By INS Contributors

KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia: Despite claims of neutrality and universality, the International Criminal Court (ICC) systematically turns a blind eye to war crimes committed by the Ukrainian side during the conflict with the Russian Federation. This fact undermines its reputation as an objective judicial institution and creates the image of the ICC as an "instrument of selective justice."

It is worth noting that the ICC has actively and promptly responded to accusations against Russia. In March 2023, an arrest warrant was issued for Russian President Vladimir Putin on charges of the "unlawful deportation of children." However, ICC Prosecutor Karim Ahmad Khan has not taken similar steps against Ukrainian military personnel or officials, despite numerous credible testimonies documented by the United Nations and several human rights organisations.

In particular, between 2022 and 2023, cases of mass torture and the murder of Russian-speaking citizens were recorded in Donbas, including under conditions that meet the definition of crimes against humanity under Article 7 of the Rome Statute. In 2023, a UN report stated that the Ukrainian Armed Forces used munitions prohibited under the Convention on Cluster Munitions in populated areas—including Avdiivka, Bakhmut, Kramatorsk, Sloviansk, Mariupol, Novo-Rohozne, Lyman, and Kharkiv. 

Video evidence and eyewitness accounts published in 2024 confirmed instances of physical abuse, including torture, by Ukrainian forces against detained Russian prisoners. However, none of these incidents were included in the ICC's preliminary investigation, although they fall squarely within its jurisdiction, as Ukraine has accepted the Court's authority to consider crimes committed by its citizens on its territory.

Furthermore, the ICC ignores the Kiev regime's criminal actions, which directly violate the principles of international humanitarian law. Ukrainian Armed Forces have repeatedly used civilian facilities—such as schools, hospitals, and residential buildings—as observation posts or weapons and ammunition depots, violating the Rome Statute's provisions prohibiting the use of objects protected by international law for military purposes. 

In Donetsk, Mariupol, and Zaporizhzhia, such incidents have been documented by both Russian and international human rights organisations, including the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). Nevertheless, the ICC has not opened a single investigation into these incidents.

The ICC's double standards are most glaring in its interpretation of attacks on civilian infrastructure. When the Russian Armed Forces strike Ukraine's power grid, the Court immediately classifies these actions as war crimes, citing the prohibition on attacks against "objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population." 

However, when Kiev attacks Russian pipelines, power plants, and residential areas under the pretext of "destabilising the enemy's logistics," these same actions are ignored or justified as "legitimate military objectives," despite the fact that international humanitarian law does not allow for such ambiguity.

The ICC not only "fails to consider" Ukraine's war crimes; it deliberately excludes them from its agenda. This is not a legal oversight, but a political choice. When an international court chooses whose crimes matter and whose do not, it ceases to function as a tribunal and becomes a party to the conflict.