Vol. 25 Núm. 1 (2026): Revista RIPS, Special Issue: Governance, Law, and Society in Times of Disruption: Legal and Political Adaptations in a Changing World / Guest editor, Viktor Melnyk
El artículo analiza las características de la investigación y las pruebas de los crímenes de guerra que han tenido lugar en el territorio de Ucrania en el contexto de la agresión armada de la Federación de Rusia. Según las estadísticas de la Fiscalía General de Ucrania sobre 2022-2025, se examinó la dinámica de los procesos penales en virtud del capítulo 438 del Código Penal de Ucrania, las denuncias de sospecha, las acusaciones y las víctimas de crímenes de guerra. La diferencia entre la cantidad de delitos registrados y la cantidad de casos juzgados era considerable, lo que implica que el servicio de investigación estaba sobrecargado a nivel del sistema y que el proceso de obtención de pruebas no era lo suficientemente eficiente. Se justificó la necesidad de crear un servicio de investigación forense digital, establecer una base de datos única de pruebas y un algoritmo de análisis automático del contenido de la investigación. Se sugieren recomendaciones para la toma de decisiones sobre la mejora de la eficiencia de la investigación previa al juicio: una mejor coordinación de los departamentos, una mayor colaboración con los organismos internacionales, la mejora de las habilidades de los investigadores y la introducción de soluciones digitales para la documentación de los crímenes de guerra. Los resultados obtenidos son prácticos en términos de mejorar el sistema judicial nacional y elaborar métodos contemporáneos para documentar las violaciones del derecho internacional humanitario.
Palabras clave:
crímenes de guerra, investigación, pruebas, pruebas digitales, OSINT, derecho penal internacional
Krushynskyi, Punda, Tsyganiuk, Plysiuk, and Dankova: Features of the Investigation and Proof of War Crimes in the Conditions of the Russian-Ukrainian
War
1. INTRODUCTION
The Russian Federation-Ukraine conflict is a war that has posed an unprecedented legal,
humanitarian and moral dilemma to both the national and the international criminal
justice systems. The daily recording of numerous crimes against humanity, acts of
violence against the civilian population, destruction of infrastructure and cultural
heritage has highlighted the need to create an effective model of war crimes investigation,
which would ensure not only the punishment of the guilty, but also the restoration
of justice at the global level. This topic has not only legal, but also deep social
significance, as it concerns the formation of trust in state institutions and international
justice in the conditions of hybrid war and information pressure. The problem is that
modern war crimes are committed on a scale and in forms that were not foreseen by
the current norms of criminal law.
War crimes, their legal qualifications, and investigation should be based on the principles
of international law of humanitarian and international criminal law. Specifically,
the concept of war crimes is already defined in the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and
the additional Protocols of 1977, which define how civilians, prisoners of war, and
civilian objects must be treated in armed conflict. These are further elaborated in
Article 8 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court that stipulates
the types of war crimes, and the international jurisdiction in prosecuting the war
crimes. Ukraine has accepted the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court
under Article 12(3) of the Rome Statute, which allows the Court to exercise jurisdiction
over crimes committed on its territory. As such, the investigation and proof of international
crimes, including war crimes and crimes against humanity should not only be viewed
in the context of the domestic criminal justice system in a country, but also in the
context of the established universal legal principles.
Ukrainian law enforcement practice is for the first time faced with the need to document
war crimes and other serious violations of international humanitarian law committed
during the armed conflict, use digital technologies and OSINT sources in the process
of proving, which requires updating both the methods of work of investigators and
the legislative regulation of the criminal process. It is worth mentioning that the
current work is more dedicated to the definition of war crimes based on the international
humanitarian law, Article 8 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court,
whereas the crime of aggression is a separate category of international crime under
the Rome Statute which refers more to the role of the political and military leadership
of the state. Previous scientific works (; ; ; ) highlighted certain aspects of the prosecutor’s office’s activities, crime documentation,
and procedural coordination, however, a comprehensive vision of the interaction of
the national system with international institutions, issues of admissibility of digital
evidence, and ethical boundaries of its use remain insufficiently developed. A significant
international legal background to the crime investigation practice in the Russian-Ukrainian
war is the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC). The jurisdiction
of the Court has been accepted by Ukraine under Article 12(3) of the Rome Statute
which gives the ICC the power to assert jurisdiction over the crimes committed on
its territory. In March 2022 the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court launched
an investigation of the Situation in Ukraine (ICC-01/22) that includes the alleged
war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide that occurred on the Ukrainian territory
since 2014. ICC prosecutor Office is in the process of carrying out investigations
in collaboration with authorities in Ukraine and other international partners. Thus,
national war crimes investigations should therefore be conducted in coordination with
the investigative mandate of the ICC.
The scientific value of the topic lies in the need for a theoretical generalization
of the experience of Ukraine as a state that documents war crimes in real time, integrating
legal, technological and humanitarian approaches. Given that international criminal
law is actively transforming under the influence of the digital era (; ; ), the Ukrainian case becomes a unique example of the practical implementation of
new principles of evidence, cooperation between the state and civil society, as well
as the use of artificial intelligence technologies and open data for collecting evidence.
