In the light of the veto

The result of the meeting of the Security Council on July 29 was known in advance. The delegation of Russia fundamentally refused to discuss the draft resolution and the charter of the International Tribunal attached to it. Therefore, the speakers did not spend gunpowder on speeches in support of the resolution. They performed only after voting. The Ambassador of Russia Vitaly Churkin called their statements against Russia "offensive and unworthy of diplomats" and accused the members of the Security Council of the politicization of a purely legal issue, which seemed to become the main reason for the Russian veto. “Is this a consequence capable of resisting the aggressive propaganda background in the media?” He asked rhetorically. “Is it able to withstand an obvious political order when the causes of disaster and guilty are called in advance?”

As evidence of the “goodwill” of Russia, Mr. Churkin referred to a briefing of the Ministry of Defense, which was announced a few days after the disaster, on which satellite data were announced, and a report of the specialists of the Almaz-Antei concern.

The Russian Ambassador called the tribunal institution "a premature, poorly designed and legally untenable" step on the basis that "precedents by the Council of International Tribunals to bring to the guilty of the guilty in the actions leading to transportation in transport are unknown in principle", and "the experience of the tribunals according to the former Yugoslav and by Rwanda can hardly be recognized as successful taking into account them Burning, the susceptibility of political pressure, high cost and extreme tightness of legal proceedings. " Earlier, the “premature and counter-productivity of the initiative of a number of countries” on the institution of the tribunal was stated in a telephone conversation with the Prime Minister of the Netherlands Mark Rutte, Russian President Vladimir Putin.

In his final comments, Vitaly Churkin made an involuntary gift to reporters. “Let's hope,” he said , “that impunity will come in relation to those who shot down the plane and those who sent it to the zone of hostilities.”

In the official transcript "impunity" is corrected for "punishment", but this is a reservation on Freud. The charter of the tribunal provides that "the official position as the head of state or government ... in no case does not exempt a person from criminal liability in accordance with this Charter and is not the basis for softening the sentence." This is precisely the main motive of Moscow.

Everyone understands that this is by no means about the accident in transport and that the negative experience of the tribunals in Yugoslavia and Rwanda is not a reason to refuse to pursue the culprits. We are talking about the likely personal responsibility of the first person, which is no longer the first day scares the Hague. This person certainly admits the possibility of holding himself accountable. And he does everything to protect yourself from such a threat. It is precisely the solution to this problem that the proposals are aimed to exclude the provision of the priority of Russia's international obligations over national legislation, to refuse to fulfill the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights and Arbitration under the suit of the shareholders of the Yukos, and ranting that the United States has assigned the right to “exoriteity” during the departure of justice. Russia insists on its inappropriateness and impunity for any accusations. And in this sense, Vitaly Churkin did not make a reservation.

On the second day after the meeting, the Russian Permanent Representative denied the reports that appeared on the Internet that he, being a young employee of the Soviet embassy in Washington, in September 1983, announced the non -involvement of the Soviet Union to destroy the South Korean Boeing. With such false messages, Vitaly Ivanovich said, and my professional reputation is affected "in a certain sense." And he clarified: “I did not speak out at all according to the South Korean plane (the existing legend on this score is fiction). I started communicating with the American and world media a few later. My first resonant performance in the United States took place in the American Congress on May 1, 1986 and was dedicated to the Chernobyl AC. By the way, I did not deny anything there.”

This was the first case of the public testimony of the Soviet diplomat in Congress. The ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin sent a 40-year-old second secretary of the embassy to hear the Lower Chamber Committee for good owning English and polemic enthusiasm. Churkin fully acquitted hope. The press noted his fugitive and idiomic language. They wrote about him that he "personifies the new generation of Soviet diplomats." One of the congressmen asked him to explain the causes of the Chernobyl accident. Churkin replied that he was not a specialist and therefore does not know the technical details - "it so happened that we did not get a nuclear power plant at the embassy." Then he was asked to answer simply, without terms and technical details. “Can you simply explain to me the reasons for the Challenger disaster?” He snapped .

He retained these professional excitement and youthful inneciousness in the future. I remember Vitaly Churkina (as, indeed, Sergei Lavrov) completely different. He was perhaps the brightest member of the Kozyrevsky team of diplomats, who played, along with Richard Holbruck, a key role in the Yugoslav settlement. He subsequently worsened this capital, he subsequently squandered, like Russia. It is possible that he today gets a kind of pleasure, introducing himself to his own worthy successor of his predecessors - Yakov Malik , Valerian Zorin, Andrei Vyshinsky.

