Today, justice must be understood not as a privilege of victors, but as a human right. Few people argue this more forcefully than Ukrainian human rights lawyer Oleksandra Matviichuk, who has received the Nobel Peace Prize for the work of her organisation, the Center for Civil Liberties (CCL).  They have documented nearly 100 000 Russian war crimes since the full‑scale invasion began. In our interview, she explains why accountability cannot wait for the end of the war and what justice must mean for Europe today.

What is your estimate of the number of war crimes committed by Russians in Ukraine since the onset of war? How are you collecting data on these crimes?

Since the start of the full-scale invasion, we have united efforts with dozens of organisations from different regions. We have created a national network of documentarians covering the entire country, including the occupied regions. Working together, we have documented more than 97 000 incidents of war crimes. And this is only the tip of the iceberg, because Russia uses war crimes as a method of warfare. And while this war turns people into numbers, we are giving people back their names.

With the evolution of modern warfare, including hybrid attacks and propaganda that fuels or incites aggression, should the definition of what constitutes a war crime or a crime against humanity be revisited? For instance, we are now witnessing Russia's targeted shelling of energy infrastructure, leaving people freezing in their homes during one of Ukraine's harshest winters – can this qualify as a war crime or crime against humanity?

People only begin to understand that there is a war going on when bombs are falling on their heads. But war does not only have a military dimension. There is also an informational one that knows no borders. This dimension aims to destroy trust between people and their connection to reality, thereby undermining the country's ability to resist future invasions. We see how Russians are working in EU countries through propaganda and disinformation, and, unfortunately, they face almost no counteraction.

When it comes to the deliberate destruction of civilian infrastructure in Ukraine, which has left millions of people with limited access or no access at all to heating, electricity and water during sub-zero temperatures, these are crimes against humanity, because it pushes people to the brink of survival. This is how the International Criminal Court classified these actions when it opened a second criminal case based on these facts.

What kind of international tribunal do you envisage? More broadly, how can we preserve the legacy of the Nuremberg Trials in the 21st century, as international law confronts newer forms of harm such as aggression-driven propaganda or the destruction of civilian energy infrastructure?

If we want to prevent aggressive wars in the future, we must hold those who start aggressive wars in the present accountable. It sounds quite logical, but in the entire history of humanity, there has been only one precedent for punishment for the crime of aggression, and that was the Nuremberg Tribunal. All other international tribunals you have heard of, to simplify somewhat, tried people for killing each other, not according to the norms of international law. We need to take aggressive warfare outside the legal framework of what is permissible.

The Nuremberg Tribunal was a significant step towards justice in the last century. But it also established an unwritten rule that justice is the privilege of the victors, because it was a court that punished criminals whose regime had fallen. But we live in a new century, and justice is not a privilege, but a human right. So our task is to make justice independent of how and when the war ends. That is why, frankly speaking, I do not understand the EU countries' delay in joining the special tribunal on aggression. 

Considering the political direction of the USA under President Trump, an international tribunal for Putin and other Russian warlords might seem unlikely. How important is the restoration of justice, not only for the victims of war crimes, but for all Ukrainians?

Yes, justice is clearly not a priority for the Trump administration. And we are unlikely to find any hints of punishment for Russian war crimes in the draft peace agreement. Therefore, our task is to put justice on a separate international track. Let me explain – the International Criminal Court does not care what will be written in the next peace agreement with Russia. The court will not stop the proceedings or revoke the arrest warrants. So our task is to launch several more such accountability mechanisms as soon as possible, in particular, the special tribunal on aggression, which I have already mentioned. And among them, I will mention separately the reparations loan, because justice has a financial side.

In 2022 you won the Nobel Peace Prize. How has this recognition tangibly helped your work?

We live in a world shaped by decisions made by politicians ten or twenty years ago. Back then, human rights defenders were not heard. We argued that a country that systematically violates human rights poses a threat not only to its own citizens, but also to peace and security as a whole. Russia was a prime example. But politicians of the past continued to shake hands with Putin, do business as usual, and build gas pipelines. They made their decisions based solely on economic expediency, geopolitical interests and the electoral prospects of their own party, and they completely ignored human rights and freedoms. But if you want the future here and now, like on a credit card, sooner or later you will still have to pay back the loan with interest. Unfortunately, that is exactly what happened. And the Nobel Peace Prize made the voice of human rights defenders more visible.

Do you feel that Ukraine has been let down by the international community as war crimes continue with impunity and no end in sight?

Let me put it this way: people living in the European Union do not have the luxury of growing tired of this war and not caring about justice, about putting an end to the impunity of Russian actions in Chechnya, Moldova, Georgia, Syria, Libya, and other countries around the world. Because they will be next. Putin did not start this war in order to seize another part of Ukrainian territory. He started this war to occupy the entire country and go further. He sees Ukraine as a bridge to Europe. His logic is historical. He dreams of restoring the Russian empire with its influence on the European continent. So people in European countries live in safety only because Ukrainians have acted as a shield, preventing the Russian army from moving forward.

Oleksandra Matviichuk is a Ukrainian human rights lawyer who has been defending freedom and human dignity in the OSCE region. In 2022, she received the Nobel Peace Prize for the work of her organisation, the Center for Civil Liberties. During the Revolution of Dignity, Oleksandra initiated the Euromaidan SOS initiative to protect persecuted protesters. Since 2014, she has focused her efforts on documenting war crimes in Crimea and Donbas, as well as fighting for the release of civilians illegally detained by Russia. Following Russia's full-scale invasion in 2022, Oleksandra co-founded the 'Tribunal for Putin' initiative, which has documented tens of thousands of war crimes to hold the aggressor accountable. She is a leading global voice advocating the creation of a Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression.