Exclusive news: Vladimir Putin will not be tried in absentia for war crimes during his presidency.

The Netherlands is expected to host a special court in The Hague for the crime of aggression against Ukraine.

The special court that Western countries plan to establish to prosecute the crime of aggression against Ukraine will not try Vladimir Putin in absentia as long as he remains President of the Russian Federation. According to two European officials speaking to Euronews and knowledgeable about the process, the same rule will apply to Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. The prosecution of these high-ranking officials will only be permitted if the defendants are physically present in the courtroom. Given that Russia does not recognize the invasion of Ukraine as a crime and is firmly against cooperation with the West, this seems unlikely. Alternatively, a trial in absentia could take place after Putin leaves office. Within the framework defined by the Strasbourg-based Council of Europe, the conditions in the draft agreement that will provide a legal basis for the establishment of a special court have been outlined. The organization is not part of the European Union but is closely involved in the process. Technical work was completed at a meeting held at the end of March in Strasbourg, referred to as the "Core Group," and three separate draft documents were prepared: a bilateral agreement between Ukraine and the Council of Europe, the statute of the special court, and an agreement detailing the administration of the special court. The signing is planned to take place in Kyiv on May 9, coinciding with Europe Day, but the exact timing will depend on political support. An EU official stated that the limitations on trials in absentia are seen as a "compromise" among countries. After months of negotiations, the provision is now regarded as a "finalized agreement," with almost no chance for changes before presentation. The official noted, "At the end of the day, this is about politics and bargaining." After Ukraine signs the agreement, the text will be put to a vote in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, which brings together representatives from 46 member countries. Russia was expelled from this assembly shortly after it launched the war. Approval of the agreement will require a two-thirds majority, and thanks to the broad support for the initiative among member countries, this majority is almost guaranteed. Some countries exhibiting pro-Russian attitudes, such as Hungary and Serbia, may abstain or vote against, but individual vetoes will not be applied. It is also expected that democratic countries outside the continent, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan, will join the initiative to enhance its legitimacy. The participation of the U.S., which has been moving closer to Russia, seems unlikely. Under Joe Biden's administration, the country supported the pursuit of justice in Ukraine, but the orientation changed after Donald Trump took office. The U.S. also did not attend the Core Group meeting at the end of March. It is unclear how Trump's push for a peace agreement will affect the judicial process. A spokesperson for the Council of Europe stated to Euronews, "More than 38 states and the European Union have provided political support for the establishment of the court." Officials indicated that after the agreements are approved, the court is expected to be established in The Hague, which currently hosts the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Criminal Court (ICC) and has a long-standing tradition in international law. The ICC also issued an arrest warrant for Putin and one of his aides for the illegal transfer of Ukrainian children to Russia.

The idea of establishing an ad-hoc court for the crime of aggression was proposed by Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelensky to ensure accountability for the large-scale invasion initiated by Putin more than three years ago. The term "crime of aggression" is used to refer to a leadership crime targeting individuals responsible for the actions of the attacking state. This crime differs from war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. Here, the term aggression can encompass any activity involving an invasion, occupation, annexation, blockade of ports, or the use of force by one state against another. The ICC defines the crime of aggression as "the planning, preparation, initiation, or execution of an act of aggression by a person in a position to effectively exercise control over or direct the political or military actions of a state, which constitutes a manifest violation of the Charter of the United Nations in terms of its character, gravity, and scale." This makes Putin the most likely defendant in a future case. Although the ICC has established jurisdiction over crimes of aggression under the Kampala Amendments, this only applies to countries that are parties to the Rome Statute and their citizens. Russia, like the U.S. and China, has not signed this agreement. Therefore, Western allies are considering the option of establishing a temporary court with prosecutorial authority over the special case related to Russia's war against Ukraine. High Representative Kaja Kallas stated in early February, "If there were no crime of aggression, there would be no war crime." "Therefore, it is extremely important to have accountability for the crime of aggression. No one from Russia or the Russian administration is immune." Kallas emphasized that it is also very important to send a signal that "unpunished crimes encourage further aggression," insisting that the court should be established "before the war ends." Since the discussions began, the possibility of trials in absentia has gained prominence. Advocates of this model believe that it will be the only viable way to ensure at least a minimum level of justice due to the Kremlin’s refusal to hand over its high-ranking officials. However, others argue that trials in absentia will be seen as an illegitimate sham. An EU official speaking to Euronews said, "I think there is more than just symbolic importance to this court. There is a legal, political significance. I believe that the establishment of this court and its filling the gap regarding the crime of aggression is important." "I personally believe it will not remain a fake institution with no effect in The Hague; rather, it will serve for many years, and history will evaluate this court very positively." On the other hand, the immunity enjoyed by heads of state and ministers is seen as an additional and challenging obstacle to in-person prosecutions. The spokesperson for the Council of Europe stated, "But international law is evolving, and personal immunity is not a blank check for impunity." "The Council of Europe believes that the formula found for the Special Court will be sufficient to ensure accountability and combat impunity." The crime of aggression was last brought to justice during the Nuremberg trials held after World War II, known as "crimes against peace."