Meet The Authors
Subscribe to Lawfare
In October 2024, the Ukrainian Parliament adopted the law “On Amendments to the Criminal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine in Connection with the Ratification of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and Its Amendments” (Law No. 4012-IX), introducing universal jurisdiction in the Criminal Code. Amended Article 8(2) of the Criminal Code allows the prosecution of foreign nationals for core international crimes, regardless of where the crime was committed, or the nationality of the perpetrator or victim. This applies with the conditions that the suspect is present in Ukraine and cannot be extradited or surrendered, or the extradition/surrender request was denied.
Since incorporating universal jurisdiction (UJ) into its domestic legislation more than a year and a half ago, Ukraine has faced a new challenge: translating the new legal framework into practice.
The exercise of UJ provides an opportunity for Ukraine to demonstrate its commitment to combating global impunity for the most serious international crimes. For a society living through war, the costs of impunity are not theoretical. The failure to hold Russian military and paramilitary actors accountable for crimes committed during Russia’s previous military interventions contributed to a cycle of impunity that ultimately enabled Russia’s full-scale aggression against Ukraine.
Following military operations in Syria, some members of the Russian army and the Wagner Group were redeployed to Ukraine to provide sufficient combat power. This raises the possibility that individuals involved in international crimes committed in Syria—particularly lower- and mid-level actors—are now present in Ukraine. With the universal jurisdiction provision now in place, Ukraine may consider prosecuting members of the Russian armed forces present in Ukraine for alleged international crimes committed elsewhere.
Translating this new jurisdictional basis into practice, however, requires resolving unsettled questions about the requirements for exercising universal jurisdiction, prosecutorial discretion, and the inconsistency between the new jurisdictional basis and existing criminal procedure.
Ukraine’s new universal jurisdiction provision gives it the legal basis to prosecute alleged perpetrators of international crimes committed elsewhere, including Russian soldiers rotated in from Syria. However, the presence and extradition requirements were introduced without a clear procedural mechanism for meeting them, leaving the Ukrainian authorities to develop practical solutions while operating under the constraints of an ongoing war.
The Scope of Universal Jurisdiction
To better understand the implications of UJ-related amendments, it is important to recall that Ukraine, as a state party to the Rome Statute, has a primary obligation to investigate and prosecute international crimes committed on its territory. Ukrainian law also provides a basis for the exercise of active and passive personality jurisdiction. Indeed, Article 7 of the Criminal Code establishes jurisdiction over the investigation and prosecution of Ukrainian citizens and stateless permanent residents, even if the crimes were committed outside the state’s borders, unless otherwise specified by international treaties ratified by Ukraine. According to Article 8(1) of the Criminal Code, passive personality jurisdiction applies when a grave or especially grave offense against the rights and freedoms of Ukrainian citizens or Ukraine has been committed abroad.
As amended by Law No. 4012-IX, Article 8(2) of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (CCU) provides for a limited form of universal jurisdiction for war crimes (Article 438 of the CCU), crimes against humanity (Article 442-1 of the CCU), genocide (Article 442 of the CCU), the crime of aggression (Article 437 of the CCU), and the use of weapons of mass destruction (Article 439 of the CCU). Torture and enforced disappearance are excluded from the exercise of universal jurisdiction as stand-alone crimes.
In addition, Ukraine signed the Ljubljana-Hague Convention, which is intended to strengthen international cooperation (including mutual legal assistance and extradition frameworks) in the investigation and prosecution of core international crimes.
Ukrainian law has no statute of limitations for core international crimes. War crimes, genocide, the crime of aggression, and the use of weapons of mass destruction have been part of the CCU since 2001, whereas Article 442-1 was introduced only in October 2024.
The temporal application of the crimes-against-humanity provision to conduct predating its October 2024 codification has attracted legal debate. As provided by Article 58 of the Constitution of Ukraine and Article 5 of the CCU, there is no retroactive application of criminal law except where it mitigates or abolishes criminal liability. In addressing the question of non-retroactivity in relation to crimes against humanity, the European Court of Human Rights has referred to the universal validity of the principles concerning crimes against humanity and has assessed whether it was foreseeable that the acts for which the person was convicted constituted crimes against humanity. Whether Ukrainian courts will adhere to this approach remains an open question, as, at the time of writing, no court practice exists as to Article 442-1.
