top of page
Legal Analysis
This section focuses on specific aspects of the legal qualification of crimes committed by the Lukashenko regime. We systematize evidence and analyze the actions of the authorities in Belarus and beyond from the perspective of international law, explaining why they fall under definitions such as crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression.
Our goal is not only to document violations but also to provide a roadmap to justice. We examine actual international mechanisms, including the International Criminal Court (ICC), universal jurisdiction, and the establishment of a Special Tribunal. This section also offers information on practical assistance for victims in their efforts to hold perpetrators accountable.
Crimes against humanity committed by the authorities of Belarus: legal qualification and accountability mechanisms
In public discourse, the term “crimes against humanity” (CAH) is often used as an emotional assessment of acts of cruelty. However, in international law it is one of the most serious categories of crimes, clearly codified in Article 7 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC)
The Regime’s Transnational Crimes: from Air Piracy to Hybrid Warfare
The criminal activity of the Lukashenko regime is not confined to Belarus. It has evolved from persecuting the diaspora to acts threatening international security. These actions give the international community far more legal tools to respond, as they directly involve the jurisdiction of other states
Belarus’s Complicity in the Aggression Against Ukraine: War Crimes and Deportation of Ukrainian Children
Since 24 February 2022, the Belarusian regime has become a co-perpetrator of the aggression against Ukraine. This opened the most dangerous legal front for Minsk. It is crucial to distinguish between the crime of aggression (the act of starting a war) and war crimes (specific atrocities). This article focuses on the latter
The Crime of Aggression: the “supreme crime” of leaders and a gap in justice
The Nuremberg Tribunal called aggression “the supreme international crime” because it “contains the accumulated evil of the whole.”
Paths to Justice: From Smartphone to Hybrid Tribunal (Practical Guide)
Accountability is not only high-level jurisprudence, but also a practical process. It consists of three stages, and the work at the first stage determines the success of the last one
Rome Statute of the ICC (Arts. 7, 8, 8 bis, 12(3), 15 bis, 25(3)(c))
Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation (ICAO)
Montreal Convention 1999 (on the rules of international air transport)
UN General Assembly Resolution 3314
Berkeley Protocol on Digital Open Source Investigations
Precedents: Pinochet, Habré, Charles Taylor, Myanmar/Bangladesh
Stories of Victims
Note on the Presented Stories
The stories published in this section are composite narratives created to ensure the safety of victims, witnesses, and their families.
Although names, initials, and certain personal circumstances have been altered, each case is based on real events and documented facts.
These testimonies are derived from multiple sources, including:
• Internal data of the National Anti-Crisis Management (NAM);
• Reports and materials from Belarusian and international human rights organizations;
• Information obtained from government bodies of partner countries conducting investigations under universal jurisdiction.
Any resemblance to specific individuals is coincidental. The purpose of this work is not only to document the crimes but also to protect those who found the courage to testify.
Victim of a “Repentance Video”
M.V. was 19 years old. She studied in her third year at the journalism faculty of BSU. She was not an activist, but she had what her curator in GUBOPiK would later call “an excessive sense of justice.” She ran a small Instagram blog about books and life in Minsk
The Destruction of NGOs
O.P., 52, was the long-time director of a human rights organization “Viasna” (name changed) in one of the regional centers. Their organization was not political in the direct sense: they were not fighting for power
A Migrant as a “Human Shield”
F.A., 28, was an English teacher in Mosul, Iraq. After his city was destroyed by ISIS and later during the fighting for its liberation, he lost his job and home. He was an educated man, far from war, simply seeking safety for his young wife and three-year-old daughter
The “State Treason” Case
I.R., 29, worked as a railway track fitter at the Belarusian Railway in a small town in Homyel Region. He was not an activist, but he had what is often called “an acute sense of justice.” He loved his country and considered himself a patriot
“Rehabilitation” in “Dubrava”
Counselors, speaking with a Russian accent, told them that Ukraine was a “terrorist state” that “bombed Donbas for eight years,” and that Russia and Belarus were their “brotherly saviors.”
