The Amnesty International War Crime Defence
Thank you Amnesty
The Future ‘Amnesty International’ War Crime Defence
A newspaper
The Hague, Netherland, June 12th 2034.
The trial of Major (ret) Igor Ivanov and 13 subordinates, ranging in rank from captain to private, of the 234 Ind. Artillery Battalion, for the 21st August bombing of a hospital, which killed 257 civlians, including women and children. and injured hundreds more, ended in shocking faction. In a stunning development, Major Ivanov, who had admitted carrying the attack but said he was targeting ‘Azov Nazis’ was given only a 6 year sentence and his subordinates were either acquitted or released with time served as their punishment. Their lawyers are already saying they will sue NATO, the ICC and the Ukrainian government for what they call an unwarranted five year ordeal in custody. While the first large-scale trial at the ICC, made possible only with the regime change of 2028 following the Second Russian Civil war, goes down in legal flames, outside lawyers are pointing to an unlikely party as being key to this development, Amnesty International. Has Amnesty International made any future prosecution of Russian war criminals, especially deposed Vladimir Putin, held in the newly built billion dollar fortress, the Special Hague Detention Centre, nicknamed the Brussels Bastille, impossible?
Possibly, says, one legal expert. Dawid Dziwinsky explains, “Well the prosecution must have known there was this possibility. While the Amnesty International witnesses called by the defence, tried to underline that Russia mostly attacked hospitals and schools that were not being used the Ukrainian military, the defence made them admit that the wording of their 4 August 2022 press release could suggest that the Ukrainians made widespread military use of hospitals and schools especially by hiding and supplying troops within them - making them legitimate targets under international humanitarian law.”
Dziwinsky further explains, “Look, the thing about international humanitarian law is that its also a law of war making and it's very practical - since it was written by the countries with the biggest armies and most military history. If the enemy abuses protections given by the law of conflict, those protections do not apply or become very limited. I don’t believe that the Ukrainians were making widespread use of hospitals but this report was very useful to the Russians. They jumped on it immediately and now we are seeing the legal repercussions. Expect many more such judgments. Frankly, I’m disappointed with the judgement but I understand the reasoning of the court. I’m more disappointed with Amnesty International for not raising their concerns in private with the Ukrainians or NATO, instead of giving Russian war criminals a real-life get-out-of-jail card. Amnesty International legitimised the criminal Russian way of war and whoever self-righteously sent out this press release did not realise or care about the legal and propaganda value of it, right or wrong. The harm inflicted is far out of proportion to any positive effect. The moment you give any legitimacy to lies justifying war crimes, you’re giving the devil justification. Its always been very difficult to try perpetrators for attacks on hospitals, with this precedent, it seems it will be impossible. Amnesty International does great work but they do love to have their cake and eat it.”
During the trial, the defence pointed out that the Russian Federation on 19 August 2022 made a blanket call for Ukraine to ‘cease committing acts harmful to the Russian Federation by basing soldiers and equipment in hospitals, schools and similar protected facilities’, which the defence claimed fulfilled the requirements of two Geneva Conventions, to strip such facilities of protection under the convention. The judges seemed to have accepted that a reasonable commander, especially his subordinates, could have believed that Ukraine had stripped such facilities of convention protection and Russia had given adequate warning. Sgt. Sergey Sukanov testified that he had asked his commander if it was okay to shell the hospital and was told, “Those bastard Nazis are using hospitals as bases, even the bastards at Amnesia [SIC!] International, who hate us, say so. We gave them warning, it's fair game.” Artillery Sgt Sukanov admitted he had limited knowledge of international humanitarian law but he was satisfied when he was shown a Russian translation of the Amnesty International article at a briefing given by the battalion political officer, also responsible for teaching the law of conflict. The judges decided that in the circumstances that their superiors had informed them that the hospital was a valid target and they had been supplied with reasonable outside evidence of illegal usage of such facilities by Ukrainian forces, some subordinates should be acquitted fully or only receive the equivalent of time served sentences ranging from one to two years, depending on their rank and mental development. A key factor was their limited knowledge of IHL law, which not absolved most of the guilt but mitigated it. As to those acquitted, some were found to have made mistakes of law, some were found to have genuinely believed their orders lawful which was an effective defence.
The case of their commander was somewhat different, but the judges did allow the defence to submit the Russian manual on international humanitarian law which was in the application during the war, pointing out the section allowing attacks on objects protected by international law if used by the enemy. The prosecution replied that this was an exception and any such exceptions required proof that the specific target was being used by the enemy in contravention of international law. The defence in turn replied that the commander had been told by his superiors over the radio that the hospital was being used by ‘Azov Nazis’ and was threatened with the draconian Russian military code and the basic criminal code which only exceptionally mitigate disobeying illegal orders but do not require such disobedience. The colonel, who speaks English, said he had read the Amnesty International report and believed it and received instructions from his political advisor and superiors. The defence also pointed out that the first ‘principle’ of the US Law of War manual is ‘military necessity, as is with many military manuals around the world. All of the above was somewhat convincing, while the judgement said that Ivanov should have been more judicious in carrying out what has been called an ‘annihilation’ bombardment and what the Ukrainians termed the ‘Holocaust by Artillery’ but in the circumstances, there were mitigating circumstances which reduced his sentence.
After the trial, the defence lawyers said that the Ukrainian authorities and their NATO backers should have been on trial, as their war crimes had been proven by Amnesty International while calling the trials a farce and an insult to the dead of the Iraq and Afghanistan ‘genocidal occupations’.
Awaiting trial with Putin, for the crime of conspiracy in a war of aggression, Sergey Lavrov, Russia's former foreign minister, commented via his lawyers, “I told you, Azov was using hospitals and schools. They’re all Nazis. This so-called ‘trial’ is a Western-funded genocide on Russia.” Vladimir Gundyaev, formerly Patriarch Kirill of the Russian Orthodox Church though still viewed by many as legitimate, commented from exile in the Vatican, “Russia has never done anything wrong to anyone, the world has turned against her out of pure hatred, envy and indignation. Now you have proof."
The above is fiction but could (will) easily come to pass. Thank you, Amnesty International.
Update 28 April 2023
