Russia's war against Ukraine is entering its fifth year, making it already longer than the First World War. An end to the conflict is being discussed with increasing intensity at the political level, but at best, a ceasefire is on the horizon. While this is undoubtedly desirable, it would not yet mean peace. At the same time, preparations are underway for a legal assessment of the events surrounding Russia's war of aggression. Supported by many European countries, the Ukrainian authorities are gathering evidence of war crimes and initiating the first criminal proceedings. The International Criminal Court has issued its first arrest warrants, including one for Vladimir Putin. In Europe, it has now been decided to set up a Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression against Ukraine under the auspices of the Council of Europe to investigate crimes committed during the war. In armed conflicts, the law often degenerates into a propaganda tool. This can also be observed in the war in Ukraine. Russia is still attempting to justify its attack on legal grounds. This must be countered legally, even though international law is currently under pressure. Durable Peace and reconciliation require a review of the events since 2014. A lasting peace in the conflict is only possible if crimes are investigated on both sides. Throughout history, special tribunals have sometimes helped to punish crimes after the end of wars. Examples include the Nuremberg Tribunal in 1945 and the Iraqi High Tribunal that tried Saddam Hussein. The International Criminal Court institutionalises this task. In most cases, however, such a clearly criminal law-based reappraisal is only possible after military surrender or a change of regime. In principle, a correct interpretation of a legal methodology based on Russian law would reveal the criminal nature of Russia's actions. This is an important distinction from other cases of war crimes in history. There are currently no signs of regime change in Russia. Nevertheless, the need for a special tribunal remains. Such a tribunal could play a vital role in documenting and evaluating (war) crimes in preparation for a sustainable peace. History shows that awareness of the criminal nature of the actions is more important for reconciliation than the punishment of specific perpetrators. After providing an overview of the known war crimes in Ukraine, the contribution will examine the legal aspects of establishing a European special tribunal. It will also discuss the role of law in addressing war crimes and facilitating reconciliation.

It examines the criminal law response to war crimes in Ukraine during the Russian–Ukrainian war, with particular attention to the practical functioning of Article 438 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. Against the background of limited prior domestic experience in prosecuting international crimes, the study assesses how Ukrainian law enforcement bodies and courts have adapted to the unprecedented scale and intensity of violations committed since 2014, and especially after the full-scale invasion of 2022. The research combines doctrinal analysis with an empirical examination of official criminal statistics covering the period from 2015 to 2024. The paper situates the Ukrainian regulation of war crimes within the broader framework of international criminal law, highlighting the long-standing misalignment between domestic legislation and international standards, including those enshrined in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Particular attention is paid to the delayed legislative reforms, culminating in the 2024 ratification of the Rome Statute and amendments to Article 438, which clarified its terminology and expanded liability for war crimes resulting in death. At the same time, the conscious decision of legislators to refrain from a comprehensive revision of the modes of commission was due to concerns over legal uncertainty and procedural disruption in thousands of ongoing cases. Empirical data demonstrates a dramatic increase in the number of registered war crimes following the escalation of hostilities in 2022, with recorded offences reaching tens of thousands annually. However, this quantitative growth is contrasted with a persistently low proportion of cases resulting in notices of suspicion, referrals to court, and convictions. The analysis reveals a significant gap between the scale of documented violations and the capacity of the criminal justice system to bring perpetrators to account, largely due to the inaccessibility of suspects, evidentiary challenges in active conflict zones, and institutional constraints. At the same time, the study identifies a qualitative shift in judicial practice that has occurred since 2022. For the first time, Ukrainian courts have begun to deliver convictions for war crimes on a systematic basis, with a high conviction rate among cases that reach the trial stage. This development reflects the prioritisation of war crimes within Ukraine’s criminal justice policy under conditions of armed conflict. While Ukraine has made notable progress in developing mechanisms of accountability, the current model remains characterised by structural limitations that require further institutional strengthening and continued harmonisation with international criminal law.

The Russian aggression against Ukraine has radically reshaped the operating conditions of Ukraine’s national criminal justice system, confronting it with the task of responding to a mass of international crimes in the context of an ongoing armed conflict. In these circumstances, the ability of criminal procedural mechanisms to ensure effective investigation of international crimes and protection of victims’ rights, while maintaining fundamental procedural guarantees, takes on particular importance. The analysis focuses on the procedural conditions for investigating war crimes, crimes against humanity, and the crime of aggression. Of particular significance are factors that objectively complicate criminal proceedings, including the absence of the majority of suspects from Ukrainian territory, the cross-border nature of evidentiary processes, and restricted possibility of gathering evidence during an active armed conflict. Another central issue is the relationship between domestic and international criminal jurisdiction. The speaker addresses the limits of implementing criminal responsibility through Ukrainian jurisdiction and international mechanisms. In this context, the role of the International Criminal Court in ensuring individual criminal accountability for international crimes is considered, as well as the limitations of its jurisdiction with respect to the crime of aggression—limitations that reinvigorate the debate on supplementary forms of international responsibility. International cooperation in the investigation of international crimes constitutes an essential component of legal assessment. The analysis examines the use of universal jurisdiction mechanisms, the work of joint investigation teams, and the exchange of evidence between national and foreign authorities. Particular attention is paid to the case-law of the ECHR in the context of inter-State responsibility and the protection of victims’ rights in armed conflict. At the same time, the challenges identified point to the need for further targeted reform of Ukraine’s criminal procedural legislation. Such reform should aim at developing specialized procedural mechanisms for the investigation of international crimes, refining evidentiary standards with due regard to the conditions of armed conflict, and establishing effective procedures to ensure the participation of victims and the realization of their right to compensation for damage suffered. Taken together, domestic investigations, international cooperation, and judicial mechanisms on both levels form a multi-level model of criminal accountability in which criminal justice serves not only to bring perpetrators to account but also to legally recognize the damage that has been inflicted. The effective functioning of this model is of fundamental importance for restoring justice, safeguarding victims’ rights, and laying the legal foundations for a sustainable and just peace after the end of the armed conflict.