Witness of Missile Launches
Fear mixed with shame in the village. People were afraid to talk. A neighbor who tried to film a column on his phone was taken by the Belarusian KGB. He disappeared for two weeks. When he returned, he was gray-haired and with broken ribs
News
The issue of the illegal transfer of Ukrainian children from the temporarily occupied territories of Ukraine is in the focus of attention of the OSCE
Deputy Head of the United Transitional Cabinet, Head of the National Anti-Crisis Management Pavel Latushka held a meeting with the Special Envoy on the Return of Ukrainian Children of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, Karina Odebrink
An investigation has been launched into crimes against humanity committed by the Lukashenko regime
We express our gratitude to the Government of Lithuania, which referred the situation concerning these crimes to the Office of the Prosecutor, and without which today's decision would not have been possible
Pavel Latushka: The Scale of Transnational Repression is Intensifying Every Year and Today Affects Almost Everyone Who Has Been Expelled from the Country
Transnational repression has become a systemic tool used by authoritarian regimes to persecute their opponents beyond the country's borders. However, Lukashenka's regime has brought these practices to a scale that meets the definition of persecution as a crime against humanity, which falls under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court
News digest 8 December 2025
A curated selection of analytics, key meetings, and publications in international media
We call on all actors to unite their efforts to ensure the stable and independent functioning of the International Criminal Court (ICC)
Pavel Latushka stressed that the Belarusian people today are the most exposed to transnational repression among all the peoples of Europe
This is not an international treaty, but a political declaration
First Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Lukashenka’s regime, Sergey Lukashevich, spoke about the ratification of an agreement between Belarus and Russia "on measures for the mutual protection of citizens from unjustified prosecution by foreign states and international judicial bodies", which provides for the refusal to extradite persons enjoying immunity to an international court or tribunal. NAM has commented on this statement
Pavel Latushka: "We call on our partners to do everything possible to ensure justice"
On September 12, the UN Group of Independent Experts on the human rights situation in Belarus published a working document titled "Bridging the Accountability Gap for Human Rights Violations and Related Crimes in Belarus"
PACE adopts resolution recognizing Lukashenko’s role in the aggression against Ukraine and the deportation of Ukrainian children
The resolution draws attention to three key aspects concerning Belarus.
The Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression against Ukraine will prepare an indictment against Lukashenko for the crime of aggression he committed
The Statute of the Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression against Ukraine was developed on the basis of an agreement to be signed this evening by President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Secretary General of the Council of Europe Alain Berset at the Council of Europe headquarters
F.A.Q.
Yes, but with significant legal restrictions.The International Criminal Court (ICC) can, in principle, try individuals for the crime of aggression , but in the case of Alexander Lukashenko there are a number of obstacles:ICC Jurisdiction: Belarus is not a party to the Rome Statute , which established the ICC. This means the Court does not have automatic jurisdiction over crimes committed on its territory or by Belarusian citizens.Exception: aggression against Ukraine. Ukraine accepted the ICC's jurisdiction over crimes committed on its territory (based on statements made in 2014 and 2015). This allowed the ICC to investigate war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in the context of Russian aggression. However, the crime of aggression (as opposed to war crimes) is regulated by separate amendments (the Kampala Amendments), and the ICC can only consider it if both the aggressor and the victim countries have ratified these amendments . Russia and Belarus have not done so.The ICC could gain the right to try Lukashenko for aggression if the case is referred to the UN Security Council . However, Russia, a permanent member of the Security Council with veto power, would likely block any decision against Lukashenko.Other liability options Although the ICC cannot formally try Lukashenko for aggression , he may be held accountable:as an accomplice to war crimes or crimes against humanity (for example, for providing territory, logistics and infrastructure for Russia's attack on Ukraine);In the future, this could be done within the framework of a special international tribunal for the crime of aggression against Ukraine , which is being actively discussed in the EU and the UN. Such a tribunal could have jurisdiction over the leadership of Russia and Belarus , including Lukashenko.Bottom line: The ICC cannot try Lukashenko for the crime of aggression right now , but it can prosecute him for war crimes and crimes against humanity , and he could also be charged in a future special tribunal for aggression against Ukraine .
