Case Prioritisation in Grave International Crimes | ULAG at JustTalk Context

Nadia Volkova and Daria Svyrydova joined the JustTalk Context podcast to discuss possible approaches and challenges in case prioritisation concerning grave international crimes.

Case prioritisation is essential for the quality investigation and prosecution of grave international crimes committed in the context of Russia's war against Ukraine.

More than 240,000 proceedings have been registered since the full-scale invasion. Covering such a volume of violations simultaneously is impossible — but ultimately, decisions about which crimes are investigated first must be made in a clear and well-reasoned manner.

Sound prioritisation can improve the effectiveness of investigations and prosecutions (resource allocation, evidence building, and more), as well as affect the expectations of survivors and their motivation to participate in justice processes. The Office of the Prosecutor General's strategy for international crimes prosecution for 2026–2028 also identifies prioritisation as one of its key tools.

Nadia Volkova, Director of ULAG, along with Denys Lysenko (War Crimes Department, OPG) and Ivan Dulkai (Main Investigation Department, NPU), and Daria Svyrydova, ULAG Board Member, as a moderator, discussed possible approaches and challenges in setting priorities in cases concerning grave international crimes on the JustTalk Context podcast.

What prioritisation looks like

Nadia emphasised that it is important to keep in mind the capabilities and limitations of different mechanisms, including the ICC and cases under the principle of universal jurisdiction. In the practice of individual countries, the approach often involves a combination of factors: available resources, the evidence base, prospects for the arrest of suspects, public interest — which may also be influenced by political considerations. These criteria are not unique and can be applied to different conflicts, partly because the challenges and context in which crimes are committed are often similar.

"The more applied and concrete experience we build now, the more we help others [in other situations] to refine it. And while it has not yet been developed — for example, regarding how to work with such a volume of crimes as we have — we can draw on the experience that exists and improve it," Nadia said.

Engagement with survivors

It is equally important to communicate case prioritisation meaningfully to survivors themselves. Civil society plays an important role in this process — speaking with survivors and explaining how particular mechanisms work. At the same time, it cannot replace the responsible bodies and the state, those who make the decisions.

"We have the experience of working with the ICC in this area. It can serve as a lesson worth learning from. They basically delegated communication with victims in Ukraine entirely to civil society. And there lies a problem. To the extent that we can communicate and explain the nuances of investigations, of how the ICC works — we do that. Sometimes a person wants their case to be the priority so badly that they refuse to listen to us, because we are an intermediary. What I think matters enormously here is having a direct bridge… with the investigating body, the prosecution. We want people to be proactive, engage with the investigating authorities. To that end maintaining interest and a certain level of engagement with them is very important. This needs to be a matter of state policy — prioritising the interests of survivors, and building and restoring trust through transparent communication."

An interesting point of reference here may be the ongoing discussions around the status and participation of survivors in the Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression against Ukraine, where the answer to this question is yet to be found.

Watch the full episode (in Ukrainian): https://youtu.be/yTkNRwOCccg?si=QUemqwAK_UaeEn0G