short period of time, because I believe that two and a half years in this situation is a short period, we have gone from “never” to the news that documents on its creation will be signed in two weeks."
The very fact that this tribunal is functioning and bringing the guilty to justice, the MP notes, will confirm the existence of international law. ‘Because if those who committed what is called in English a “mother crime”, that is, a crime that is the mother of all crimes — the crime of aggression — are not brought to justice, it means that international law does not exist, you can do whatever you want,’ he adds.
The crime of aggression does not fall under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, which investigates military and war crimes and covers the territory of Ukraine, the MP notes.
‘To close this legal loophole, it was necessary to create a separate special tribunal that deals with only one issue — the crime of aggression. It will not deal with anything else,’ Vlasenko emphasised.
He also noted that the tribunal will be able to consider cases not only against Russia, but also against Belarus and North Korea.
"The general political mood is that the three countries directly involved in the aggression — the Russian Federation, Belarus, which provided its territory, and the Koreans, who provided their military personnel who are killing our soldiers — are definitely involved. We are talking about the responsibility of the state as such. North Korea has acknowledged at the state level that, in accordance with some of its decisions, it sent soldiers," the MP noted.
According to Serhiy Vlasenko, Ukraine has shown unprecedented subjectivity and steadfastness in the matter of establishing a tribunal.
"I could talk at length about the narratives and schemes for creating a tribunal that were proposed to us by international partners. One of the first was the creation of a chamber of foreigners in the Supreme Court, which was to judge in the name of Ukraine. And I want to thank everyone — Anton Korynevych, Andriy Smirnov, who was then deputy head of the Office, and Iryna Romanivna (Mudra — Ed.), who was the driving force behind the tough stance in the negotiations with arguments.
Let's say the argument against the chamber in the Supreme Court was very simple: we, as a country, do not need a verdict in the name of Ukraine. We need a verdict in the name of the international community. ... So that in the future it would be perceived as if the victim was judging the aggressor. And this argument was accepted. It was a case of systematic work, when every day we sat on the heads of foreign partners, showed them some documents, the Ukrainian Constitution, and pointed them out to them. ... For a whole year, they kept trying to force that chamber in the Supreme Court onto us. A year. In all negotiations. But we fought against it on all platforms.
Such systematic work was done on every issue, when, armed with arguments, you have a position, you convince your counterpart, and he convinces his boss, and the boss convinces another boss. And then it all starts to work, and we have the result that we have," Vlasenko emphasised.
However, it was not possible to convince partners to lift the immunity of the so-called 'top trio'—international law protects the president, prime minister and foreign minister of the Russian Federation while they are in office. (Iryna Mudra spoke about this in more detail during the discussion). But, first, Vlasenko notes, all other military and political leaders of the aggressor country can be held accountable. Secondly, the 'top trio' cannot be sentenced, but they will be charged and investigated, which is important because ‘due to political games around the ICC, the warrant for Putin has been devalued.’
"I have read a lot about how the lack of final jurisdiction over the 'top trio' is tantamount to treason. I believe that the very fact that these people will be recognised as legitimate criminals — an investigation will begin against them, it will begin in absentia, that is, without their presence; indictments will be brought against them, describing crimes of aggression — this is already important," Vlasenko commented on the sensitive issue.
It does not matter when this will happen, in a year or two, says the MP, but we must prepare thoroughly for this — gather evidence and testimonies.
Because if the enemy is not punished — for the crime of aggression through a tribunal, for other crimes — through the International Criminal Court, for economic damage — through reparations or confiscation of frozen assets — it will lead to tectonic shifts in both geopolitical and legal issues related to international law, the MP is convinced.