Arrest warrant on Putin a signal to all war criminals

Pre-Trial Chamber II of the International Criminal Court (ICC) this week issued arrest warrants on Russian President Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin and the country’s Commissioner for Children’s Rights Maria Alekseyevna Lvova-Belova. Both are accused of committing war crimes in Ukraine. According to the ICC prosecutor, President Putin is allegedly responsible for the war crime of unlawful deportation and transfer of children from occupied areas of Ukraine to the Russian Federation. 

The crimes were allegedly committed in Ukrainian occupied territory at least from 24 February 2022 when Russia invaded its neighbour. The ICC claims that there are reasonable grounds to believe that Putin bears individual criminal responsibility for these crimes and carries command responsibility for crimes committed by forces under his command. 

In 1998, 120 States adopted the Rome Statute that established the ICC. It was the first time in human history that States decided to accept the jurisdiction of a permanent international criminal court for the prosecution of the perpetrators of the most serious crimes committed in their territories or by their nationals. The ICC is not meant to be a substitute for national courts and according to the Rome Statute, it is the duty of every State to exercise its criminal jurisdiction over those responsible for international crimes.

The ICC can only intervene where a State is unable or unwilling to genuinely carry out the investigation and prosecute the perpetrators. Usually when a State becomes a party to the Rome Statute, it agrees to submit itself to the jurisdiction of the ICC with respect to the crimes enumerated in the Statute. The Court may exercise its jurisdiction in situations where the alleged perpetrator is a national of a State Party or where the crime was committed in the territory of a State Party. Also, a State not party to the Statute may decide to accept the jurisdiction of the ICC. These conditions do not apply when the Security Council, acting under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, refers a situation to the Office of the Prosecutor.

Neither Sri Lanka nor Russia are signatories to the Rome statutes, and neither accept the competence of the ICC. Yet the arrest warrant issued on President Putin signals that a non member and even a leader of a permanent member of the UN Security Council can be subjected to international jurisdiction. It should be a wakeup call to all those who have ignored the reach of international jurisdiction for alleged war criminals and serious violators of human rights, especially in Sri Lanka.

Just a few months ago two of Sri Lanka’s former Heads of State were placed under targeted sanctions under the Special Economic Measures Act by the Canadian government. Presidents Mahinda and Gotabaya Rajapaksa have been identified for being responsible for “gross and systematic violations of human rights during armed conflict in Sri Lanka.” The Canadian action follows sanctions being imposed by the United States against former army commander Shavendra Silva and several other military personnel. 

When the Sri Lankan State, including its judiciary, has continuously demonstrated that it is unable and unwilling to administer justice for victims of human rights violations, there is no option other than to seek international and extraterritorial jurisdiction. Those who seek justice for crimes committed in Sri Lanka should find solace that even the likes of Putin can be held accountable for their actions. It should definitely be a warning to all those war criminals and human rights violators in our country who continue to be protected through State patronage. For them like the mills of the gods, the wheels of international justice grind slowly, but they grind exceedingly fine.