Arrest warrant for Putin, the jurist of international crimes Meloni ad Business: “Important practical implication”
Not even 48 hours afterissuing of the arrest warrant of the International Criminal Court against him for “illegal deportation of the population (children)”, Russian President Vladimir Putin went to Crimea, and then again to Donbass. The message he wants to send, of course, is that of a slap in the face not only to the Court in The Hague, but to the whole world. But the arrest warrant against Putin – and of the Russian Commissioner for Children’s Rights Maria Alekseyevna Lvova-Belova – is it really “waste paper”? What are the chances that the Russian president will actually be captured and tried for war crimes? What is the position of the main world powers and of Italy?
Affaritaliani.it investigated the political-legal implications of the issue with Chantal Meloniwho in addition to being a professor of International Criminal Law at the University of Milan was visiting professional right at the International Criminal Court in The Hague, working with the judges of the preliminary chamber of the same. He also collaborates with theEuropean Centre for Consitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR) of Berlin on projects related to international crimes.
Chantal Meloni
Is the arrest warrant against Putin really just a “scrap of paper”? How does it work operationally?
“It is absolutely not symbolic, indeed it is extremely important and relevant. There is a very important practical implication in the issuance of this arrest warrant, issued by the Preliminary Chamber of which the Italian signatory judge Rosario Aitala is a member. From this moment Vladimir Putin, acting president of the Russian Federation, is officially wanted for war crimes, which obliges all the states party to the Statute of the International Criminal Court, which number 123, to cooperate, so if Putin were to travel and find himself on the territory of one of the European countries , or an African state, or Canada … these countries would have the obligation to arrest him and hand him over to The Hague”.
“This is also because Article 27 of the Statute disregards any form of immunity, even of Heads of State, with respect to the crimes that are under its jurisdiction”.
Was there a “surprise effect” or was this mandate expected? Would there have been more chances to make it executive if it had remained secret?
“The Court had an open ‘investigation’ situation since 2014; immediately after the Russian invasion, on March 2, 2022, the Court’s prosecutor Karim Khan he transformed what was a preliminary phase into a real investigation. Normally times are very long, especially if the subject being investigated – Russia – is not a member state. But the theater where the crimes were committed was extremely accessible; Khan himself traveled to Ukraine several times, and the Court’s investigators worked extremely hard to collect the evidence, also receiving unprecedented support from member countries, which sent them experts, police forces”.
“Obviously”, he continues, “everything was confidential, but it was understood that the times would be relatively short. However, what was not expected was that the Court would be able to issue an arrest warrant directly for Putin: that the Cut aimed so high was surprising: there are rarely situations in which it emerges so clearly that the responsibilities are at the top. Beyond the responsibilities that may also exist at lower levels, here it was very important to aim for leadership, in particular a Vladimir Putin“.
Subscribe to the newsletter