The theoretical significance of the study is determined by its contribution to understanding
the role of digital forensics and international coordination in ensuring the rule
of law, while the practical value is in the possibility of forming recommendations
for improving national and interstate mechanisms for investigating war crimes. Despite
numerous analytical publications, a unified approach to the qualification of crimes
of aggression, assessment of the admissibility of OSINT evidence and protection of
witness rights in wartime has not yet been developed (; ; ). The impact of international political narratives and communication strategies on
perceptions of justice also remains under-researched (; ). These blank spaces need to be analyzed systemically through interdisciplinary approach
which integrates legal, ethical, technological, and social elements.
The aim of the research is to determine the characteristics of the inquiry and evidence
of the war crimes under the circumstances of the Russian-Ukrainian war, define the
specifics of the digital evidence base, examine the interplay of the national and
international organizations in this sphere, and pinpoint issues that prevent the alignment
of the Ukrainian criminal process with the international standards of justice. In
this research, a war crime is a severe breach of the international humanitarian law
that can be conducted in a period of armed conflict as described in the Geneva Convention
of 1949 and Article 8 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Among
them, there are in particular attacks on civilian targets, the demolition of civilian
facilities, ill treatment of prisoners of war, unlawful deportation of civilians and
other acts that are forbidden by the laws and customs of war. It is important to note
that the given study does not examine the crime of aggression as a separate set of
international criminal responsibility, as the given crime involves the political and
military leadership whose action is to initiate an act of aggression and which falls
under a different jurisdictional rule under international criminal law.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
Recent academic research on the investigation of war crimes in the context of the
Russian-Ukrainian war focuses on the transformation of the national criminal justice
system, the digitalization of the evidence base, and adaptation to international standards
of justice. Considerable attention has been paid to the role of the prosecutor’s office
and law enforcement agencies in documenting crimes of aggression, crimes against humanity,
and violations of international humanitarian law (; ; ; ). The success of such investigations is determined by the harmonization of the law
with the principles of international criminal law, the possibilities of pre-trial
investigating organizations, and the introduction of the technological equipment in
terms of gathering and storing evidence. (; ). A significant contribution to the current discussion has been made by works devoted
to proving war crimes using digital technologies, open sources and artificial intelligence
analytics. According to the position of and analysts of and , OSINT materials, satellite data and digital forensics form a new level of evidentiary
practice, which requires strict adherence to the principle of “chain of custody”. The use of open digital sources for evidence collection, which is actively supported
by Ukrainian experts (), contributes to the operational documentation of crimes, but raises questions about
the authenticity and procedural admissibility of the materials (; ).
An important area of research is the analysis of the interaction between state and
public institutions in the process of documenting war crimes. Research by and demonstrate that the involvement of civil society organizations and volunteer networks
expands the possibilities of collecting primary data, contributing to the transparency
of investigative processes. In this regard, the importance of developing a system
of ethical norms and healthy interaction of victims, investigators and analysts is
underlined (; ). The problems of international collaboration in the sphere of crime investigation
are presented in the works of , and , where it is discussed that the international structures, namely Eurojust, Europol
and the International Criminal Court, play the role in ensuring the legal compatibility
of evidence. The comparative experience analysis also demonstrates that Ukraine is
developing its own vision of integration into the global justice system based on the
principles of complementarity and digital transparency (; ; ; ).
Another category comprises the studies that focus on empirical evidence of the investigation
of war crimes and the phenomenon of judicial decisions (; ; ; ). The information provided by such sources presents a picture of the systematic overload
of pre-trial investigation services, the creation of analytical centers and computer
evidence infrastructure. The issues of procedural efficiency and inadequate coordination
are also validated in the articles by , and , who also stresses the necessity of international assistance and technologies. General
theory of international criminal law and geopolitical discourses on the war in Ukraine
are also not negligible (; ; ; ). They enable us to comprehend the context of war crimes in a larger context as an
instrument of information, warfare and political responsibility. Also, contemporary
scientific sources are dedicated to the subjective dimension of the investigation
of war crimes and their powers in criminal procedures. Specifically, and also note that there are not enough specialists trained to operate in martial law,
and that coordination between the investigators and prosecutors with the forensic
experts is crucial. Researchers observe that the expediency of the evidence gathering
and how well it is later evaluated by the law depends on the competence of the interaction
between these entities (; ).
Certain works stress the need to establish trial monitoring mechanisms that will involve
transparency in the process of addressing cases of war crimes. According to and , a systematic study of court rulings provides an opportunity to trace the gaps in
the system of application of the Article 438 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, as well
as the procedural issues in the admissibility of the evidence. These facts are parallel
to the stance of who stresses that judicial practice is supposed to establish constitutive norms of
justice in order to provide the principle of inevitability of punishment. Separately,
it is worth mentioning the study of and , who analyze global information narratives about the war in Ukraine and their impact
on the international legitimacy of criminal prosecution of the aggressor. draw attention to public support for the idea of bringing to justice for war crimes
in the United States, which reflects the importance of forming international legal
solidarity. In the broader context of international justice, studies that analyze
the creation of an international tribunal and historical precedents of war trials
are also important (; ).