The key difference lies in the scale, systematicity and intention of the state .1. Legal natureMass human rights violations are a set of individual acts (e.g. arbitrary detention, torture, bans on public assemblies) that violate a state's international obligations but do not necessarily constitute a criminal offence under international law.Crimes against humanity (CAH) are international criminal offenses codified in Article 7 of the Rome Statute of the ICC. They entail the personal criminal liability of their leaders and perpetrators .2. Context and elements of composition For actions to qualify as HRBA, two key elements must be present:The widespread or systematic nature of attacks against civilians.The existence of a state or organizational policy directed at committing such an attack.That is, the HRPC is not just mass abuses, but part of a targeted policy of repression or destruction of the population .3. Examples of differences:Massive violations: police use excessive force to disperse rallies, arresting hundreds of people – but without a proven central policy or systematic nature.Crimes against humanity: mass arrests, torture, disappearances, murders, imprisonment, forced displacement, committed at the direction or with the knowledge of the authorities to suppress the opposition or civil society.4. Consequences:The state bears responsibility for mass violations (in international bodies, for example, the UN or the ECHR).Specific individuals —political and security leaders (in international criminal courts)—are responsible for the HRPC.Summary: Mass violations are violations of human rights by the state , while crimes against humanity are deliberate, systematic attacks on civilians committed as a matter of state policy and punishable individually .
Procedure Depends on the Country, but the General Algorithm Is as Follows1. Identify a Country That Applies the Principle of Universal JurisdictionA complaint can be submitted in states whose criminal law allows the investigation of international crimes regardless of where they were committed or the nationality of the perpetrator.Examples include:GermanyPolandLithuaniaFranceSpainNetherlandsSwedenNorwayUkraine (in certain cases)2. Identify the Competent AuthorityComplaints are usually submitted to:National prosecutors’ offices specializing in international crimes(Germany — Federal Prosecutor General in Karlsruhe; Poland — Prosecutor’s Office at the Institute of National Remembrance; Lithuania — Office of the Prosecutor General),or through human rights organizations that prepare and support such cases(ECCHR, TRIAL International, FIDH, Human Rights Watch, etc.).3. Prepare the Complaint (Complaint/Zawiadomienie/Skarga):The document must include:Facts: who, where, when, and what crimes were committed;Legal qualification: why these actions fall under war crimes, crimes against humanity, or genocide;Justification for applying universal jurisdiction (the crimes were committed outside the submitting state but qualify as international crimes under universal jurisdiction);Evidence or references: testimonies, photos, videos, UN and NGO reports, media materials, legal analyses;Information about the complainant and victims (if available).4. Submit the Complaint: By mail or electronic submission to the prosecutor’s office, or through a lawyer or human rights organization experienced in universal jurisdiction cases.5. After Submission: The prosecutor evaluates sufficiency of evidence and jurisdiction,May initiate a preliminary examination or formal investigation,If the suspect (e.g., Lukashenko or security officials) appears in the country where a case is opened, an arrest warrant is possible.6. Real Case Examples: Germany opened universal jurisdiction cases against officials of the Assad regime (Syria) — convictions have already been issued; Lithuania and Poland launched investigations into crimes against humanity committed in Belarus; France and Spain initiated cases against foreign military officials for torture and killings.Conclusion To submit a complaint, one must choose a country with universal jurisdiction, prepare a legally substantiated document with evidence of crimes, and send it to the competent prosecutor’s office or via a human rights organization.In practice, the best results are achieved with the support of lawyers specialized in international crimes, as they can help format the complaint correctly and monitor the proceedings.
