Dmytro VORONTSOV, attorney
War is lost and broken forever human lives. And also, it is a kind of test on expediency of existence of international organizations, established, in particular, for the maintenance of peace, assistance to the victims and observance of the fundamental human rights and freedoms guaranteed by international conventions, with respect to the people found to be in the ashes of war.
At the end of July 2022, Russian invaders bombarded the territory of the former prison colony in the village Olenivka (temporarily occupied territory of Donetsk region), where the detained Ukrainian defenders from “Azovstal” were situated. The exact number of victims is unknown, because the Russians have not allowed either representatives of the International Committee of the Red Cross, or representatives of the United Nations to make to the place of the tragedy.
In particular, because of this situation the existence of the two above-mentioned international organizations in the form in which they now function has indeed become a reason for numerous discussions.
I would like to remind that our defenders started the setback from the territory of Azovstal Iron and Steel Works on May 16. The rescue operation of Ukrainian soldiers took place, including through the International Committee of the Red Cross, which registered thousands of Ukrainian soldiers being prisoners of war, supposedly to make them feel more protected (running ahead, such registration, unfortunately, is of the same importance today as any agreement with Russia). Afterwards, the representatives of the ICRC visited Ukrainian captives in Olenivka at the end of May 2022 to deliver water. This assistance was actually completed and no one have seen more Committee representatives in Olenivka ever since.
After the dark-minded bombardment by Russions of the territory of the prison colony in the village Olenivka, which killed a lot of Ukrainian soldiers, the ICRC published a statement that caused a wide resonance.
In short, according to it, the ICRC, as a neutral intermediary, promoted the safe exit of the participants of the fighting from the “Azovstal” and… did not guarantee the safety of the soldiers who got into the hands of the enemy. As the statement says, it is not in his powers.
In the context of this statement it is advisable to note that according to paragraph (g) of part 1 of Article 4 of the Statute, ICRC as a neutral intermediary whose humanitarian activities are mainly carried out during international and other armed conflicts, as well as during internal disturbances, must always do the best to ensure protection and assistance to the victims of such events – both military persons and civilians. If you literally analyze the content of this paragraph, you can notice its somewhat declarative and at the same time a recommendation nature. But it doesn’t foresee the obligation of the ICRC to take necessary in order to to protect and help.
Moreover, the activities of ICRC are closely related to a number of Geneva Conventions, and in the context of the events in Olenivka, to the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. In accordance with article 12, paragraph 1, of the Convention, irrespective of the individual responsibilities that may exist, the Detaining Power is responsible for the treatment given them. Moreover, article 23 of the Convention clearly states the requirement that the stay of captives in areas in which they may be threatened by fire from the zone of hostilities is inadmissible. Thus, taking into account that our soldiers were in the Russian captivity, the responsibility for their protection is entrusted to Russia. International human rights defenders use this to explain their inactivity.
At the same time, the entire civilized world knows that Russia will start applying to any international laws, rules and, more so, human rights. Therefore, hoping that the Kremlin would protect the Ukrainian soldiers in the prison in the village Olenivka was, at least, mad idea.
The bitter truth is that no one could provide any guarantees. And if such words were heard from the statement of some official person, it is only the responsibility of that person, and the lost lives of the soldiers should be on its conscience.
However, if the statement of the ICRC dated August 4 has some basis, the effectiveness of its activity (assistance) in the context of the situation with the defenders of Azovstal raises a legitimate question of the expediency of the existence of such an organization.
The same registration of the military men, which I mentioned above, and which was actively promoted by the MCRC during the departure of our defenders from the territory of the plant “Azovstal”, has no practical value at present. After all, due to prohibition by Russia from entering the territory of the former prison in the village, it is not possible to even report the exact number and personal data of the victims.
In fact, the ICRC has an ambiguous reputation at all and it is not the first time for ICRC to be in the center of scandalous events. But is it really possible to dissolve the ICRC, as urged by participants of the action called in support of the prolonged defenders of “Azovstal”, which took place on August 3 in Ivano-Frankivsk? In general, yes. However, if we analyze the provisions of Article 15 of the Statute, it is possible to conclude that the dissolution of the Committee can be done if the misuse of funds is revealed during financial control.
Simply put, corruption or wasting can be the ground for this. Since the Committee’s funds are mainly formed with contributions from states, revenues from individuals and organizations, it is likely that they should be dissatisfied with the work of the ICRC. At least, this gives hope that the level of such revenues will decrease significantly.