This week in Geneva, the Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine presented to the UN Human Rights Council an oral update on the violations of human rights and international humanitarian law perpetrated in the context of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, in which, according to the UN, 11,743 civilians have been killed and more than 24,000 injured in almost three years.
According to the criteria of
Commissioners Erik Møse, Vrinda Grover and Pablo de Greiff focused their update on three issues: attacks with explosive weapons against civilian infrastructure in densely populated areas, assaults on energy infrastructure that caused blackouts that left millions of civilians without electricity, and the use of torture and sexual violence as a deliberate policy.
In an interview with EL TIEMPO, Commissioner De Greiff, who is also Colombian, elaborated on this last aspect and on the impunity with which torture is practiced against civilians and prisoners of war in Russia and in the occupied Ukrainian territories. He also referred to how the financial crisis facing the UN has affected the work of the Commission and the delicate situation facing the multilateral system.
What new findings have allowed you to confirm that Russia systematically uses torture in its aggression against Ukraine?
The Commission has already reported that the use of torture in detention centres by the Russian Federation was widespread and systematic. In this last period, we have focused on investigating elements that may lead us to consider that the use of torture is a deliberate policy, and that these are not isolated cases.
First, the fact that in detention centres both on Russian and Ukrainian territory, but controlled by Russia, the use of torture is absolutely widespread. Second, that the methods of torture in these detention centres are common.
Thirdly, we have established that the staff in a number of Russian entities have a kind of division of labour: for example, some are in charge of general administration, or preliminary investigations, but other entities are in charge of applying torture methods.
Fourth, we find evidence that sexual abuse against male prisoners of war is also quite widespread.
Finally, we received testimonies that lead us to believe that these methods of torture are based on orders from above that those in charge of the detention centres permit or, at least, do not prevent.
Why, despite having gathered all this evidence, has the Commission still not determined that this use of torture is a crime against humanity?
To reach that determination, which is a very serious one, a context is needed in which both the legal argument and the factual evidence can be set out and explained in detail. What we were doing in Geneva this week was simply giving an oral update to the UN Human Rights Council.
In October, when we report to the General Assembly, we will have the opportunity to set out both dimensions.
In its oral update to the Council, the Commission said that Russia behaves in Ukraine with a kind of “sense of impunity”. What do you mean by that?
We have evidence that the administrators of the detention centres do nothing to stop the practices of torture, as well as testimonies that some members of the Russian entities that are in charge of these practices boast about them. They even refer to these practices as the subject of orders from their superiors.
On the other hand, we have no evidence that the Russian Federation has initiated judicial investigations to prevent such practices in any of the detention centres we have investigated. Therefore, I believe that it is justified to speak of impunity.
Since its creation, the Commission has emphasized that the concept of justice with which it works goes beyond criminal matters and prioritizes, above all, the rights of victims. What does this spirit translate into?
I believe, and the Commission has insisted on this from the beginning, that the concept of justice includes criminal matters, but cannot be reduced to that. Especially in a conflict of this magnitude, where the possibility of pursuing, prosecuting and eventually condemning each of those responsible for violations of human rights or international humanitarian law is not so great.
We are talking about criminal responsibilities that extend to the highest levels of the hierarchy of one of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council. The possibility of these people being prosecuted cannot be taken for granted.
We have no evidence that the Russian Federation has launched judicial investigations to prevent such practices in any of the detention facilities we have investigated.
But I think that over the last 30 or 35 years of experiences in transitional justice, we have learned that victims, apart from the right they have to see their perpetrators tried and punished, have other kinds of rights and needs.
For example, the right to the truth: to know what happened to the victims. In a conflict there are always missing persons. In this one, in particular, there is the problem of children presumably taken from Ukrainian territory to Russia. All these families have the right to the truth and, in appropriate cases, to the recovery of their loved ones.
They also have the right to reparation. In the case of an international conflict, of course, the obligation to provide reparation ultimately rests with the aggressor country. But in the meantime, all victims have the right to assistance. In this case, we have emphasized the need to expand coverage in mental health and psychosocial support.
Why have you placed particular emphasis on that type of reparation?
It is well known that experiences of rape and conflict cause trauma. It is also well documented that this trauma is transmitted from generation to generation.
And if we want to save so many people from unspeakable suffering, and their descendants from traumas they inherited from their parents, there is an urgent need to increase coverage of mental health care and psychosocial support. I believe that this is a role that the international community can play.
It is very good that this community insists on justice for the crimes that have been committed, but we cannot treat the victims as they are usually treated in court, that is, only as sources of evidence and testimony: their well-being, their needs and the rights they have beyond the right to criminal justice must be taken into account.
The UN financial crisis has already affected the Commission. How has it affected you?
In two immediate ways: reduction of staff and budget for research trips to Ukraine. It does not affect us completely because we have managed in recent months to continue with the research work by changing methodology and interviewing victims virtually, but obviously there are investigations that must be done on the ground.
The Commission is funded by the UN’s regular budget. Would it be possible to consider other funding, for example through direct donations from States or organisations?
No. The Commission cannot accept funds from any country that are directly directed to it. What can be done is for countries or organisations to make contributions to the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. These have to be generalised contributions and not for any particular commission in order to avoid any impression of a lack of impartiality.
The UN and the international system are on the ropes at a time when, for example, Israel is committing genocide in Palestine without anyone stopping it and Putin is travelling to Mongolia without fear of capture despite having an ICC arrest warrant against him. How does this environment affect the Commission’s work?
It would be absurd to deny that this is an extraordinarily complicated moment for the multilateral system and that part of the complication lies in what the question suggests, which is a certain lack of consistency in the implementation of rules that are supposed to be universal. I completely agree with that premise and it is something that makes our work extremely difficult.
Now, our task is particular: it is the investigation of violations that are occurring in this conflict and therefore we are doing everything possible to do so in an absolutely objective manner, completely impartial and without being influenced by political factors.
This is in the hope that the various bodies with similar mandates regarding other conflicts will do the same, and that the sum of all these efforts to gain objectivity and provide an incentive for the impartial application of the rules will lead to a solution to the problem.
But then again, things would be much easier if universal standards were applied across the board.
Carmen Lucia Castano
For THE TIME
Geneva
#evidence #Russia #launched #judicial #investigations #prevent #torture #Pablo #Greiff