On July 6th, 2023, the USAID Justice for All Activity started a series of a workshops on the applicability of international law instruments concerning war crimes under article 438 of the CCU with engagement of UpRights. It follows the recent launch of the Benchbook on the Adjudication of International Crimes under Ukrainian Domestic Law developed by the USAID Justice for All Activity in partnership with the National School of Judges and Global Rights Compliance, and with participation of UpRights initiative.
The workshop aims to facilitate discussions between Ukrainian judges, prosecutors and other relevant stakeholders in interpreting the scope and content of Article 438 of the CCU, considering the nature and content of international humanitarian law and international criminal law, in particular the ICC framework.
The event is the first in a series of five thematic workshops to follow the publication of the Benchbook on 22 June. The workshops provide the opportunity for judges and other stakeholders to consider substantial and procedural aspects of international crimes adjudication provided by the Benchbook.
On June 22nd, UpRights took part in the presentation of the Benchbook on the Adjudication of International Crimes under Ukrainian Domestic Law. Building upon a judicial need assessment promoted by the USAID Justice for All Activity in July 2022, the Benchbook was developed in close cooperation with the Ukrainian Supreme Court and the National School of Judges of Ukraine by Ukrainian judges, UpRights and Global Rights Compliance supported by MATRA-Ukraine Project.
Since the start of the war on February 24, 2022, Ukrainian courts have received 124 war crimes cases rendering 33 judgments with 91 cases currently pending. Having acknowledged the necessity for the Ukrainian judicial system to prosecute and judge an increasing amount of war crimes, the Benchbook was created to provide judges with a structured framework to adjudicate international crimes in accordance with international and domestic norms and procedures.
By compiling relevant international legal sources, including international treaties, judicial decisions, and academic commentaries, and evaluating their applicability at the domestic level in the context of international crimes, the publication aims to assist judges in the interpretation and application of the relevant domestic offences. The Benchbook is designed to help promote accountability for international crimes by providing critical support to judicial processes at the national level, strengthening the legal framework and increasing the capacity of courts to draft high-quality and well-reasoned judgments in international crimes cases.
UpRights contribution to the drafting of this important document is intended to help address the growing number of criminal proceedings being registered, classified and adjudicated in the Ukrainian context in order to support the important work of the National School of Judges in pursuing the administration of justice for international crimes.
On June 22nd, UpRights took part in the presentation of the Benchbook on the Adjudication of International Crimes under Ukrainian Domestic Law. Building upon a judicial need assessment promoted by the USAID Justice for All Activity in July 2022, the Benchbook was developed in close cooperation with the Ukrainian Supreme Court and the National School of Judges of Ukraine by Ukrainian judges, UpRights and Global Rights Compliance supported by MATRA-Ukraine Project.
Since the start of the war on February 24, 2022, Ukrainian courts have received 124 war crimes cases rendering 33 judgments with 91 cases currently pending. Having acknowledged the necessity for the Ukrainian judicial system to prosecute and judge an increasing amount of war crimes, the Benchbook was created to provide judges with a structured framework to adjudicate international crimes in accordance with international and domestic norms and procedures.
By compiling relevant international legal sources, including international treaties, judicial decisions, and academic commentaries, and evaluating their applicability at the domestic level in the context of international crimes, the publication aims to assist judges in the interpretation and application of the relevant domestic offences. The Benchbook is designed to help promote accountability for international crimes by providing critical support to judicial processes at the national level, strengthening the legal framework and increasing the capacity of courts to draft high-quality and well-reasoned judgments in international crimes cases.
UpRights contribution to the drafting of this important document is intended to help address the growing number of criminal proceedings being registered, classified and adjudicated in the Ukrainian context in order to support the important work of the National School of Judges in pursuing the administration of justice for international crimes.
UpRights is pleased to announce it has developed an online transitional justice course for civil servants and local administrators in Ukraine in coordination with the National Agency of Ukraine for Civil Service and the Hague Academy for Local Governance. The course introduces the fundamentals of transitional justice and its role in helping society cope with the past, ensure accountability, serve justice and promote reconciliation.
Through four distinct modules, participants gain practical knowledge concerning four primary objectives of transitional justice: accountability, reparations, strengthening the rule of law and fostering trust and promoting truth seeking and reconciliation. Specific transitional justice mechanisms which help to realise these objectives are covered in detail while concrete challenges affecting conflict-affected communities in Ukraine are considered through interactive scenarios. The course emphasises the importance of empowering local government to collaborate with national actors and provide accessible, victim-centred services to address conflict and post-conflict challenges.
Building upon the online transitional justice course, the Hague Academy for Local Governance and UpRights co-director Asa Solway and legal advisor Sofia Poulopoulou conducted a training of trainers on transitional justice for civil servants in Ukraine. During the training, representatives of the Ukrainian civil service, members of the judiciary and academics discussed relevant tools to conduct the training on transitional justice.