The term global justice system is also used in international criminal law to refer
to a multi-level system that encompasses the international criminal courts, national
judicial institutions and international legal cooperation mechanisms. One of the most
important aspects of this system is the principle of complementarity that is provided
by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, according to which the investigation
and prosecution of the international crime are the duty of states, but the International
Criminal Court is a court of last resort, when the state is not able or willing to
conduct a genuine prosecution. Hence, international criminal justice by itself, the
International Criminal Court, international investigative and cooperation platforms
including the joint investigation teams and international prosecutorial networks together
constitute the global system of accountability over international crimes.
A number of studies are also devoted to the peculiarities of criminal proceedings,
in particular, pre-trial investigation under martial law (; ).
Thus, scientific publications cover both legal and technological, organizational and
ethical aspects of war crimes investigation, which reflects the interdisciplinary
nature of the problem. The issues of harmonizing national legislation with the norms
of international criminal law and creating a single digital standard for evidence
preservation remain unresolved. There are also no clear mechanisms for international
coordination and ethical regulation of the use of digital evidence during war crimes
investigation.
3. METHODS
The research was carried out on the basis of a comprehensive analysis of regulatory
legal acts, international agreements, judicial practice and official reports of Ukrainian
and European institutions regulating the investigation of war crimes. The work used
methods of comparative legal analysis to compare Ukrainian procedural approaches with
the practices of the International Criminal Court and the institutions of the European
Union (Eurojust, Europol, European Commission). Moreover, the comparative legal examination
incorporated the review of the major international law tools on the war crime prosecution.
Some of them include the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and Additional Protocol I (1977),
the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998), and resolutions and reports
of international organizations like the United Nations, the International Criminal
Court, and the institutions of the European Union. The examination of these normative
documents allowed defining the degree of alignment of the criminal procedural practice
in Ukraine with the international standards of investigation, documentation, and the
admissibility of the evidence in the war crimes cases. Reports of the and analytical reviews of international human rights organizations were used (Media
Initiative for Human Rights, ZMINA). The system approach method allowed to identify
the relationships between the legal, technological and ethical aspects of the investigation
of war crimes, and the inductive-deductive method ensured the formation of generalized
conclusions based on the analysis of individual cases. The quantitative-analytical
method was used to process statistical data on the number of registered criminal proceedings,
reports of suspicion and indictments in 2022–2025. The source database was formed
from scientific articles, official websites of international organizations and materials
from academic journals, which ensured the reliability and objectivity of the research
results.
4. RESULTS
The findings of the research are organized into three dimensions of analysis: (1)
institutional and organizational realities of war crimes investigations in Ukraine;
(2) the evidentiary paradigm and the place of digital and OSINT-based evidence; and
(3) mechanisms of procedural and international cooperation during the investigation
and prosecution of war crimes. This kind of structuring enables a systematic study
of the relationship between national investigative agencies and mechanisms of international
justice, and it is possible to identify any critical institutional and legal issues
that can influence the efficiency of the investigations of war crimes.
The current state of war crimes investigations in Ukraine is characterized by unprecedented
scale, legal complexity, and the need for synergy between national and international
structures. Since the beginning of the full-scale invasion of the Russian Federation
in 2022, Ukrainian pre-trial investigation bodies have been faced with the need to
document crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression in real
time, which significantly distinguishes the current experience from previous international
precedents. However, the investigation and proof of war crimes constitute the primary
focus of the present analysis of the current analysis, as the crime of aggression
falls under various jurisdictional processes and is now under consideration in the
field of establishing a special international tribunal. In March 2022 the Prosecutor
of the International Criminal Court opened an investigation into the Situation in Ukraine (ICC-01/22) concerning alleged war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide committed on
Ukrainian territory ().
Ukraine has turned into an experiment in terms of the modern methods of evidence collection
in a territory of ongoing hostilities when legal, technological, and humanitarian
issues are tightly interrelated (). Development of interagency and international coordination mechanisms has been among
the important areas. In this context, joint platforms such as the Joint Investigation Team (JIT) under the auspices of Eurojust, as well as Genocide Prosecution Network, which promotes standardization of approaches to war crimes investigation and evidence
sharing between EU countries (; ). At the same time, Europol’s work on assessing transnational crime demonstrates
the importance of integrating forensic databases and using analytical technologies
to track structural features of war crimes committed systematically ().
In Ukraine, significant powers in the investigation of war crimes are vested in the
, which coordinates the actions of the police, the Security Service and other pre-trial
investigation bodies. Practice shows that the main problems remain the overload of
investigators, the shortage of forensic experts, as well as the technical inability
to quickly check large amounts of digital evidence. At the same time, the involvement
of public structures and volunteer networks in collecting primary data on crimes in
the occupied territories has significantly expanded the evidence base (). A new aspect of documenting war crimes has been the widespread use of open digital
data and OSINT technologies (Open Source Intelligence). Ukrainian and international researchers are actively using video, photo and satellite
materials to geolocate events, verify testimonies and form evidentiary dossiers for
further transfer to the International Criminal Court (). Such a solution not only broadens the scope of forensic possibilities but also
generates an additional problem of ensuring the credibility and legal validity of
digital evidence ().