The full-scale invasion of Ukraine exposed the immediate need to reorganize the system for the investigation and prosecution of international crimes. In response, the state has established the Department for Combating Crimes Committed in Armed Conflict (or War Crimes Department) within the Office of the Prosecutor General (OPG) and specialized units in regional prosecutor’s offices in the most affected areas. The Main Investigation Department of the National Police of Ukraine (NPU) and the Security Service of Ukraine (SSU) conduct investigations into international crimes. International cooperation in criminal proceedings, including decisions on extradition, remains under the jurisdiction of the International Cooperation Department within the OPG.
Conditions for Exercising Universal Jurisdiction
The application of UJ is not automatic. Two cumulative conditions must be met: (a) The suspect must be present on Ukrainian territory; and (b) the suspect must not be subject to an extradition request granted to a foreign state or a surrender request to an international court—or, if such a request was made, it must have been denied. The presence requirement raises immediate practical questions. Ukrainian law does not specify at which stage of the proceedings the suspect’s presence is required: at the start of a formal investigation and/or during the trial. In Ukraine in absentia proceedings are permitted for international crimes but present due process obstacles.
The extradition requirement is similarly open-textured. Ukrainian law specifies grounds for refusing an extradition request but does not define when extradition is simply “not possible.” For example, the OPG may deny extradition in situations where persons have been granted international protection in Ukraine; where their life, health, or freedom may be endangered; where extradition would contradict Ukraine’s obligations under international treaties or threaten national security; or where insufficient information has been provided to enable a decision on extradition (the full list of grounds is set out in Article 589 of the Criminal Procedural Code).
In cases where an alleged perpetrator is apprehended in Ukraine but no request for extradition from a foreign state is made, the legislation does not clarify whether the absence of such a request is sufficient to satisfy the conditions for exercising universal jurisdiction. Given that Article 8(2) of the CCU establishes a framework for exercising UJ in accordance with Ukraine’s international obligations, in such cases, the principle of aut dedere aut judicare (extradite or prosecute) should apply. More broadly, under the Geneva Conventions and the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment of Punishment, a state party is obligated to carry out criminal proceedings against suspects on its territory if it chooses not to extradite them to the state in which the crime was committed.
The Presence of Alleged Perpetrators in Ukraine as Interned POWs
Perhaps a key distinction in the Ukrainian context is that a specific category of potential suspects may be present as interned prisoners of war (POWs). As mentioned above, this refers to Russian military personnel. May such internment be used to satisfy the presence requirement under the UJ provision? If so, it could help address one of the main obstacles to the exercise of universal jurisdiction—locating alleged perpetrators.
Russian Su-34 pilots illustrate this pattern. During the initial phase of the invasion, Russia conducted low-altitude bombing missions over Ukrainian cities, and so Ukrainian air defenses shot down aircraft and captured their crews. News outlets widely covered the case of Maj. Oleksandr Krasnoyartsev, a senior pilot, who carried out a combat mission in a Su-34 fighter jet over Chernihiv, Ukraine, on March 5, 2022. After his aircraft was downed, Krasnoyartsev killed a local resident in an attempt to flee, and the Ukrainian armed forces captured him as a POW. In 2023, a Novozavodsk District Court in Chernihiv convicted Krasnoyartsev under Article 438(2) of the CCU and satisfied a civil claim brought by the victim’s relative. The conviction was subsequently upheld by the Chernihiv Court of Appeal. Krasnoyartsev had already been transferred in a POW exchange before the trial.
Krasnoyartsev’s case is not unique. Lt. Col. Maksim Krishtop, another Russian Su-34 pilot, was intercepted over Kharkiv on March 6, 2022. In March 2023, the Kharkiv Dzerzhynskyi District Court convicted Krishtop under Article 28 (2) and Article 438 (1) of the CCU for carrying out bombardment of civilian objects in Kharkiv and the Kharkiv region, including a radio and television transmission station. The court sentenced him to 12 years’ imprisonment and supported a civil claim. On the day the judgment was delivered, Krishtop was included in a prisoner exchange.
