RUSSIAN DESPICABLE SHOW TRIAL OF PRISONERS OF WAR

1. Under international law, individuals entitled to prisoner of war status have combatant immunity and cannot be prosecuted for having participated in hostilities or for lawful acts of war committed during the armed conflict.
2. If POWs are charged with crimes, they are entitled to due process and fair trial guarantees.
3. International humanitarian law prohibits the establishment of courts to judge POWs,  willfully depriving a prisoner of war of the rights of fair and regular trial amounts to a war crime.
4. No sentence or punishment may be passed on POWs unless it is delivered by an impartial and regularly constituted court
5. Statements labeling Ukrainian POWs war criminals, Nazis, and terrorists undermine the presumption of innocence before trials have taken place.

Rights of POWs

Once one qualifies for combatant and POW status, international law grants a long list of rights to which one is entitled when detained by the enemy state. One of these rights, which flows from the status of lawful combatant and the right to participate in hostilities, is the right not to be prosecuted for that participation, as long as no war crimes have been committed.

Combatants are protected from prosecution for what would otherwise be a domestic crime, such as homicide or destruction of property. The idea behind this rule is that individual enemy soldiers should not be punished for doing what the other side’s soldiers are also doing (fighting in a war on behalf of their country).

The right of combatants not to be prosecuted for participating in the war does not extend to war crimes, which states are obligated to prosecute..

International law grants POWs very detailed fair trial rights as POWs.This includes a right to be tried by an independent and impartial court. POWs are entitled to a fair trial, including the right to counsel, advance knowledge of the charges, services of a competent interpreter, and ample time for the preparation of their defense. The detaining power must provide advance notice of trial to a representative of the POW and let them attend proceedings.

The Russian trial of POWs would clearly violate their rights as combatants and POWs. Wilfully depriving a POW of fair trial rights constitute a war crime.

Note

The Azov Regiment in Mariupol was one of the units of the Ukrainian National Guard. Azov was not a neo-Nazi regiment. There are no units created based on ideology among the Ukrainian National Guard, nor there are any among the Armed Forces of Ukraine. There were some individuals with neo-Nazi background and Far Right views among the people who founded The Azov Battalion in the very beginning in 2014, though even not all the founders had such a background. Most of the soldiers with far-right background left the regiment by the end of 2014. The rest of the far-right radicals who clearly articulated their views were discharged in 2017 by the order from the new commanders of the Regiment. As of today, there are absolutely no grounds for accusations that neo-Nazis served in the Azov Regiment. Azov was a special task force of the National Guard of Ukraine (military unit #3057), an official government regiment under command of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine. It would be wrong to call it “militia,” the term which is still widely used in regards to Azov. People who were willing to defend their homeland and Ukrainians and who had passed the competitive selection process could join Azov. There were people of different ethnic origins – Russians, Jews, Crimean Tatars among others, of various religious views and political affiliations. There was no limitation on who could become a part of Azov. According to the unit commanders, the majority of the personnel were native Russian-language speakers.

The UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission, which was present in Mariupol until the end of February 2022, did not record cases of war crimes at all. Even the Russian side did not provide convincing evidence of such crimes.

1. It is true that some of the founders of Azov had a far-right and, in some cases neo-Nazi, background. This was partially reflected in the emblem of Azov. But that does not describe Azov’s activities at all. For example, Mariupol had a fairly large Jewish community with an active synagogue, and the Jewish community never reported any conflicts with Azov members. The situation with the local Muslims or with a large (about 100,000) Greek community was similar.
2. Russian propaganda was involved in creating the image of a “criminal neo-Nazi nationalist battalion.” By sprinkling outright lies with a couple of facts that fit into their false narrative (such as the emblem of the regiment and the political background of its 2014 founders), it managed to create a glossy propaganda picture.