It is also significant that in case of constant war, the investigation process is
likely to be an amalgamation of legal work and the humanitarian mission. Many of the
crimes committed against civilians get recorded through the assistance of international
non-governmental organizations and journalistic associations, which give publicity
and global attention to the crimes committed (). Meanwhile, the documentation of war crimes is not only an evidentiary project,
but it is also the establishment of collective memory and a historical archive of
the war. Lastly, the practice of the international community shows that the successful
investigation of crimes against humanity is impossible without the utilization of
both professional and innovative types of cooperation between the state, civil society
and the international partners. In this regard, the Ukrainian model turns out to be
a singular experience of aligning international standards to the specifics of the
modern warfare, including a decentralized system of data collection, focus on digital
evidences and connectivity to international justice (; ).
The details of the application of evidence in criminal cases concerned with war crimes
are defined by the transformation of the traditional principles of the collection,
analysis and storage of evidence in the context of the magnitude of crime and the
increased impact of digital technologies. In the conditions of the modern war in Ukraine,
the main sources of evidence have become not only eyewitness accounts, documents or
material objects, but also digital data – photos, videos, satellite images, surveillance
camera recordings, social media content, geolocation data, etc. (). This process requires highly qualified specialists, close coordination between
state and international structures, as well as compliance with the procedural purity
of evidence so that it can be used in international courts (; ).
Important empirical evidence of the dynamics of investigations is contained in the
official statistics of the Office of the Prosecutor General of Ukraine. According
to data for 2022–2025, the number of war crimes registered under Article 438 of the
Criminal Code of Ukraine is 187,689 cases, of which only about 53–135 ended with a
report of suspicion each year. From 24 to 47 proceedings were sent to court per year,
while the number of victims exceeded 220 thousand people (). This ratio confirms the scale of the problem: the law enforcement system is faced
with a colossal burden, which requires automation of accounting, development of analytical
infrastructure and increasing the staffing capacity of pre-trial investigation bodies.
Table 1 summarizes the main types of evidence, methods of obtaining it, and admissibility
criteria for criminal proceedings.
Table 1Institutional and procedural challenges in the investigation of war crimes and mechanisms
of international cooperation Source: created by the authors based on KMA Law, 2024; Wells, 2025; Shevchuk et al., 2025; Popov et al., 2025; Chlevickaitė, 2025.
Traumatic experiences of witnesses, risk of re-victimization
Photo and video evidence
Social networks, media, private archives
Metadata, geolocation, software verification
Identification of time, place, source
Manipulation or assembly of materials
Digital and satellite data
Satellite systems, geoanalytics
AI analytics, mapping services, object recognition algorithms
Compliance with preservation and chain of evidence standards
Data access and source verification
OSINT materials (open intelligence)
Internet, open databases, forums
Classification algorithms, image search
Verification, reproducibility
Unreliability of sources, fake content
Electronic communications
Phone records, messages, emails
Digital forensics, metadata analysis
Receipt by court order, confirmation of authenticity
Encrypting, deleting, or forging messages
Materials obtained using search intelligence
Facial recognition systems, text analysis
Machine learning, neural networks
Compliance with the principles of transparency, reproducibility of results
Ethical risks, algorithm errors, privacy
Source: created by the authors based on ; ; ; ; .
The data presented shows that the use of digital technologies significantly expands
the capabilities of forensics, allowing them to obtain evidence from open sources
and conduct their multi-level verification. At the same time, the digital evidence
base increases the risks of procedural violations – for example, interference with
metadata, file changes or doubts about the reliability of the source. To ensure the
legal admissibility of such evidence, Ukraine is gradually implementing international
standards, including the requirements of the “chain of custody” and methods of digital certification of materials (; ). Thus, the development of digital forensics in the Ukrainian context not only increases
the efficiency of the investigation but also creates the basis for building a new
culture of evidence – flexible, technologically adaptive and ethically balanced. This
process determines the strategic direction of the integration of the Ukrainian justice
system into the international community, which requires harmonization of standards
with the European Union and the International Criminal Court (; ).
The procedural support for the investigation of war crimes in Ukraine remains one
of the most complex aspects of wartime criminal justice. Its issues combine issues
of jurisdiction, evidentiary legitimacy, international cooperation, and compliance
of national legislation with international standards. During the period of ongoing
Russian aggression, the Ukrainian law enforcement system operates under constant strain,
lack of resources, and the need to respond quickly to numerous crimes that have the
characteristics of genocide, crimes against humanity, or violations of the laws and
customs of war (; ).
Ensuring procedural standards in such conditions requires pre-trial investigation
bodies not only to comply with the norms of the Criminal Procedure Code, but also
to adapt their work methods to the situation of martial law. In parallel, a system
of interaction with international structures is being formed – the International Criminal Court, Eurojust, Europol and a number of non-governmental organizations that document crimes in the field.
As the analytical review presented in Table 2 shows, the problems of procedural support and international cooperation can be grouped
into main areas related to organizational, legal, technical and ethical factors.
Table 2Main problems of procedural support and international cooperation during pre-trial
investigations of war crimes Source: created by the author based on Borovyk, 2024; Kovalchuk, 2024; Eurojust, 2025; Europol, 2025; Martyniuk et al., 2025; Vyhivskyi et al., 2024; Rassamakhina, 2025; KMA Law, 2024; ZMINA, 2025.
