Ukraine is not satisfied with hybrid tribunal for Russia – President’s Office 

Andriy Smyrnov, Deputy Head of the Office of the President for Court Affairs, informed about this in an interview with RBC-Ukraine.

“Let's look at the available options objectively. We have three options on the table. The first option is a resolution from the UN General Assembly to establish a Tribunal and an international agreement signed between the UN and Ukraine. The second option is a large-scale international agreement where Ukraine declares its signing. It's similar to the Nuremberg model, where each country signs, approves, and accepts the authority of this tribunal,” he said. 

The third option, which Ukraine is not satisfied with in its current form, is a hybrid tribunal.

Smyrnov highlighted that this tribunal would be part of Ukraine's judicial system, with the possibility of involving an international component. It could even be located outside the country.

"We are not in favor of this option, and I want to emphasize it again. First, under martial law conditions, changing the Constitution to establish such a court is impossible. Second, if this tribunal becomes part of Ukraine's judicial system, there is a risk that the legal assessment of Russia's aggression against Ukraine will be limited to an interstate conflict between two countries," added the official.

Ukraine strongly rejects the idea of a hybrid tribunal because it wants the country's decision to be recognized by the civilized world, not just by a tribunal. Other options related to an internationalized model are still under discussion.

According to Smyrnov, there are interesting possibilities that were recently discussed in Warsaw. For instance, creating a tribunal in a respected jurisdiction recognized worldwide, backed by a UN General Assembly resolution. This would allow Ukraine's key partners to sign agreements with this jurisdiction to recognize the tribunal's decisions.

What we know about the creation of a special tribunal over the Russian Federation

The need for a special tribunal arose because the International Criminal Court in Ukraine has limited authority. It can only investigate genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity committed by Russian terrorists. Since Ukraine did not sign the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and Russia withdrew its signature in 2016, the court cannot investigate Russia's aggression. The United Nations also has limited capabilities in this matter. To address this, the idea of creating a special tribunal emerged. This tribunal would have the jurisdiction to investigate Russia's crime against peace, hold the leadership of the Russian Federation accountable, and ensure they are not able to escape responsibility.

On May 9, the President of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, and the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, held a summit with 37 member countries of the coalition to discuss the special tribunal over the Russian Federation.

In June, the President's Office announced that 38 countries had already supported the idea of the special tribunal.

On June 13, Zelenskyy instructed the drafting of a UN General Assembly resolution advocating for the creation of a special international tribunal to address the crimes committed by the Russian Federation against Ukraine. On July 1, the OSCE PA (Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe Parliamentary Assembly) supported the establishment of the special tribunal.

The fourth working meeting of the coordination group, responsible for developing a model for the establishment of the tribunal, took place on June 30 in Warsaw.

On July 1, the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly approved a resolution proposed by the Ukrainian delegation, which addressed the actions of the OSCE in the context of Russian armed aggression. The resolution supported the creation of a special tribunal to hold Russia accountable for war crimes in Ukraine.

On July 3, an international office to investigate the Russian invasion of Ukraine was opened in The Hague. This office marks the first step towards a potential tribunal to hold the leadership of the aggressor country accountable.