By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Russia’s withdrawal from the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture has been condemned by Ukraine’s Foreign Ministry as an attempt to evade accountability and an admission of guilt regarding human rights violations. The ministry highlighted the broad documentation of Russian war crimes and the torture of Ukrainian civilians and troops, despite Moscow’s prior adherence to the convention. The decision follows Russia’s consistent obstruction of the convention’s mechanism, including barring access to detention facilities for monitoring bodies like the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and the International Committee of the Red Cross. Ukraine has called for the immediate activation of international mechanisms to hold Russia accountable for its actions.
Read the original article here
Admission of guilt — Ukraine blasts Russia’s planned withdrawal from torture prevention convention. It’s hard not to see this move as anything other than a big, flashing neon sign proclaiming, “We’re doing something we don’t want anyone to see!” The whole thing smacks of formalizing what’s already been suspected, and quite likely, occurring: Russia isn’t letting the Red Cross or anyone else get the access they’re supposed to have to prisoners of war. This “planned withdrawal,” or rather, the request for it, feels like a blatant admission.
The convention Russia is supposedly distancing itself from is all about preventing torture. It’s a preventative mechanism, designed to allow an independent body – the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture – to make unannounced visits to detention facilities. The idea is to check up on the conditions and how detainees are treated. This is the kind of inspection that is supposed to hold a nation accountable, and provide a deterrent to human rights abuses.
From what the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry says, Russia has been actively sabotaging this whole process. They’ve reportedly refused to cooperate with the committee and have blocked these experts from getting into the country. This is the opposite of transparency and cooperation. It looks like they’ve had something to hide for a while, and now they’re making it official.
Now, I know some might argue that these kinds of conventions are just… well, words on paper. They might say that torture has been around forever, a constant throughout history, and no amount of paperwork is going to change that. I mean, it’s true that wars, and sadly, the armies that fight them, have a long and depressing history of utilizing torture techniques. You can read about the methods that people have developed, and it’s quite disturbing to learn just how inventive they are, how readily available, and how often they are employed.
Even if we assume that international conventions alone can’t eradicate torture, they still serve a crucial purpose. They create legal frameworks, providing tools for international courts. The absence of these conventions would leave an enormous and gaping hole in the framework of international law. They provide a basis for accountability and give a voice to the victims. They’re not a magic bullet, but they are an essential part of the fight.
It’s important to point out that Russia is still a signatory to a similar UN convention, UNCAT. From a strictly legal point of view, withdrawing from this particular convention might not change *that* much. But the symbolic value is huge. It’s a clear signal of intent. It shows Russia’s expectations of not being held accountable for their actions.
And let’s be honest, this move is probably also calculated to chip away at the resolve of the Ukrainian people. The brutality of the war, the suffering of the POWs, the blatant disregard for international norms – this is all part of a strategy to demoralize and break the will to fight. When a nation makes a move to withdraw from a convention like this, it is effectively saying that it does not intend to comply with the rules of war.
The U.S. is also a signatory to UNCAT, but its involvement in international courts is a bit more complicated. The U.S. hasn’t completely opened itself up to lawsuits in international courts. So, they could theoretically be sued for violating UNCAT if they commit actions in a nation that *has* ratified the conventions related to these international courts. This is a rather convoluted system, and it highlights the limitations of international law when it comes to the most powerful nations.
The point is, even with all the legal complexities and loopholes, Russia’s actions are telling. It is a formal acknowledgement that they do not want to be scrutinized. It is a sign they intend to continue to do whatever they want, regardless of international pressure. And it underscores the need for continued vigilance and the pursuit of justice. They are likely hoping to get away with these actions.
This is not just about rules and paperwork; it’s about the very nature of warfare and the treatment of human beings. Russia’s planned withdrawal, which is more like a plea from their Prime Minister, is an important move to watch. The whole world should be paying attention. It’s an admission of guilt, a warning sign, and a call to hold them accountable.