Connect with us

Published

on

An arrest warrant issued against Russian President Vladimir Putin is the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) “first shot” in what could be a substantial indictment against him, Ukraine’s leading lawyer has said.

The intergovernmental group – based at The Hague – has accused Mr Putin of being responsible for the abduction of children from Ukraine.

An arrest warrant was also issued for Maria Alekseyevna Lvova-Belova, Russia‘s commissioner for children, on similar allegations of war crimes.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Vladimir Putin seen for the first time since ICC arrest warrant

Speaking to Sky News, the lead lawyer for the government of Ukraine, Ben Emmerson, said he believes there are two reasons why the arrest warrant against Mr Putin has been issued now.

He said the immediate timing seems to have been the decision by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights at the United Nations in Geneva “to publish a report detailing what the judges believe to be Russian war crimes committed in Ukraine – including the allegations of the forced transfer of children from Ukraine into Russia as a war crime”.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Vladmir Putin visits Crimea

Mr Emmerson said the other dimension to the timing of the arrest warrant is “sometimes when indictments are issued, they are sealed”.

“In other words, they’re not made public. But increasingly, we have seen indictments being issued against leaders during an ongoing conflict that happened in relation to the indictment against General Gaddafi, for example, during the Libyan uprising.”

Putin at risk of ‘being held accountable’

He said that it has to be recognised that issuing an indictment against a sitting head of state in the midst of an armed conflict is to “some extent affecting the conduct or aimed to affect the conduct of those involved”.

“In other words, this is clearly the first shot in what might be eventually a much more substantial indictment against President Putin,” said Mr Emmerson.

He went on to say that he believes the main aim is to make Mr Putin and those around him aware of “the very real risk that exists of being held accountable criminally in due course”.

On whether he thinks the narrow charges were a strategic move by the ICC, he said that Karim Khan, the head prosecutor at the International Criminal Court, has made it clear in the role that he intends to act “not on a political basis, but on the basis of prosecutable cases”.

“In other words, he would choose cases that he was very confident could be won and won with evidential support,” said Mr Emmerson.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

How Russia ‘stole’ Ukrainian kids

Russian leadership makes ‘erratic and belligerent moves’

Mr Emmerson suspects that the reason why this particular charge has been selected in the indictment against Mr Putin is that “proving his responsibility for this and indeed the responsibility of the children’s commissioner is straightforward”.

Asked whether the arrest warrant could offer some kind of hope for Ukrainian families getting their children back, Mr Emmerson said that he is always sceptical because “one thing that seems reasonably clear is that [Russian authorities] are often very unpredictable”.

“But that said, these children have been unlawfully taken and in breach of humanitarian law. They have been effectively kidnapped. It is not the first time Russia has done this – it did this during the 2014 war in Donbas.”

He added that “when the situation of lawlessness is as it is at the moment, and the Russian troops and authorities and indeed the Russian leadership are behaving with increasingly erratic and belligerent moves, everything remains unpredictable”.

‘Putin clearly committed war crimes’

The arrest warrant comes after US President Joe Biden described the ICC’s decision to issue it as “justified”.

The Kremlin said Russia, which does not recognise the ICC, found the questions raised by the court “outrageous and unacceptable”.

Read more:
Putin’s ‘child snatcher’ and other fugitives wanted by International Criminal Court
Vladimir Putin visits Crimea on anniversary of region’s annexation from Ukraine

But Mr Biden, speaking at a news conference on Friday, said: “He’s [Putin] clearly committed war crimes.

“I think it’s justified [the warrant]. But the question is – it’s not recognised internationally by us either. But I think it makes a very strong point.”

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Putin ‘clearly committed war crimes’

Though both Russia and the US were once signatories to the Rome Statute – the treaty that established the ICC – the US has never ratified the agreement, while Russia withdrew after the court’s criticism of its 2014 annexation of Crimea.

Alongside the ICC arrest warrant, the US has separately concluded that Russian forces have committed war crimes in Ukraine.

Click to subscribe to Ukraine War Diaries wherever you get your podcasts

“There is no doubt that Russia is committing war crimes and atrocities [in] Ukraine, and we have been clear that those responsible must be held accountable,” a State Department spokesperson said.

