Russia’s war crime in Olenivka is a test for international justice
Neutrality was never meant to mean moral indifference.
A woman holds a candle and reacts during a minute of silence in Kyiv, Ukraine, on Sept. 6, 2022, marking 40 days since the explosion at the penal colony in Russian-occupied Olenivka that killed more than 50 Ukrainian prisoners of war. (Dimitar Dilkoff / AFP via Getty Images)
Opinion
Three years ago, on the night of July 28-29, 2022, Russians blew up a barrack in the penal colony in Olenivka, killing over 50 Ukrainian prisoners of war (POWs) and injuring around 130.
The victims were soldiers of the Azov Brigade who had defended Mariupol and left the Azovstal plant following an order from Ukraine’s highest military and political command. Going into captivity was part of an agreed plan involving the United Nations and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC).
Despite the gravity of the crime, the attack has never been properly investigated, and three years later, it remains unpunished. This highlights a bigger problem — the failure of the security architecture and international humanitarian law system, established after World War II.
Failure of international institutions
In August 2022, the UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres announced the launch of a mission to establish facts about the Olenivka explosion — a step in the right direction. Russia refused to allow the mission access to the occupied territory. However, the mission has never even visited Ukraine, showed no interest in the materials that Ukraine collected and was disbanded in January 2023. This development was not surprising, as two of the three members of the mission were biased, or even sympathetic toward Russia.
The principles of neutrality and confidentiality that once defined the Red Cross’s legitimacy now seem outdated in the face of large-scale, state-orchestrated atrocities in Europe.
The Red Cross, for its part, was present when the Azovstal garrison went into captivity and was expected to ensure Russia’s compliance with the Geneva Convention during their time in captivity. However, it failed to register all Azovstal defenders who were taken captive as POWs. And to this day, the ICRC effectively has no access to Ukrainian prisoners held in over 300 detention sites across Russia and occupied Ukraine — not dedicated POW camps as required by law. In contrast, the ICRC has full access to Russian POWs held by Ukraine.
The ICRC organization has never publicly acknowledged the violations of the Geneva Convention by Russia or condemned them. The organization was not designed to be an advocacy group or empowered with any mechanisms of coercion or sanctions. However, the principles of neutrality and confidentiality that once defined the Red Cross’s legitimacy now seem outdated in the face of large-scale, state-orchestrated atrocities in Europe.
The ICRC is not powerless. On the contrary, it remains one of the world’s most respected humanitarian institutions, which has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1917, 1944, and 1963. That moral authority carries weight. In a war where one side systematically violates the Geneva Conventions and blocks all oversight, it is precisely this kind of authority that must be used to set the record straight. Perhaps the time has come for the organization to adapt these principles to a new kind of war, in which traditional methods of quiet diplomacy fail.
We urge the ICC to start the investigation of this war crime.
In such conditions, naming and shaming the violator is not a breach of neutrality, but rather a defense of the very system the ICRC was founded to protect. If the Red Cross cannot even publicly condemn the conditions in which Ukrainian POWs are held in blatant violation of the Geneva Conventions, then what remains of its authority?
Neutrality was never meant to mean moral indifference. In cases like Olenivka or the general treatment of Ukrainian POWs, neutrality must not be an excuse for institutional paralysis. In the weeks after the Olenivka explosion, Ukrainian activists and families of the victims organized rallies to demand justice. In one powerful demonstration in 2022, a banner appeared with the inscription: “Olenivka = Auschwitz.” Another read: “Your inaction is killing!” These slogans captured a growing public outrage at the failure of guarantor institutions to protect the very lives they claimed to safeguard.
The global institutions’ inaction after the Olenivka war crime highlights how a single atrocity can jeopardize trust in the entire international humanitarian system, which was explicitly designed to prevent the horrors of World War II from repeating themselves. It was built on a post-1945 framework of legal provisions, oversight bodies, and international courts that promised “Never Again.” Olenivka has put that promise to the test and underlined the need for a thorough rethinking of international legal enforcement and justice.
How the world responds to Olenivka will set a precedent not just for Ukraine, but for the future of international humanitarian law. If such a blatant, public, and well-documented war crime can go unpunished, then what is the Geneva Convention truly worth?
Accountability for this war crime is not only a moral imperative, it is also a crucial strategic move. Failing to hold Russia accountable for crimes like Olenivka rewards aggression. It creates the conditions for more crimes. Russia’s insolence today comes from a long history of impunity — from Grozny to Aleppo. Impunity encourages repetition, and Olenivka is not an exception in this war — it is a small detail of a much larger pattern of violation, including torture, executions, and prosecution of POWs. That is why even one case like Olenivka, if properly investigated and prosecuted, can have great significance. It would send the message that international law is not optional and that war crimes, even committed by nuclear powers, still carry consequences.
Role of International Criminal Court
The International Criminal Court (ICC) is currently the most effective mechanism to investigate and prosecute those responsible for war crimes committed in Ukraine, particularly in Olenivka.
In March 2023, the court issued its first arrest warrants against Russian President Vladimir Putin and his Commissioner for Children’s Rights Mariia Lvova-Belova for the abduction of thousands of Ukrainian children. Olenivka must be next. Investigating and prosecuting this atrocity is essential not only to restore a sense of justice for the victims’ families, but to reaffirm that international law is not a paper shield. The longer this case is ignored, the clearer the message becomes: even the gravest war crimes can be committed without consequences, and the law of force prevails over the force of law.
What can be done
In the Olenivka case, coordinated diplomatic action is needed. Justice can’t be achieved through symbolic gestures or quiet diplomacy. It requires pressure, persistence, and political will.
We ask our international partners to speak loudly about the Olenivka war crime, consistently highlighting Russia’s gross violations of international humanitarian law and the rights of Ukrainian POWs.
The ICRC must be pressed to fulfil its basic mandate, particularly to identify and locate all Ukrainian POWs who were held in Olenivka at the time of the explosion.
We urge the ICC to start the investigation of this war crime.
We ask Ukrainian diplomats to emphasise the Olenivka case across all international platforms — the UN, OSCE and the Council of Europe, ensuring it is recognized as a defining atrocity that demands international justice.
One hundred and one years ago, Lord Hewart, then Lord Chief Justice of England, delivered a phrase that has become a cornerstone of the modern legal tradition: “Justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.”
Today that is exactly what Ukraine is waiting for. If Olenivka crime remains unpunished, then Geneva remains a myth.
