The Presidential Office of Ukraine told about two acceptable ways to create a tribunal against the Russian leadership

But, as he stressed, the Russian leadership was not punished for aggression despite the fact that it was an internationally recognized crime. “We have asked ourselves how to make the world wake up and condemn Russia for aggressive wars. And they realized that it would not be possible to act through the UN Security Council, since Russia has the right to veto.

Also, it is impossible to consider the crime of aggression by the International Criminal Court, because Russia did not ratify the Roman statute, ”explained the deputy head of the Presidential Office. According to Andriy Smirnov, the only legitimate and legitimate way to solve the problem will be the creation of a special international tribunal in the form of a multilateral international treaty. “Stop on this model, we began to convince the world of the need to accept it.

We received four European Parliament decisions, six PACE decisions and many decisions of the parliaments of the countries, including the France's parliament, to defend our project. In January, we launched the work of the Core Group, which included 20 states that study the possible model of the tribunal, ”Andrei Smirnov said.

According to the results of practical discussions with allies of Ukraine and other countries of the civilized world, three models of foundation and work of the tribunal have been prepared today. The first is the creation of a tribunal on the basis of an agreement of Ukraine with the organization of the United Nations with the adoption of the relevant UN GA resolution.

The second is the formation of a tribunal on the basis of a multilateral open international treaty between the states of the civilized world. The third is the creation of a special tribunal as a court that will work on the basis of Ukrainian law and Ukrainian jurisdiction (ie it will be part of the judicial system of Ukraine) with the involvement of an international element in its formation and activity (international judges and prosecutors, location in Europe, international support).

“In short, the first two options are acceptable and will indeed demonstrate the world's willingness to force the aggressor to be responsible for the done. The third, hybrid variant, contains the risks of narrowing the legal assessment of the ongoing aggression to the level of "interstate conflict". The world requires the widest possible territorial territorial institution of responsibility for aggression with maximum legitimacy and recognition.