Problem direction
Essence
Manifestations in practice
International institutions / partners
Proposed solutions
Jurisdictional conflicts
Lack of full adaptation of national procedural norms to international criminal law
Difficulties in holding the top military and political leadership of the Russian Federation
accountable
International Criminal Court (ICC), UN
Development of international mechanisms of accountability, including the ongoing initiative
to establish a Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression against Ukraine under
the auspices of the Council of Europe ().
Procedural overload
Excessive number of proceedings, lack of personnel and technical resources
Investigators and prosecutors are handling 1,000+ cases simultaneously
Office of the Prosecutor General, National Police
Creation of regional analytical centers, digitalization of evidence accounting ()
Insufficient international coordination
Lack of a single protocol for the transfer of evidence between states
Double checking materials, waste of time
Eurojust, Europol, Genocide Prosecution Network
Development of a unified format for the exchange of evidence (; )
Ethical and security risks
Use of traumatic testimonies, risk of disclosure of personal data
Repeated victimization of witnesses, compromising evidence
Human Rights Organizations, Media Initiative for Human Rights
Implementing ethical codes and confidentiality protocols ()
Technical limitations
Imperfection of databases, limited access to international analytical systems
Loss of information, inability to verify authenticity
Europol, OSINT platforms
Development of a national platform for evidence of war crimes ()
Insufficient participation of the civil sector
Formal interaction between state and non-state structures
Incomplete verification of evidence, duplication of materials
Civil society networks, ZMINA, JustTalk
Increasing transparency and mutual trust between state and non-state institutions
(; )
Source: created by the author based on ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; .
As can be seen from Table 2, the key difficulties lie not only in the legal plan, but also in the technical and
moral-ethical dimensions. In addition, recent international initiatives aimed at establishing
a Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression against Ukraine demonstrate the growing
role of international institutional mechanisms in addressing accountability gaps for
international crimes. The Ukrainian system of pre-trial investigation is simultaneously
building its own model of integration into international justice, based on the principles
of transparency, trust and evidentiary compatibility. However, its effectiveness directly
depends on the degree of harmonization of national legislation with international
criminal norms, as well as on the creation of a single digital evidence base that
ensures traceability and verification of the origin of materials ().
Overall, the institutional capacity growth on a gradual basis may be observed in the
process of coordinating the activities of the prosecutor office, the security services,
the police and the human rights organizations. However, the maintenance of the procedural
validity of evidence during the period of war is a complex question to which it is
necessary to refer to law and to the managerial and technical measures as well. Therefore,
international cooperation plays a structural role in the system of international criminal
justice, as it enables the coordination of national investigations with the mechanisms
of the International Criminal Court, joint investigation teams, and other international
accountability mechanisms (; ).
The modern Ukrainian system of war crimes investigation is actively adapting to international
standards, primarily to the practices of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and
joint European mechanisms for cooperation in the field of criminal justice. Ukraine’s
progress in this direction is significant: the state participates in the Joint Investigation Team under the auspices of Eurojust and Genocide Prosecution Network and also cooperates with Europol to provide analytical support to investigations (; ; ). At the same time, as analysts note, the issue of harmonizing procedural standards,
establishing jurisdiction, and procedures for admissibility of evidence remains open
().
It is in this respect that the use of national procedural rules interpretation must
also be considered in the light of the norms which have been established in the Rome
Statute of the International Criminal Court and the jurisprudence of international
criminal tribunals, which determine the admissibility of evidence and its reliability
in the conducting of war crimes.
A comparison of Ukrainian and European approaches allows us to identify the main differences
in the system of evidence, in particular in matters of the legal framework, the chain
of custody of evidence (chain of custody), international cooperation and procedural guarantees of the parties (; ). A summary is given in Table 3.
Table 3Comparison of Ukrainian war crimes investigation measures and European/international
standards of evidence Source: was created by the author based on Eurojust, 2025; Europol, 2025; European Commission, 2025; Hafetz, 2024; Suhong & Tan, 2024; Martyniuk et al., 2025; Wells, 2025; Vyhivskyi et al., 2024.
Parameter
Ukrainian approaches
European/international standards
Areas of harmonization
Jurisdiction and legal framework
Amendments to the Criminal Code and procedural legislation; harmonization of national
norms with international criminal law
Full jurisdiction of the ICC, unified approaches to the crime of aggression ()
Gradual harmonization of criminal proceedings with international standards and expansion
of cooperation with the International Criminal Court ()
Standards of proof
Use of digital, OSINT and satellite data, but lack of unified verification procedures
ICC and EU define clear rules for chain of custody, reproducibility, and admissibility of evidence (; )
Development of national protocols for the storage and transfer of digital evidence
International cooperation
Ukraine is actively involved in the JIT and cooperation with Eurojust, but faces resource constraints
The EU has standardized mechanisms for sharing evidence and joint investigation teams
(Joint Investigation Teams). ()
Expanding cooperation with the ICC, concluding bilateral legal assistance agreements
Procedural guarantees and rights
Procedural rights are enshrined in the CPC, but wartime conditions make it difficult
to comply with standards
European standards guarantee the presumption of innocence, the protection of witnesses
and victims ()
Adaptation of procedures to martial law conditions; creation of a national witness
protection system
Documenting the extent of crimes
Large array of cases, limited systematization of evidence
The EU supports the establishment of a Centre for the International Prosecution of
the Crime of Aggression ()
Formation of a centralized database and integration with international structures
()
Source: was created by the author based on ; ; ; ; ; ; ; .
