In collaboration with lawyer and military officer Mykola Forsenko, we present an open letter to the International Committee of the Red Cross calling for an end to the silence surrounding the crimes committed by the Russian Federation.

The text of the appeal in French is published on HEIDI.NEWS

Russian aggression and criminal policies towards Ukrainians have completely destroyed any remaining illusions about humanity during war. Instead of the rule of law, the law of the strong is being actively imposed, and the basic conventions of international humanitarian law and the (in)action of the ICRC are increasingly coming under criticism.

For decades, the ICRC has tried to build a reputation as a humanitarian institution that does not interfere in political processes but protects human dignity where everything else has been destroyed.

To this end, the ICRC has built a system of communication in the form of confidential dialogue with the parties to the conflict—arguing that this is the only way to influence violators without losing access to prisoners and other protected persons.

That is why the questions raised today are extremely important: is there any justification for silence at a time when a state party to the Geneva Conventions is deliberately, openly, and purposefully destroying the very foundation of humanity?

Constant torture, inhuman treatment, and extrajudicial executions of prisoners of war and Ukrainian civilians, keeping them in appalling conditions while denying the ICRC access to them, the incredibly cruel terrorist attack in Olenivka, the use of gas weapons, ecocide as a result of the destruction of the Kakhovka dam, constant shelling of peaceful Ukrainian cities, and tens of thousands of war crimes committed by Russians.

The shocking number of violations of the rules of war has long proven the existence of a deliberate, systematic criminal policy by Russians aimed at destroying the identity of an entire people in the middle of Europe in the 21st century. Something similar already happened in the 1930s and 1940s, didn't it? But apart from shock, hatred, and attempts to bring those responsible to justice, what other reaction unites all these atrocities?

The answer may seem less obvious to many, but it is no less tragic. It is the silence of the ICRC. And after the occupation of part of Ukraine, in particular Crimea, in 2014, when the civilian population in the occupied territories had no real protection (and still does not, by the way). And in 2022, when Russian aggression led to tens of thousands of war crimes. And in 2025, when the number of crimes clearly reveals state policy.

When the humanitarian mandate clashes with criminal policy

Today, the key question is whether silence can be justified when a state that has signed the Geneva Conventions openly executes prisoners, tortures civilians, and destroys the foundations of humanity.

Ukraine is not dealing with isolated crimes, but with a systematic policy. According to the Office of the Prosecutor General of Ukraine, at least 322 Ukrainian prisoners of war have been executed since the start of the full-scale invasion by Russian troops. As of December 2025, the UN has confirmed 96 cases of extrajudicial executions of prisoners of war who were already under the protection of international law. Video recordings of the executions of Ukrainians regularly appear in the public domain, but there has been no public reaction from the ICRC so far.

Captivity as a sentence

Thousands of Ukrainian prisoners of war and civilians are living in appalling conditions. They are tortured, deprived of medical care, and forced to lie to ICRC delegates during their visits, otherwise they face further torture. Russia has deliberately not set up any official camps for prisoners of war, as required by the Third Geneva Convention. There is also no national information bureau to keep track of prisoners. This means that even the exact number of Ukrainians in Russian torture chambers is unknown to the world.

Ukrainian organizations speak of hundreds of places of detention where people are mostly held without any legal basis. Each such story is evidence that Russia's implementation of the Geneva Conventions has become meaningless. And now, as Russia withdraws from the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture, it is the ICRC that has not only the right but also the duty to finally break its silence.

Manipulation instead of transparency

The ICRC's annual reports, which are supposed to be a tool for transparency, tend to create confusion. In the documents for 2022–2024, information about visits to prisoners in Ukraine and Russia is combined into common sections, avoiding specifics. For example, the 2024 report states that 55 visits were made to 17 places of detention “mainly in Ukraine,” where more than 13,000 people were held. But exactly how many visits took place in Russia and how many in Ukraine remains unclear. This looks like an attempt to hide the fact that there is no access to Ukrainian prisoners in the Russian Federation.

Such manipulations look particularly dangerous in a situation where it is not a matter of formal indicators, but of the fate of thousands of people who are under daily threat of torture and death.

Ukrainian human rights activists have already presented the so-called “Moscow Conventions” — a collection of 137 articles describing the real experience of captivity. This is an unofficial document created as an alternative to the Geneva Conventions, which Russia grossly violates. It reminds us that covering up crimes creates a basis for new “rules” where torture and executions are no longer crimes but become the “norm.”

Every day of silence adds a new page to this tragic collection. And every day without a public response from the ICRC brings the world closer to accepting impunity as the norm.