Yes, but only if a number of conditions are met that confirm the reliability and authenticity of the material .1. The principle of admissibility of evidence In international and national courts (including in investigations under universal jurisdiction), all types of evidence are admissible if they:are relevant ,reliable ,obtained legally . Therefore, the Telegram video may be admissible if the court finds it to be genuine and reflects actual events.2. Requirements for the evidentiary value of video: For the court to accept the video, it is necessary to prove:source of origin (from which channel or account, when it was published);chain of custody - who saved the file and when, how it was transferred, whether it was edited;metadata (date, location, device type, file hash);identification of participants (if possible, establish identities, uniforms, locations, symbols, speech, etc.);context (e.g. comparison with other videos, satellite images, eyewitness accounts).3. How to increase acceptability:Keep the original file (not the forwarded version).Take screenshots of the Telegram page with the date, link, and channel name.Save URL, post ID and post time .If possible, obtain confirmation from a witness that the video was filmed by him.Store a copy on external media with unchanged metadata.For formal cases, please attach an expert opinion (e.g. from Bellingcat, Mnemonic, VFRAME, eyeWitness to Atrocities, etc.) confirming authenticity.4. Judicial practice:The International Criminal Court (ICC) already uses videos from Telegram and social media as evidence if their origin is confirmed.The German court in Koblenz (in the case of the Syrian officers) accepted the open-source video after verification.National prosecutors (Lithuania, Poland, Ukraine) are using Telegram videos as additional evidence in investigations of torture, violence, and war crimes.5. Conclusion: A video from Telegram can be accepted by the court if:its origin has been established,the absence of editing has been proven,chain of custody is ensured,it is confirmed by other sources (testimonies, documents, geolocation).In other words, video itself is not evidence , but when properly documented and verified, it becomes a significant element of the evidence base in cases of international crimes.
Hybrid Tribunal — A Special International-National Court A hybrid tribunal is a special international-national court that combines elements of both international and domestic justice. It is created when national courts are unable or unwilling to investigate serious crimes, while international courts (such as the ICC) lack jurisdiction.1. Essence of a Hybrid TribunalIt is a temporary court established through an agreement between an international organization (UN, EU, OSCE, etc.) and a representative democratic body or state.It includes both international and national judges, prosecutors, and investigators.It applies international criminal law together with national legislation.2. Why Belarus Needs ItThe judicial system in Belarus is fully controlled by the regime and does not investigate mass crimes.Belarus is not a party to the Rome Statute, meaning the ICC has no jurisdiction over crimes committed in the country.A hybrid tribunal can:Hold regime representatives personally accountable for crimes against humanity.Ensure international standards of fair trial.Include participation of Belarusian victims, lawyers, and experts, preserving the national element.3. How It Could Work in the Belarusian ContextIt may be created via an agreement between an international organization and a recognized democratic Belarusian body (e.g., transitional government).It may have jurisdiction over torture, killings, deportations, enforced disappearances, unlawful convictions, and political repression.Its arrest warrants and judgments may be recognized internationally, enabling cross-border enforcement.4. Examples of Hybrid TribunalsSpecial Court for Sierra LeoneExtraordinary Chambers in the Courts of CambodiaKosovo Specialist Chambers• Special Tribunal for Lebanon5. Why the Hybrid Format Is OptimalBypasses Russia’s veto in the UN Security Council.Can operate outside Belarus (e.g., Poland, Lithuania, Netherlands).Ensures international recognition of decisions.Supports the development of transitional justice in post-regime Belarus.Conclusion:
A hybrid tribunal is the most realistic and legally viable mechanism to bring Lukashenko and his associates to justice for crimes against humanity, despite the lack of ICC jurisdiction and the paralysis of the Belarusian judicial system.
Disclaimer and Data Processing
This section is for informational purposes only and does not establish an attorney–client relationship or individual legal confidentiality until direct contact is initiated. By submitting information, you consent to the processing of personal data in accordance with applicable legal standards.
bottom of page