Comparative analysis shows that Ukraine is gradually integrating European standards
of evidence, especially in the areas of digital forensics and international cooperation.
However, the key areas of harmonization remain the harmonization of national legislation
with the norms of international criminal law, the creation of a national witness protection
mechanism, the development of unified procedures for the “chain of custody” and the development of a digital evidence infrastructure compatible with the platforms
of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and Eurojust. This will not only strengthen the procedural legitimacy of investigations, but also
increase their international recognition (; ).
The authors conducted quantitative and analytical study. For this study, they used
statistical data on the number of criminal proceedings, reports of suspicion, referrals
of cases to court, as well as the number of victims of war crimes committed on the
territory of Ukraine in the period from 2022 to September 2025. The information was
obtained from publicly available official sources – reports of the Office of the Prosecutor
General of Ukraine, the data of which generally coincides with the reports of international
analytical agencies , ; , ), confirming their official origin.
Below (see Table 4) are summarized results of a quantitative and analytical study reflecting the overall
dynamics of war crimes investigations in Ukraine in 2022–2025 based on official reports
of the Prosecutor General’s Office.
Table 4Dynamics of proceedings, suspects and victims in war crimes cases in Ukraine (2022–2025) Source: was created by the author based on Office of the Prosecutor General of Ukraine (2025).
Period
War crimes were recorded (Article 438 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine)
Including those that caused the death of a person
Crimes for which the person has been notified of suspicion
Proceedings referred to court with indictment
Number of victims
2022
60.387
6.013
135
47
50.913
2023
60.944
1.844
88
37
72.728
2024
28.788
1.659
64
46
40.594
January–September 2025
37.570
1.564
53
24
57.289
Total (2022–2025)
187.689
11.080
340
154
221.524
Source: was created by the author based on .
An analysis of official data shows that over 187,000 war crimes were registered in
four years, but in only a few hundred cases individuals were notified of suspicion
and even fewer reached court. This imbalance between the number of crimes and the
number of proven cases reflects the inefficiency of the existing evidentiary system,
the lack of qualified personnel and the need to automate analytical processes. At
the same time, the increase in the number of victims indicates the scale of the humanitarian
consequences of the war and the need to create specialized units to support victims.
These trends confirm the feasibility of developing digital forensics, centralized
accounting of evidence and strengthening international partnerships in the field of
war crimes.
Improving the system of proving war crimes in national law enforcement practice requires
a comprehensive strategy that combines the adaptation of Ukrainian legislation to
the norms of international criminal law, the development of institutional capacity
and the introduction of modern technological tools. Simultaneously, it is necessary
to note that Ukraine has already made some significant legislative measures in order
to harmonize criminal laws with the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.
New revisions of the Criminal Code have included the provisions of international crimes,
and this enhances the national legal system of prosecuting war crimes. Nevertheless,
additional work should be done on the criminal procedure and institutional practice
level to secure the proper application of the principle of complementarity, as the
international courts should have primary jurisdiction over international crimes, whereas
the International Criminal Court is supposed to be a court of last resort (). It is necessary to create a national standard for collecting and verifying digital
evidence, which will include a mechanism for confirming authenticity and an uninterrupted
chain of custody (chain of custody), as well as certification of specialists in the field of digital forensics. Particular
attention should be paid to protecting the rights of participants in the process –
victims, witnesses, suspects – in accordance with Articles 14 and 15 of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the practice of the European Court of Human
Rights. Development of national evidence databases, their synchronization with international
platforms, in particular Genocide Prosecution Network and Joint Investigation Teams under the auspices of Eurojust will ensure transparency and increase trust in the results of investigations (; ; ).
In addition to improving legislation and technical modernization, it is important
to strengthen the human and educational potential of the bodies conducting pre-trial
investigation and procedural guidance in war crimes proceedings. It is advisable to
introduce a specialized training program for investigators, prosecutors and judges
in international humanitarian law, proving war crimes and working with digital sources
(). The system should ensure effective interaction between state structures and civil
society, in particular human rights organizations that carry out the initial recording
of crimes in the de-occupied territories (). It is recommended to introduce an institutional model of interdepartmental coordination,
where the Prosecutor’s Office, the Security Service of Ukraine, the National Police,
the Ministry of Justice and representatives of public initiatives will work together
to collect, preserve and verify evidence. This combination of legal, technological
and ethical tools will allow Ukraine not only to increase the efficiency of investigations,
but also to create its own model of documenting war crimes, which will become an example
for other countries that seek to combine the rule of law, human rights and modern
digital standards of evidence. Generalized statistical indicators allow us to conclude
that currently less than 0.1% of all registered proceedings have reached the stage
of trial. This indicates not only an overload of the system, but also the need to
implement digital solutions to automate the accounting of evidence, the importance
of high-quality analytical work and monitoring the effectiveness of processes. Thus,
official statistics confirm the conclusions of the study on the need for technological
and organizational renewal of criminal justice.
