Will Russia one day be brought to justice for its crimes in Ukraine? Plans for a special tribunal are in place, but nothing has yet been decided at a political level. Details of the tribunal, to be held under the auspices of the Council of Europe, are still secret. What is certain is that Russian President Vladimir Putin cannot be prosecuted as long as he is in office, since acting heads of state have immunity. Despite this, the body is being unofficially described as the “Putin tribunal” because international law holds heads of state responsible for any aggression against another country.
The special tribunal can already investigate Russia’s leadership and possibly also that of Belarus, says Jörg Polakiewicz, head of the Directorate of Legal Advice and Public International Law (DLAPIL) of the Council of Europe. However, the Council of Europe does not have the same powers as the United Nations Security Council, which can waive the immunity of high-ranking officials of a country, and in Russia’s case this could include the president, prime minister, and foreign minister.
“The special tribunal will not try Vladimir Putin in absentia as long as he is president of Russia,” confirmed a representative of the European Union in Brussels. The same applies to Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov.
“This is of course absurd,” criticized Oleksandra Matviichuk, head of the Nobel Peace Prize-winning Ukrainian human rights organization the Center for Civil Liberties. She and her colleagues have been collecting evidence for more than 11 years and expect those responsible for atrocities to be held accountable.
Immunity for high-ranking officials
A source familiar with how the special tribunal has been set up said that a case against Putin, Mishustin and Lavrov was being built on investigations that have been carried out already. But they said that no arrest warrant could be issued, or charges brought, unless the suspects’ immunity was lifted.
The same source, who wanted to remain anonymous, said that investigations were underway into about two dozen Russian officials on a list drawn up by Ukraine. They said that the tribunal would focus on high-ranking political and military officials responsible for planning, preparing and implementing Russia’s military aggression against Ukraine.
Matviichuk pointed out that it wasn’t just top Nazi leaders who were prosecuted during the Nuremberg trials after World War Two. “It was clear that not just three people were responsible for the crimes,” she said.
The circle of decision-makers in Russia has yet to be defined, but Gleb Bogush of the Institute for International Peace and Security Law at Cologne University said that there was talk of around 20 people. “The court should clarify that,” he said, insisting that there should be a fair trial in which everyone would be heard by an independent court.
Bogush said that the creators of the tribunal had effectively recognized Putin’s privileges by confirming that he was untouchable. He said it would have been better to leave the question of immunity to the judges, and he criticized the Council of Europe for failing to declare Putin an illegitimate president. The decision to grant the president immunity, he argued, was a dangerous signal that could be interpreted as an invitation to ignore the orders of the International Criminal Court (ICC), which has issued an arrest warrant for Putin.
However, the Council of Europe told DW that it believes that “the formula found for the special tribunal on this issue will be sufficient to ensure accountability and counter impunity,” before adding that personal immunity was by no means “a carte blanche for impunity.”
War began in February 2014
The question remains as to which period the tribunal will take into consideration. “The war did not begin in February 2022, but in February 2014,” said Matviichuk, referring to the 2014 annexation of Crimea and the start of the war in eastern Ukraine before Russia’s full-scale invasion. She said if these were not taken into account, it “would have long-term legal consequences for those who suffered in the eight years before 2022, as well as for the restoration of international law and the return of occupied territories to Ukraine.”
A group of legal experts started drawing up the plan for a special tribunal in 2023 and presented it in March 2025. This plan includes a treaty between Ukraine and the Council of Europe, a statute and an agreement on the management of the tribunal.
DW’s anonymous source said the decision had been made to base the tribunal in The Hague with the consent of the Netherlands and that Kyiv would hand over the results of its investigations. Evidence collected by the International Center for the Prosecution of the Crime of Aggression against Ukraine (ICPA) will also be taken into account. The ICPA, which comprises prosecutors from different countries, was set up in The Hague with the support of the European Commission.
The special tribunal was set up at the Council of Europe because the United Nations was not an option, as Russia would have vetoed any project in the Security Council. The International Criminal Court was also ruled out because its jurisdiction only extends to states that are party to the Rome Statute, which Russia is not.
But this arrangement brings its own complications, as Russia was excluded from the organization because of its invasion of Ukraine. “But the fact that the victim and aggressor were members of the organization at the beginning of the aggression is of great importance for its legitimacy,” said Polakiewicz.
Is there political will for the tribunal?
Indications so far suggest that the United States under President Donald Trump will withdraw its political and financial support for the tribunal. Hungary does not support the tribunal either, and it is unclear how Azerbaijan, Turkey and Serbia, which maintain close ties with Russia, will react.
A final decision will require a two-thirds majority in the Council of Europe. Then, the parliaments of the Council of Europe’s member states would have to ratify a resolution, which could take months. “No quick measures are to be expected in a war,” said Bogush, adding that some parties might view the tribunal as escalating the conflict, which would make negotiations difficult. “That could delay this process considerably, if not bury it entirely.”
This article was originally written in Russian.