Confidential dialogue or justification for inaction

The ICRC insists that its basic tool is confidential dialogue with the violator. But if for years the state blocks access, ignores appeals, executes prisoners, and torture becomes systematic, is it possible to limit oneself to closed conversations? Doesn't such diplomacy turn into a convenient excuse for inaction?

The ICRC's own internal documents provide for a much broader range of actions. For example, there is a 2005 policy document entitled “ICRC action in cases of violations of international humanitarian law and other fundamental norms.” https://international-review.icrc.org/sites/defaul...

It provides for a whole range of both confidential and public responses. And it turns out that the ICRC can and should apply them in cases where, for example, confidential dialogue is unsuccessful. In the context of Russian aggression, all the prerequisites for this have long been in place. It is worth figuring out exactly which response mechanisms the ICRC has chosen for itself.

Humanitarian mobilizatio

If confidential dialogue is unsuccessful, the ICRC has the right to involve third parties: governments, international organizations, influential individuals. The main thing is that such actors have the opportunity to exert private influence on the violator. This mechanism allows external pressure to be exerted on the violating state in the interests of the victims, while maintaining the overall format of confidentiality. Because of this, we cannot track the use of such an instrument.

Public statement on the quality of dialogue

This tool already makes it possible to officially certify that bilateral confidential dialogue has not achieved the desired results, albeit without making specific accusations. A public statement is essentially a consequence of the failure of confidential dialogue and humanitarian mobilization. Such a statement aims to increase the effectiveness of negotiations or prevent the false impression that the ICRC's silence means consent. Moreover, even this form of public response allows the Committee to remain neutral without resorting to direct accusations.

In more than eleven years of war, we have not seen such a statement. Therefore, the ICRC's long silence already raises questions, as the Committee has repeatedly used this tool in the past in relation to other conflicts. Are we the only ones who get the impression that the ICRC is satisfied with the level of confidential dialogue with Russia? And this is despite the obvious futility of such dialogue – there has been no full access, and there still isn't, and the torture continues unabated. There are already court decisions recognizing that the Russian Federation systematically practices torture in the occupied territories of Ukraine. For example, the ECHR decision in the case of Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia.

Public condemnation

This is the most radical method, a “last resort,” but (you may be surprised) it is also provided for in the internal rules of the ICRC. Public condemnation is used when violations are serious and widespread, occur repeatedly, are confirmed by reliable sources, and confidential measures have not been effective. This step is considered the only remaining means of influencing the situation.

If the ICRC had applied it, the Ukrainian case would not have been the only one in the history of the ICRC. For example, in 1992, during the conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the ICRC publicly declared the facts of mass arrests, deportations, torture, and cruelty, recognizing this as an element of the policy of forced displacement. In 1998, during the crisis in Kosovo, the ICRC published a special statement holding the Serbian authorities responsible for the situation regarding the protection of the civilian population. At the same time, the organization called on Albanian forces to stop the killings and engage in dialogue.

These examples demonstrate the ICRC's ability to act publicly when private dialogue fails or when the situation is so critical that it requires urgent intervention. But for some reason, in the case of the largest number of such obvious, undisguised crimes on the European continent since World War II, there has been no public condemnation from the ICRC in more than 11 years.

Why silence is dangerous

Impunity breeds new aggression. Feeling that there are no consequences, the Kremlin is becoming increasingly bold in demonstrating its hostility not only toward Ukraine, but toward the whole world. And then the issue goes far beyond the Ukrainian context—it is about the future of the international order, which is already under threat.

In such circumstances, the silence we “hear” from the ICRC is no longer a tool. Unfortunately, it has become a position. And it is precisely this position that threatens not only the fate of Ukrainian prisoners of war and civilians, but also the authority of the international humanitarian order as such. Ukrainians have proven their dignity even in captivity. Therefore, the time for action, courage, and bravery, the time for Geneva to speak out, has long since come.

Gunduz Mamedov is a Ukrainian lawyer, candidate of legal sciences, Deputy Prosecutor General of Ukraine in 2019–2022; initiator of systematic and coordinated investigations of international crimes in Ukraine; serviceman of the Armed Forces of Ukraine.

Mykola Forsenko is a Ukrainian lawyer, candidate of legal sciences, professor, consultant on international public law, and serviceman of the Armed Forces of Ukraine.

Translation into English -– Dr. Viktoriya O. Romanchuk

https://censor.net/ua/blogs/3599675/chomu-mkchh-ma-porushiti-rejim-tish-schodo-zlochin-v-rf