“The dignity of the human being is inviolable”, that is the one phrase in German schools every student heard multiple times in class, it’s the one phrase everyone has first in mind if you ask to paraphrase the German law – also because it is the first sentence of the German constitution – and it belongs to one of these phrases that every democratic state boasts of. The Ukrainian human rights law matches this: “All human beings are free and equal in dignity and rights. Human rights and freedoms are inalienable and inviolable.”

This first paragraph of the German law, as well as its Ukrainian equivalent, sound quite similar and both of these phrases give everyone the right to a dignified life. To be whoever you want, to be with whoever you want and most crucially to be wherever you want without the fear for your safety. This right doesn’t just behold within the borders of a country but its adherence must be maintained even beyond the borders of the EU. For it was Clarence Darrow, a lawyer of just another democratic country, the US, who said: “You can only protect your liberties in this world by protecting the other man’s freedom. You can only be free if I am free.” 

As Germany is one of the major players in the EU and as the EU values align with these statements, isn’t it then the responsibility of the EU itself and Germany to not only help Ukraine with resources to cope with the war but with the assurance of a fair process and the promise of a united Europe? In the sense that all EU countries believe and work under the defined terms, namely the EU values, including human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality and human rights.  

While the full-scale war in Ukraine taught us that fuel dependency on a country that does not conform in the least to European values is a bad idea, one wonders why partnerships even within the EU are cultivated with ideals similar to those in Russia. Homophobic and misogynistic behaviour clearly goes against the values of the EU, yet still, finds effectiveness in EU countries like Poland and Hungary. The Istanbul Convention, an agreement to strengthen the prosecution and punishment of sexualised crimes against women, was released by the EU for enforcement across Europe back in 2011 but has not been ratified by every European country to date. Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania and Slovakia have not ratified the convention yet, Poland intends to withdraw and Turkey withdrew from the agreement last year.

This is not the moment to glorify Ukraine in these matters. Ukraine has also not ratified the Istanbul Convention yet, even after much back and forth, as the Ukrainian Parliament disliked the gender expression because it could quickly lead to new pressures such as the enactment of same-sex marriage. Unfortunately, gender equality is not yet complete in Ukraine. For example, only women and children are allowed to leave the country, but not women born as biological males. The rights of the LGBTQ+ community are expandable, but the situation is ameliorating. In the end, there are men, women and non-binary people in the army who fight side by side for their undeniable rights, for everyone’s rights and for European values.

It is now up to the EU to assist in this fight, but also to disapprove of and follow up on misconduct of the prescribed agreements. Most importantly in this context is the Geneva Convention, a set of rules only applied in times of war with the goal to protect the civilians, the wounded and the sick.  With the transgression of harming civilians alone, Russia has already repeatedly flouted the rules of the Convention in the full-scale war in Ukraine. The list of violations is quite long. Based on these presumptions, the question about a trial due to Russia’s act of aggression isn’t about the if but more about the how. How shall the initiators and allies of this war be held accountable?

On the one hand, there is the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The ICJ is an organ of the United Nation and is responsible to ensure that international laws are respected. Ukraine already filed a case against Russia in court. If the ICJ plead Russia guilty, only the UN Security Council (UNSC) could prosecute. But as Russia has a special role in the UNSC as one of the UNSC’s five permanent members, they could and probably would veto and hence avoid any sanctions. So the ICJ won’t work or only carry symbolic meaning.

Created by Alexandra Dzhiganskaya (as well as the title picture, taken from CreativesforUkraine)

On the other hand, there is the International Criminal Court (ICC), an alliance between the participating governments that serves the purpose of investigating crimes on an international level but also punishing individuals for all kinds of global crimes. The ICC cooperates through the Rome Statute treaty, a treaty that defines the limits of crimes in war and beyond. States from all continents are represented, with the biggest exceptions being the USA, Russia, India and China. The ICC doesn’t have a police force for persecution and relies therefore on the cooperation of the states, as Russia isn’t a member of the court, again, turning towards the ICC to hold Russia accountable is only a symbolic option.

Alternatively, a separate international tribunal, supported and set up by the EU, could be a good idea to prosecute criminals outside of Russia as the Nurenberg tribunals did with the crimes of the Nazi period. If enough states participated in this form of trial, perpetrators would have fewer or no safe spaces outside of the Russian Federation. The impossibility to hide or leave Russia at all could give war criminals a hard time and lead to their incarceration more quickly. These processes would be relatively long though and wouldn’t cover every crime that has been committed in Ukraine or most probably wouldn’t catch the main perpetrators of the war. But still, it could be a viable start. 

The preservation of human dignity is the highest priority in the European community and beyond. Breaking this established norm should be punished to the highest degree and not be accepted through lenient sanctions. Of course, it is not always easy to prosecute these human rights offences, especially at an international level, but it is also not an option to condone the behaviour of states. This does not only apply to crimes of war, but also to crimes against human dignity such as the allowance of anti-feminist or homophobic behaviour within the framework of the EU itself. It is constantly emphasised that things are getting better, but we’re not completely there yet. It’s like Elie Wiesel, an American author and survivor of the Holocaust, once said: “Wherever men and women are persecuted because of their race, religion, or political views, that place must — at that moment — become the center of the universe.” 

Written by Katharina Bews.

Translated into Ukrainian by Anna Proskurina and into German by Katharina Bews.

Used Material:

  1. “The Istanbul Convention and the Rejection of European Values”, an article by Katrin Hermann for A Path for Europe (PfEU) (March 2021)
  2. “What is a war crime and could Putin be prosecuted over Ukraine?”, an article by Dominic Casciani for BBC News (May 2022)
  3. “Here’s how war crimes prosecutions work”, an article by Zachary B. Wolf for CNN politics (April 2022)
  4. “How could Vladimir Putin prosecuted for war crimes?”, an article by David Smith for the Guardian (April 2022)