An investigation by Suspilne, a Ukrainian media outlet, indicated that Krasnoyartsev had participated in the Russian military operation in Syria from the Russia-established Khmeimim Air Base before his deployment to Ukraine. Krishtop also stated in an interview that he had served in Syria before being deployed to Ukraine.
While investigation would be required to establish linkage evidence in any individual case, documented incidents in Aleppo and Idlib show that unlawful attacks, resulting in civilian casualties and the destruction of civilian infrastructure, have been a common practice by Russian armed forces in Syria.
If initiated in parallel, universal jurisdiction and territorial proceedings in Ukraine would concern different criminal conduct and therefore would not infringe the principle of ne bis in idem (the right not to be tried or punished twice for the same crime).
Ukrainian law does not exclude foreign victims from lodging criminal complaints with the competent authorities. Because Ukraine does not have case law on universal jurisdiction yet, the procedure for complaint submission regarding a crime committed on Ukrainian territory can offer practical guidance.
Under the CCU, a criminal complaint needs to include details of the alleged crime, a request for its registration, and, if available, evidence or references to evidence. It cannot be submitted anonymously. Once a complaint is filed, the individual is automatically recognized as a victim for procedural purposes and acquires the corresponding rights. A victim may also be an individual or a legal entity who did not report the criminal offense, but who suffered harm as a result of the offense and, after the commencement of criminal proceedings, submits a request to be recognized as a victim.
If the investigator or prosecutor determines that the facts presented in a complaint may indicate the commission of a criminal offense, he or she shall, no later than 24 hours after the complaint is submitted, enter the relevant information into the Unified Register of Pre-trial Investigations. Once the information is entered into the register, a pre-trial investigation begins.
Currently, there is no dedicated mechanism to request the review of the decision not to investigate a criminal offense under universal jurisdiction. As a general rule, if a criminal complaint is not entered into the register, the victims or their representatives have the right to challenge the decision, action, or omission of the competent authority before a court within 10 days. The investigating judge of a local court will reconsider the appeal against the action of an investigator or a prosecutor.
A criminal investigation may also be initiated on the basis of the investigator’s or prosecutor’s own investigative activities or in response to information or evidence received from third parties, including civil society organizations. In practice, the preparation of a strong UJ case file would also entail cooperation with the OPG in providing information on the context of the crimes, alleged perpetrators, potential witnesses, and available evidence.
Legal and Practical Challenges
Consider what happens when victims lodge a criminal complaint to trigger a UJ proceeding in Ukraine. At this stage, a legal conflict arises: The competent authority must register a criminal complaint and initiate a pre-trial investigation, butthe universal jurisdiction provision simultaneously requires that the suspect be present in Ukraine and not be subject to extradition.
Countries with similar universal jurisdiction conditions have addressed this issue by expressly providing for prosecutorial discretion in their legislation. However, broad prosecutorial discretion alone may create additional barriers. It should therefore be accompanied by clear guidelines governing the interpretation of the UJ requirements and other factors that may affect the decision to open the proceeding.
As the presence of the alleged perpetrator is a precondition for the exercise of universal jurisdiction, coordination could be strengthened between authorities that possess information about such presence and those working to address international crimes. In particular, the Coordination Headquarters for the Treatment of Prisoners of War, the National Information Bureau, and the State Migration Service of Ukraine could refer relevant information to the OPG, the SSU, or the NPU, where preliminary findings suggest that an individual may have been involved in international crimes committed outside Ukraine.
National authorities might also decide to allow pre-trial investigations to proceed to a certain stage (for example, prior to issuing a notice of suspicion) or to initiate structural investigations, thereby providing an opportunity to gather evidence necessary to identify potential suspects.
Finally, Ukraine’s capacity to act as a forum state cannot be assessed without taking into account the context of the ongoing war. Following Russia’s full-scale invasion, Ukraine has developed an institutional basis and expertise in this field. However, investigation of crimes in another country inevitably requires resources beyond those already allocated to address the immense volume of international crimes committed in Ukraine. Given the burden on the national justice system, the application of universal jurisdiction will likely take time to evolve.
Nevertheless, the existing provision calls for a clear procedural framework. Further developments should be guided by a survivor-centered approach and the principle of legal certainty to avoid situations in which investigations cannot be initiated due to a lack of clarity in the law.