5. DISCUSSION
The results of the study confirm that the system of war crimes investigation in Ukraine
is in a phase of profound transformation, caused by the need to combine national legal
mechanisms with international standards of criminal justice. This conclusion is consistent
with position and , who emphasize that the reform of procedural institutions should be based on the
principle of complementarity with respect to the International Criminal Court, but
at the same time highlight the problems of normative inconsistency and limited implementation
of international norms into national legislation (). This principle implies that national courts have the primary jurisdiction to prosecute
international crimes, while the International Criminal Court intervenes only when
national authorities are unwilling or unable to conduct genuine investigations and
prosecutions. Comparison with the results of other authors reveals certain contradictions.
Thus, according to and , the main vector of the development of international justice regarding Ukraine is
the creation of a special tribunal, while Ukrainian scholars and practitioners (; ) emphasize strengthening domestic institutional capacities and involving international
structures only as coordination partners. Our study supports an intermediate position,
according to which a combination of both approaches is optimal: the development of
a national evidentiary system with the parallel use of international mechanisms in
cases falling under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.
The issue of digital evidence and the admissibility of OSINT materials remain particularly
controversial. and view digital forensics as key to investigative effectiveness, while and warn about the risks of data distortion and the lack of unified authentication protocols.
Our results confirm the latter’s position: although the use of open sources is an
integral part of the evidentiary process, it requires regulatory consolidation of
the principle of “chain of custody” and the creation of a database of digital evidence
about war crimes. Some researchers (; ) believe that the main factor in the effectiveness of investigations is the active
participation of civil society, while others (; ) draw attention to the need for centralized management of the process and professional
training of personnel. Our study demonstrates that the combination of these approaches
– the interaction of state structures with volunteer and human rights initiatives
– provides a balance between the efficiency of evidence collection and procedural
legitimacy.
There are also discrepancies between the analytical assessments of international experts
and the real state of the Ukrainian law enforcement system. While according to and , the EU already has standardized mechanisms for exchanging evidence, Ukrainian practice,
as noted by and , demonstrates excessive workload of investigators and low percentage of proven cases.
It means that regardless of the existence of technological solutions, the issue of
personnel and organizational capacity is critical. Analyzing the received data, one
may presume that the success of the war crimes investigation is directly determined
by the extent to which digital technologies are integrated into criminal justice and
the rate of alignment of the national law with international law. To prove this hypothesis,
it is necessary to conduct additional empirical studies – in the first place, on the
admissibility of digital evidence in a court of law and the formation of an ethical
code of conduct when working with traumatic testimonies.
To investigate war crimes effectively, a complex of law and technological and humanitarian
means should be used. Nevertheless, global political discourses play a crucial role
in the perception of justice, which is why the perception of justice must have special
attention in future scientific research, and both the legal and the communicative
aspects of global justice are to be considered (; ).
Overall, the discussion reveals that, despite certain achievements of Ukraine toward
the international integration in the sphere of the war crimes investigation, the lack
of the unification of the evidentiary procedures, the enlargement of human resources
potential, the establishment of the transparent system of digital forensics remains.
To do this, one will require more interdisciplinary research that will integrate the
legal, technological, and social aspects of contemporary justice.
6. CONCLUSIONS
The results of the study indicate that the system of investigating war crimes in Ukraine
is undergoing significant institutional transformation. At the same time, its effectiveness
remains limited due to the excessive workload of pre-trial investigation bodies, shortages
of qualified personnel, and insufficient coordination between investigative institutions.
Based on official statistical information published by the , it is possible to conclude that more than 187,000 war crimes were recorded in 20222025,
however, in a few hundred cases, people were suspected, and less than fifty were sent
to the court annually. It means that there is an unequal ratio between the magnitude
of crimes and the national judicial system capacity.
The primary points where the efficacy of the pre-trial investigation of war crimes
should be enhanced are:
1. Regulatory harmonization – revising the stipulations of the Criminal and Criminal
Procedure Codes considering international requirements of criminal justice and the
concept of complementarity with reference to the International Criminal Court.
2. Institutional capacity – the establishment of departments within the framework
of law enforcement agencies to investigate war crimes, equipped with technical and
analytical support.
3. Modernization of technology – introduction of one digital evidence base and the
introduction of chain systems of custody, which are compatible with the international
platforms of the ICC and Eurojust.
4. Security of the members involved in the process – the creation of a national system
of the protection of witnesses and victims, including the use of secure communication
channels and remote questioning.
5. International collaboration – creating a permanent information exchange with international
organizations and co-creating the culture of punishing the perpetrators of war crimes.
Therefore, improving the effectiveness of war crimes investigations requires a coordinated
approach that integrates legal reforms, technological modernization and the strengthening
of institutional capacity. The proposed directions can become the basis for creating
a national model of documenting and proving crimes, compatible with European and international
standards of justice.