Russia said the ICC’s warrants were “null and void” as it does not recognise the court.

Meanwhile, Ms Lvova-Belova said her arrest warrant validated her work “helping the children of our country”.

The allegations come as Russia prepares to celebrate the ninth anniversary of its 2014 annexation of Crimea, which Mr Putin is expected to mark with a “patriotic” rally at Moscow’s Luzhniki Stadium this weekend.

Continue Reading

World

Russia says it scrambled fighter jet to intercept two US bombers over Baltic Sea

Published

on

By

Russia says it scrambled fighter jet to intercept two US bombers over Baltic Sea

A Russian Su-35 fighter jet was scrambled to intercept two US strategic bombers over the Baltic Sea, Russia’s defence ministry has said.

“Two air targets flying in the direction of the state border of the Russian Federation” were detected by radar on Monday, it said in a statement on the social media platform Telegram.

The aircraft were identified as two US Air Force B-52 strategic bombers “flying in the direction of the Russian Federation’s state border”.

A Su-35 fighter jet took to the air to prevent a border violation, the ministry continued.

“After the foreign military aircraft moved away from the Russian Federation state border, the Russian fighter returned to its base airfield,” it added.

The National Defense Center of the Russian Federation said: “The flight of the Russian fighter was carried out in strict accordance with the international rules for the use of airspace.

“Violations of the state border of the Russian Federation are not allowed.”

The US has not yet responded to the claim.

It comes after the crash of a US military surveillance drone into the Black Sea on 14 March after it was intercepted by Russian jets.

The US Air Force released a video it said showed a Russian jet intercepting the drone and dumping fuel on it over the Black Sea.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Russian jet vs US drone – what happened?

Read more:
I was a fighter pilot – this is how the US drone crash happened

It said two Russian Su-27 jets flew close to the MQ-9 Reaper before one hit its propeller and forced remote operators to crash it into the ocean.

The incident highlighted the increasing risk of direct confrontation between the superpowers as fighting continues in nearby Ukraine.

American officials accused the Russian pilots of flying in a “reckless, environmentally unsound and unprofessional manner”.

Moscow denied the jets behaved dangerously and said they didn’t come into contact with the drone, claiming it crashed due to “sharp manoeuvring”.

Continue Reading

World

Gwyneth Paltrow ski crash court case starts in US after man accused her of seriously injuring him in ‘hit-and-run’

Published

on

By

Gwyneth Paltrow ski crash court case starts in US after man accused her of seriously injuring him in 'hit-and-run'

Gwyneth Paltrow has appeared in court in the US over claims she seriously injured a man in a “hit-and-run” skiing crash in 2016.

She is accused of skiing “out of control” and hitting retired optometrist Terry Sanderson at Deer Valley Resort in Utah.

The lawsuit claimed that Paltrow crashed into him, “knocking him down hard, knocking him out, and causing a brain injury, four broken ribs and other serious injuries”.

Paltrow has alleged that Mr Sanderson is actually the culprit in the collision, and has been overstating his injuries.

The Hollywood star, also the founder and CEO of the wellness company goop, sat in the court wearing a high-necked cream jumper and brown trousers as opening statements in the case began.

Lawrence Buhler, representing Mr Sanderson, told jurors that Paltrow’s behaviour on the mountain in 2016 had been “reckless”.

Mr Sanderson first sued Paltrow in 2019, seeking $3.1m (£2.5m) in damages.

He is now seeking $300,000 (£245,000) after that claim was dropped.

The original 2019 claim stated that after hitting him, “Paltrow got up, turned and skied away, leaving Sanderson stunned, lying in the snow, seriously injured”.

It also said a Deer Valley ski instructor who had been training Paltrow saw Mr Sanderson had been injured but made no attempt to help him.

The instructor did not send for help and later accused Mr Sanderson of having caused the crash in a “false report to protect his client”, the claim said.