UpRights’ senior legal advisor David Kinnecome co-authored with James Patrick Sexton, junior researcher at T.M.C. Asser Instituut, an analysis for the blog of the European Journal of International Law “Enforcing Sanctions Violations to Fund the Reconstruction of Ukraine”.
The article analyses the recent efforts by the European Union and the United States to pursue the enforcement of sanctions, notably concerning the violations committed in the context of the RussiaUkraineWar.
In particular, the article contends that the enforcement of sanctions violations could gather the necessary funds to pursue both compensation for victims of the conflict and the implementation of reconstructive efforts, concluding that although these approaches may not fully cover the financial needs of compensation and reconstruction, they would still offer additional legitimate sources of funding.
Read the post here
UpRights Co-Founder Alessandro Pizzuti has co-authored with Assistant Professor Giulia Pinzauti, UpRights Advisory Board Member, an article in the Journal of International Criminal Justice titled “Prosecuting Aggression against Ukraine as an ‘Other Inhumane Act’ before the ICC”.
The article, building on a past blogpost in OpinioJuris, revisits the possibility of prosecuting the underlying acts of aggression as crimes against humanity before the International Criminal Court, with specific reference to the February 2022 unlawful use of force against Ukraine by the Russian Federation.
In particular, the article contends that Russia’s unlawful use of force in breach of the right to self-determination of the Ukrainian people, which caused them great suffering or serious injury to mental/physical health, can be qualified as other inhumane acts under Article 7(1)(k) of the Rome Statute. While this approach has its challenges, it would allow the Court to prosecute the underlying acts of aggression as crimes against humanity avoiding the jurisdictional limitations that apply to the crime of aggression.
In a two-part blogpost (part 1 and part 2) published on OpinioJuris, UpRights co-founder Alessandro Pizzuti and Assistant Professor Giulia Pinzauti discuss the prospect of prosecuting aggression against Ukraine as the crime against humanity of “other Inhumane act” before the International Criminal Court.
The International Criminal Court’s lack of jurisdiction over the crime of aggression committed by the leadership of the Russian Federation and Belarus against Ukraine has prompted several voices to advocate alternative avenues to address a potential impunity gap, including the creation of a new international tribunal. The blogpost explores whether the ICC could exercise jurisdiction over the acts underlying Article 8bis of the Statute (crime of aggression) by subsuming the relevant conduct under the framework of crimes against humanity.
The Blogpost argues that while not without challenges, the intentional and severe violation of the right to self-determination of the Ukrainian people caused by Russia’s unlawful use of force caused the people of Ukraine great suffering or serious injury to mental or physical health that can be qualified as an other inhumane act under Article 7(1)(k) of the Statute.
In a blogpost published on OpinioJuris, UpRights co-founder Alessandro Pizzuti discusses the Prosecutor’s recent separate determinations concerning the proprio motu preliminary examinations of Ukraine and Nigeria.
In both situations, the Prosecutor concluded that the criteria for opening an investigation under Article 53 of the ICC Statute were met. However, the Prosecutor stated that she will not immediately proceed with a request to initiate investigations in the respective situations due to budgetary constraints and considerations related to prioritisation of the OTP’s workload.
While no doubt grounded on legitimate practical concerns, such considerations do not seem to form part of the Prosecution’s discretion on whether and when to file a request to open an investigation pursuant to Articles 15 and 53 of the ICC Statute. This post contends that instead the proper stage to make an assessment concerning the prioritisation of the OTP workload is during the investigation phase rather than during the preliminary examination.
Without any clear, set parameters, decisions prioritising between different potential investigations to be initiated following the preliminary examination phase can lead to a precarious path whereby situations ready for investigation are put indefinitely on hold (essentially left in limbo) without the possibility for such a course of action to be challenged or otherwise subject to external oversight. This seems to be inconsistent with the overall structure of the Statute and in particular of Articles 15 and 53 of the ICC Statute. If necessary, such selection (with clear and transparent prioritisation criteria) should instead be conducted at the investigation phase where the Prosecutor is in a better position to secure evidence for trial as well as reach a more informed determination regarding which situations (or cases) warrant prioritising over others.
At the same time, States Parties have a specific duty to match the budget requests (and needs) of the Prosecutor in light of the current and expanding workload, as in any domestic judicial system. The operational hurdles faced by the Prosecutor due to her office’s capacity are concrete and undeniable. To manage the challenges faced, the Prosecutor requires the support of States and other relevant actors. The ICC Chambers have frequently cited or referred to the decisions from human rights treaty bodies to emphasise the Prosecutor’s obligation to carry out an effective investigation. We should not forget that such decisions were directed at the States as a whole and not only the relevant Prosecutor that conducted the investigations.