7. REFERENCES
1
Borovyk, A. V. (2024). The role of the prosecutor’s office in documenting and investigating
war crimes during the Russian-Ukrainian war. Law and Safety, (2), 564–566. https://doi.org/10.32782/2524-0374/2024-2/139
Chlevickaitė, G. (2025). Documenting conflict-related crimes in Ukraine: Civil society
innovations, adaptations and networks in the accountability ecosystem. Journal of International Criminal Justice. https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mqaf020
4
Chu, M. (2024). Competing interpretations of international law: Law and politics in
the war crimes trials of Nationalist China, 1946–1949. Leiden Journal of International Law, 38(2), 299–321. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0922156524000232
Europol. (2025). The changing DNA of serious and organised crime: European Union serious
and organised crime threat assessment 2025. Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2813/0758057
8
Hafetz, J. (2024). International criminal law and the role of narrative in the war
in Ukraine. Pace International Law Review, 36(2), 363. https://doi.org/10.58948/2331-3536.1438
9
Suhong, Y., & Tan, Y. (2024). The Joint Investigation Team in Ukraine: Challenges
and Opportunities for the International Criminal Court. European Papers – A Journal on Law and Integration, 8(3), 1121–1124. https://doi.org/10.15166/2499-8249/705
Kosokhatko, B. S. (2025). Subjects of war-crimes investigations and their capabilities
within criminal proceedings. Analytically-Comparative Jurisprudence, (1), 121. https://doi.org/10.24144/2788-6018.2025.01.121
12
Kovalchuk, O. Ya. (2024). Guaranteeing Russia’s responsibility for war crimes in Ukraine:
The information and legal aspect. Bulletin of Kharkiv National University of Internal Affairs, 105(2 Part 2), 149–159. https://doi.org/10.32631/v.2024.2.37
Martyniuk, O. V., Mikhach, O. T., & Antoniuk, S. R. (2025). On the issue of Ukraine’s
ratification of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Uzhhorod National University Herald. Series: Law, 4(88), 109–117. https://doi.org/10.24144/2307-3322.2025.88.4.16
Popov, G., Puhach, A., & Shkolnikov, V., Baranovska, T., & Orobets, K. (2025). Assessing
war crimes during armed conflicts: Insights from Ukraine and global standards. Journal of Lifestyle and SDGs Review, 5(1), e03391. https://doi.org/10.47172/2965-730X.SDGsReview.v5.n01.pe03391
20
Predmestnikov, O., Vavrynchuk, M., Krushynskyi, S., Mandzii, S., & Kohut, O. (2024).
Problematic issues of collecting evidence in criminal proceedings under martial law.
Relações internacionais do Mundo Atual, 2(44), 477–494. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14757088
Shepitko, M. (2022). Problems of investigating Russian aggression against Ukraine.
Theory and Practice of Forensic Science and Criminalistics, 2(27), 33–44. https://doi.org/10.32353/khrife.2.2022.03
26
Shevchuk, V., Zhuravel, V., Yevdokimenko, S. & Myshkov, Y. (2025). Forensic examination
and criminalistics in investigating war crimes: European and Ukrainian experiences.
Jurnal Media Hukum, 32(1), 59–77. https://doi.org/10.18196/jmh.v32i1.25056
27
Strok, I. A. (2025). Problematic aspects in the investigation of war crimes. In Crime and counteraction in wartime and post-war perspectives: an interdisciplinary
overview (pp. 571–573). KHNUVS. https://dspace.univd.edu.ua/handle/123456789/23775
28
Syvodіed, I. S. (2025). Typical investigative situations in the investigation of criminal
offences in the temporarily occupied territories of Ukraine. Journal of the National Academy of Legal Sciences of Ukraine, 32(2), 198–219. https://doi.org/10.31359/1993-0909-2025-32-2-198
29
Tran Sautedé, E., Mo, F. V., & Tang, J. (2025). China and the Ukraine war: Global
Times’ strategic narratives. Global Media and Communication, 21(1), 65–89. https://doi.org/10.1177/17427665251328117
Vyhivskyi, I., Martyniuk, O., Rossokha, S., Shchupakivskyi, R., & Strunevych, O. (2024).
Investigating war crimes in de-occupied territories: The role of the National Police
of Ukraine. Amazonia Investiga, 13(78), 58–71. https://doi.org/10.34069/AI/2024.78.06.5
Xu, Y., & Zhao, X. (2025). China’s discursive strategic neutrality position in the
Russo-Ukrainian war: Insights from China’s strategic narratives. Journal of Contemporary China, 34, 1008–1025. https://doi.org/10.1080/10670564.2025.2479019
35
Zhovtiuk, O. A. (2025). Current problems in the investigation of war crimes. Science and Law Enforcement, 3(69), 15. https://doi.org/10.33270/0525693.15
36
ZMINA. (2025). Russia stages show trials of Ukrainian prisoners of war: OSCE report
cites ZMINA research. ZMINA Human Rights Center. https://zmina.ua/en/event-en/27208
37
Zvobgo, K., & Simmons, A. J. (2025). Do Americans support war crimes prosecutions?
Foreign Policy Analysis, 21(3), 249–268. https://doi.org/10.1093/fpa/oraf021