However, this is not about Churkin.

Expressing the indignation of the Russian veto, the participants in the meeting of the Security Council announced their intention to seek justice against the perpetrators of the tragedy. This, in particular, was said by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Australia, who lost 39 of his citizens, Julia Bishop. “Australia,” she said, “together with other members of the joint investigation group will decide on an alternative criminal prosecution mechanism that will ensure the establishment of truth and prosecution of those responsible for this monstrous act. Members of the Council may be sure that our determination is limitless here.”

But what can this alternative mechanism be?

One of the options is to issue a question for the session of the General Assembly. In this format, Russia does not have a veto, but there is no obligation to fulfill the decisions of the GA - they do not have a legally binding nature. British Prime Minister David Cameron in his comment indicated as a possible precedent for Lokerby.

Additional American sanctions against Russia, introduced immediately after voting at the UN Security Council, can be interpreted as a step in this direction. But the specifics of the Lokerbi case was primarily in the fact that then interested countries managed to get from Gaddafi - eight years after the charges of accurate persons - issuing the suspects. They were tried according to Scottish laws on neutral territory - in Dutch Utrecht.

Whether the names of the direct perpetrators of the death of the passengers of the Malaysian liner are known to the joint investigative group, we will find out soon. As the Netherlands Minister Berts Kunders said at a meeting of the Security Council of the Netherlands, the criminal investigation is at the final stage, and the technical investigation, which is conducted by Dutch specialists with the consent and at the request of Ukraine, is almost completed and its results will be published in October. If the names of the suspects are known, they will probably be put on the international wanted list, when it appeared outside Russia, they are detained and extradited to one of the affected states. Then you can not bother with complex international mechanisms and judge them by national legislation - this is the third path.

So the New Zealand authorities did in 1985, when French agents blew up the ship of the Greenpeace International Environmental Organization in the Odland Harbor. The French special services agents Major Alain Mafar and Captain Dominic Priye, who did not have time to leave the country, were arrested and appeared in front of the New Zealand court. Under pressure from the evidence, French President Francois Mitterin had to recognize his government’s responsibility for a criminal order, defense minister Charles Ernyu resigned. Mafar and Priye were sentenced to 10 years in prison. France demanded that the sentences be sent to serve the convicts, threatening to block the trade relations of New Zealand with the EU otherwise. For New Zealand, the export of agricultural products to Europe was vital. She agreed to extradition. Mafar and Priye served the imprisonment on the atoll of the Hao - Pacific possession of France. Less than two years later, Mafar was released for health reasons, but after amending the bars, he did not return and rose to the colonel. Priye was allowed to live with her husband (it is evident that the regime was not too strict), in prison she became pregnant, returned to France at the same time as the accomplice and also received a promotion.

It is useless to demand the issuance from Russia - Article 61 of the Constitution prohibits issuing citizens of the Russian Federation for criminal prosecution abroad. Russia signed, but did not ratify the Roman statute - an agreement on an international criminal court that would oblige it to do this. Neither Ukraine nor the United States ratified him, but Malaysia did not sign it. That is why the idea arose to establish a special tribunal by the decision of the UN Security Council.

The state that is not a participant in the Roman Statute may recognize the jurisdiction of the Mus in relation to a certain crime. Ukraine has alreadytaken this opportunity, having granted the court the right to investigate crimes of the Yanukovych regime committed on its territory from November 21, 2013 to February 22, 2014. It is not possible to spread this mandate for the period of military operations in the east of Ukraine: the determination of aggression was agreed by the participants in the Roman statute only in 2010, and this addition will enter into force only after January 1, 2017. Aggression, previously committed by this date, is not subject to investigation and punishment by the Hague court.

Among other things, the second Minsk agreement provides for "pardon and amnesty ... persons in connection with the events that took place in certain areas of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions of Ukraine." I see no reason why this situation cannot extend to Putin and his environment (of course, if we are talking about responsibility for aggression as actions that have entailed the Boeing Catastrophe).

You can investigate war crimes and crimes against humanity - the Roman statute gives such an opportunity. But with the prosecution of the current head of state, difficulties will arise. In July 2008, the Mus issued an arrest warrant of President Omar al-Bashira on charges of genocide. But Bashir is prudently refrained from visiting countries where this order can be used. As a result, it is listed as hiding from justice .

All this, of course, does not mean that you should not try. But for this it is not enough just to swing the gaga with a beuply. Interested countries need to show political will and be patient.