There was no fear, no defeat in the eyes of Valentina (not her real name) – only quiet determination. She spoke calmly about the Russian soldiers, her younger son’s age, who raped her and her friend in a small village outside of Kyiv. When her friend’s husband tried to stop them, they shot him dead. I asked whether she wanted to pursue the case in court, and she did not hesitate. “To be able to live, I need to see him either dead or behind bars,” she said. I have been documenting war crimes in different parts of the world for more than two decades, and every time I agonise about how to ask survivors whether they want to pursue justice. At what is probably the most traumatic moment of their lives, offering up an abstract concept like justice as a solution seems insensitive. But, every time, people like Valentina prove me wrong. Many survivors of atrocities may not be aware of the legal intricacies involved in holding perpetrators to account, or how long this journey may take, but they immediately understand the importance of seeking justice. Unless the perpetrators are held to account, they say, they can’t turn the page. Using justice mechanisms to punish those who commit atrocity crimes is neither easy nor quick but, most importantly, it is impossible without the survivors themselves. The 2016 conviction of the Chadian dictator Hissène Habré for crimes against humanity and war crimes, including torture, sexual slavery and rape, was the culmination of an almost two-decade quest for justice. It was started by seven Chadians who filed a complaint against him in 2000. Despite being subjected to threats and harassment, these survivors pressed on to bring Habré and other high-ranking members of his regime to account. The survivor’s group leader, Souleymane Guengueng, was eventually able to confront the man who imprisoned him in court. All the defendants were convicted, and significant reparations were ordered. Earlier this year, a regional court in Germany convicted a senior official in Bashar al-Assad’s government for crimes against humanity in Syria, sentencing him to life imprisonment. The court found him guilty of murder, torture, sexual violence and other crimes. The court also sentenced another Syrian official to four and a half years in prison for aiding and abetting crimes against humanity. While the case file included extensive documentary evidence, and expert and insider witness testimony, the case would not have happened without the Syrian survivors who came forward as joint plaintiffs. Advertisement In another emblematic case in Germany, Nora T, a Yazidi woman and client of the Clooney Foundation for Justice’s co-founder, Amal Clooney, launched a complaint against a former Isis member who had enslaved her and her five-year-old daughter and caused the child’s death. The Isis member was sentenced to life imprisonment for genocide and crimes against humanity. Now, Ukrainian survivors of horrendous crimes committed during the Russian invasion have a unique and unprecedented opportunity to pursue justice on multiple fronts. The Ukrainian prosecutors have opened thousands of cases, and the office of the prosecutor of the international criminal court, supported by dozens of ICC member countries, moved swiftly to launch an investigation. Ukrainians can also file criminal complaints in many other countries under the principle of universal jurisdiction, which allows countries to prosecute the most serious crimes regardless of where they have been committed or the perpetrator’s nationality. This principle has been developing since the Second World War as a mechanism to pursue justice for the survivors of mass atrocities. There are more than 150 other countries where cases can be brought under this principle – but so far, only a handful, mainly in western Europe, have used it. It has never been simple. Legal requirements for bringing cases under universal jurisdiction principles vary and often require the presence of the perpetrator or some other “link” to the country. Foreign prosecutors are sometimes reluctant to open investigations, knowing that they may not have access to countries where crimes have been committed and will receive no cooperation from the authorities. The witnesses and victims may be far away, making it difficult to put a case together. And finally, the political will to go after members of the foreign military forces or officials is often lacking. For Ukraine, however, most of these obstacles are easy to overcome. Ukrainian authorities welcome international efforts to pursue justice and have demonstrated their willingness to collaborate. Millions of Ukrainians, including witnesses and survivors of international crimes, are already abroad in Europe and further afield. There is no shortage of evidence, with many national and international organisations carrying out documentation, supported by Ukrainian citizens themselves, who actively share information through social media and other channels. And there is an abundance of political will internationally to pursue justice for Ukraine. So far, a dozen or so countries have opened investigations into crimes committed in Ukraine – a drop in the ocean. Given the nature and scale of the crimes committed in Ukraine, many more states could, and should, pursue cases that would allow survivors of sexual violence and torture, or those who lost relatives in indiscriminate attacks, or families that spent months in the basements in Mariupol, to obtain justice. Without a doubt, the United Kingdom should be one of these countries. Advertisement The UK has laws that would allow it to hold perpetrators of certain international crimes to account. There are, however, obstacles to accountability, including the UK’s relatively narrow application of universal jurisdiction, under-resourcing of investigative units and diplomatic immunities. In the meantime, we gather evidence and present it to prosecutors in conformity with procedural rules, ensuring that these cases are watertight. This includes identifying specific perpetrators at various levels of the Russian command structure so that international arrest warrants can be issued. This would allow law enforcement to apprehend the perpetrators wherever they may eventually travel and hand them over to the country where the case has been opened. In some jurisdictions, survivors may also obtain compensation – from the perpetrators themselves and, more likely, from those who enabled or encouraged the commission of the crimes (such as companies that provided military supplies or propaganda figures who incited the violence). Given how many Russian financial assets are abroad, the arrest and seizure of such funds is a critical part of this process. Another benefit of bringing these universal jurisdiction cases forward, especially while the war rages on, is the clear message it sends: Russian soldiers and Russian commanders are on notice. For now, they think they are invincible – largely because Russian forces have not faced justice for similar crimes in Chechnya, Georgia or Syria. But today there’s a new playbook. Anya Neistat is the legal director at The Docket, an initiative of the Clooney Foundation for Justice