Read more from Sky News:
Bruce Willis celebrates 68th birthday following dementia diagnosis
Harry Potter actor dies after collapsing outside King’s Cross

The actress countersued for a symbolic $1, saying it was Mr Sanderson who had caused the crash and delivered a full “body blow”.

Paltrow’s claim said she was shaken by the collision and stopped skiing with her family for the day.

It added that Mr Sanderson apologised to her and said he was fine.

The trial is scheduled to last for eight days.

Continue Reading

World

What happens if Donald Trump is arrested?

Published

on

By

What happens if Donald Trump is arrested?

Donald Trump has claimed he is set to be arrested over an alleged hush money payment to adult film star Stormy Daniels.

If right in his assertion, the former US president could be charged by authorities in New York within days.

But what will happen if he is indicted – and how will both sides present their case?

What Trump has said

In a post on his Truth Social platform on Saturday, Mr Trump said he expected to be arrested on Tuesday and urged his supporters to protest against the authorities if he is detained and indicted.

He published a long statement describing the investigation as a “political witch-hunt trying to take down the leading candidate, by far, in the Republican Party”.

“I did absolutely nothing wrong,” he said, before criticising a “corrupt, depraved and weaponised justice system”.

However, it’s worth noting a spokesperson for Mr Trump said he had not been notified of any pending arrest.

The case – that the Republican made a payment to Ms Daniels towards the end of the 2016 presidential campaign in exchange for her silence over an alleged affair – is one of several related to Mr Trump.

Other ongoing cases include a Georgia election interference probe and two federal investigations into his role in the 6 January insurrection in the US Capitol.

Read more:
What has happened with Donald Trump’s Facebook and Instagram pages?
Mike Pence won’t commit to supporting Trump in 2024

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Trump watches wrestling after arrest claim

What Trump will do

Mr Trump has accused Manhattan’s district attorney Alvin Bragg, a Democrat, of targeting him for political gain, and may try to argue for the dismissal of the charges on those grounds.

He could also challenge whether the statute of limitations – five years in this instance – should have run out.

But in New York, the statute of limitations can be extended if the defendant has been out of state – Trump may argue that serving as US president should not apply.

Politically, how any possible indictment may affect Mr Trump’s chances in the 2024 presidential election is unclear.

Click to subscribe to the Sky News Daily wherever you get your podcasts

He could be the first former US president to face criminal prosecution – right as polls show him leading other potential rivals for the Republican nomination, including controversial Florida governor Ron DeSantis.

This could lead to the unprecedented situation in which Mr Trump would stand trial as he campaigns in 2024.

If elected, he would not have the power to pardon himself of criminal charges.

In any case, Mr Trump’s lawyer Joe Tacopina told CNBC on Friday that he would surrender if charged. If he refused to come voluntarily, prosecutors could seek to have him extradited from Florida, where he currently lives.

In an ironic twist, as governor, Mr DeSantis would typically have to give formal approval for an extradition.

Read more:
Trump arrest ‘would be politically motivated’

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Trump pleads the fifth in 2022 deposition video

What prosecutors will do

The Manhattan District Attorney’s office has spent nearly five years investigating Mr Trump.

It has presented evidence to a New York grand jury that relates to a £114,000 ($130,000) payment to Ms Daniels during the final days of the 2016 presidential campaign.

It is alleged the payment was given in exchange for Ms Daniels’ silence about an affair between her and Mr Trump.

Mr Trump has denied the affair and accused Ms Daniels of extortion.

Any indictment by the district attorney’s office would require Mr Trump to travel to its New York office to surrender.

But Mr Trump’s lawyers will likely arrange a date and time with authorities, as it is a white-collar case. And then his mugshot and fingerprints would be taken before appearing for arraignment in court.

Mr Trump could also be charged with falsifying business records – typically classed as a misdemeanour – after he reimbursed his former attorney Michael Cohen for the payments, falsely recorded as legal services.

To elevate it to a felony, prosecutors would have to show Mr Trump falsified records to cover up a second crime.

In any case, legal experts have estimated that any trial of the former US president would be more than a year away.

That’s why if it happened, it could coincide with the final months of a 2024 election in which Mr Trump seeks a controversial return to the White House.

Continue Reading

Trending