Question 1

Can the ICC try Lukashenko for aggression?

Accepted Answer

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:
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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 .

Question 2

How does HRH differ from mass human rights violations?

Accepted Answer

The key difference lies in the scale, systematicity and intention of the state .
1. Legal nature
 • Mass 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 .

Question 3

How to apply under universal jurisdiction?

Accepted Answer

Procedure Depends on the Country, but the General Algorithm Is as Follows
1. 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:
 • Germany
 • Poland
 • Lithuania
 • France
 • Spain
 • Netherlands
 • Sweden
 • NorwayUkraine (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.

Question 4

Will Telegram videos be admissible in court?

Accepted Answer

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.

Question 5

What is a hybrid tribunal and why does Belarus need it?

Accepted Answer

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 Tribunal
 • It 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 It
The 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 Context
 • It 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 Tribunals
 • Special Court for Sierra Leone
 • Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia
 • Kosovo Specialist Chambers• Special Tribunal for Lebanon
5. Why the Hybrid Format Is Optimal
 • Bypasses 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.

Legal Analysis

Crimes against humanity committed by the authorities of Belarus: legal qualification and accountability mechanisms

The Regime’s Transnational Crimes: from Air Piracy to Hybrid Warfare

Belarus’s Complicity in the Aggression Against Ukraine: War Crimes and Deportation of Ukrainian Children

The Crime of Aggression: the “supreme crime” of leaders and a gap in justice

Paths to Justice: From Smartphone to Hybrid Tribunal (Practical Guide)

Stories of Victims

Victim of a “Repentance Video”

The Destruction of NGOs

A Migrant as a “Human Shield”

The “State Treason” Case

“Rehabilitation” in “Dubrava”

Witness of Missile Launches

News

News digest 8 December 2025

We call on all actors to unite their efforts to ensure the stable and independent functioning of the International Criminal Court (ICC)

This is not an international treaty, but a political declaration

Pavel Latushka: "We call on our partners to do everything possible to ensure justice"

PACE adopts resolution recognizing Lukashenko’s role in the aggression against Ukraine and the deportation of Ukrainian children

The Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression against Ukraine will prepare an indictment against Lukashenko for the crime of aggression he committed

The Nobel Committee is following the situation of Ales Bialiatski and political prisoners in Belarus with great concern

Statement by Pavel Latushka on Lithuania’s Submission Against Belarus to the International Court of Justice

Will Khrenin Remain Lukashenko’s Eternal Minister of Defense?

Disclaimer and Data Processing