IMI lawyer lectures students on ICC's role in helping Ukraine fight Russia's genocidal rhetoric

Ukraine ratifying the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court makes it possible to hold not only war criminals, but also those using genocidal rhetoric to call for the extermination of Ukrainians accountable, said Volodymyr Zelenchuk, a lawyer at the Institute of Mass Information (IMI), to students doing Master's programs at the National Internal Affairs Academy of Ukraine on March 20 in Kyiv.

IMI lawyer Volodymyr Zelenchuk gives a lecture to Master's students at the National Internal Affairs Academy of Ukraine on March 20 in Kyiv. Photo by the National Internal Affairs Academy of Ukraine

On January 1, 2025, Ukraine fully became the 125th state party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, which has jurisdiction over the most grave international crimes, including genocide, crimes of aggression, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. According to the IMI lawyer, this will help hold Russia's top officials and military leadership accountable for crimes against Ukrainians in the future, including calls for extermination. He added that the Rome Statute ratification was the reason for the legislator introducing the necessary amendments to the Criminal Code of Ukraine in terms of crimes against peace and security of humanity.

“When it comes to Russia's genocidal rhetoric, what matters most is that ratifying the Rome Statute gives Ukraine the tools to hold the aggressor state's top political and military leadership accountable for organizing and implementing a media policy of hatred against Ukrainians, resulting in physical extermination,” commented Volodymyr Zelenchuk.

Moreover, Ukraine will be able to nominate its candidate for election to the International Criminal Court and participate in the institution's work.

The IMI lawyer stressed the significance of the Félicien Kabuga case (a Rwandan oligarch and Radio Télévision Libre des Mille Collines (RTLM) founder whom International Criminal Court prosecutors accused of using genocidal rhetoric).

“Genocidal rhetoric can exist not just as straightforward public calls for genocide. Propaganda is resourceful, operates on a large scale and uses various methods to incite the desire to exterminate Ukrainians in Russians. The Kabuga case was a kind of bold step forward in terms of defining genocidal rhetoric back in the day. And now Ukrainians need similar steps by international judicial bodies to fairly punish those who call for the extermination of Ukrainians,” added Volodymyr Zelenchuk.

The Institute of Mass Information lawyer described the features of genocidal rhetoric based on the definition from the indictment against Félicien Kabuga:

• Direct calls for extermination or acts of genocide, such as strikes on civilian infrastructure, kidnapping Ukrainian children, extermination of Ukrainians.
• Using euphemisms, understatements to obscure what is really happening and downplay the scale of the tragedy and the war crimes as such. RTLM staff would replace the word "killing" with "working" or "getting to work" to endorse the extermination of the Tutsi people; likewise, Russia has developed a whole "newspeak" to describe the invasion of Ukraine. Attacks are being justified by claiming that Russia had to defend itself (“if we did not attack them, they would have attacked us” / “we had no other choice”) and that this is a repeat of a certain historical experience.
• Euphemisms dehumanizing the victim group. The Rwandan radio called the Tutsis “cockroaches that must be exterminated”. Russian propagandists call Ukrainians “Nazis, rats, vermin” that the land must be purged of.
• Sacralizing war, exploiting religious narratives and theological concepts. Justifying crimes by arguing that they were done with "good intentions" encouraged by religion and church leaders. Using epithets such as “holy war” or, in Russia’s case, "desatanization of the soulless Ukraine."
• Ignoring calls to genocide in officials' statements in situations where media professionals are supposed to point them out is viewed as condoning them and encouraging more such statements.
• Favourable (or neutral) media coverage of genocidal acts that were already committed. The Rwandan radio glorified violence and attacks against the Tutsi, celebrated the killings, glorified the killers and encouraged them to continue. Similar rhetoric can be tracked in Russian media.
• Lack of balance and impartiality in media content. Incitement to genocide can be overt but also implicit: the context of the speech must be taken into account if it is not a blatant call to kill and exterminate.
• The popularity of a media outlet using genocidal rhetoric should also be taken into account.
• State funding of a media outlet promoting calls to genocide.

Previously, the IMI director, Oksana Romaniuk, suggested using specific terms to refer to Russian propaganda: "aggressive propaganda" or "genocidal rhetoric".

The Institute of Mass Information lawyer Volodymyr Zelenchuk has explained that the evidence of funding genocidal rhetoric will be used against Russia in the future, as soon as the prosecution mechanism is determined (either within the ICC framework or in a special tribunal).

The IMI is gathering evidence which will help prosecute Russian propagandists for endorsing a genocide of Ukrainians. Moreover, the IMI is working to help "cultural genocide" emerge as a concept in international law, as to date it is yet to be approved at the international level.