Battlefield evidence of war crimes: a new model in the Armed Forces of Ukraine
Russia's armed aggression against Ukraine has confronted our state with a challenge that no modern legal system has previously faced on such a scale and with such complexity: how to document serious violations of international humanitarian law (IHL) directly in combat zones and during hostilities in a manner that preserves the evidentiary value of information, complies with international standards, and allows its use in criminal proceedings and future judicial processes. Equally important is ensuring the continuity and reliability of the transfer of such information to criminal justice authorities without diverting military units from their combat missions or creating additional risks for personnel.
It is in this context that the decision of Ukraine's Minister of Defence, Mykhailo Fedorov, to establish the Directorate for the Documentation of Violations of the Law of Armed Conflict Committed during Hostilities within the structure of the Military Law Enforcement Service of the Armed Forces of Ukraine should be viewed. This is an attempt to institutionalise a process that Ukraine has been developing since the beginning of the full-scale invasion in the interests of protecting victims' rights and ensuring the fair and inevitable punishment of those responsible.
The decision is based on the understanding that the modern battlefield is not a legal "grey zone". A significant portion of information regarding violations of IHL is now generated not in investigators' offices but directly along the line of combat engagement. Military personnel are often the first to witness extrajudicial executions of Ukrainian prisoners of war, the use of prohibited weapons, killings of civilians, and other crimes. Primary sources of such information include unmanned systems, intelligence assets, radio intercepts, operational reports, photographs and videos recorded by service members, physical objects, and information obtained from units that are the first to enter de-occupied territories.
In general, the problem of collecting evidence, or information with evidentiary value, in combat zones emerged long before Russia's war against Ukraine. Approaches to handling battlefield information developed alongside the evolution of the law of armed conflict and the gradual recognition that events occurring during war may have not only political or military consequences but also legal ones, and that proper documentation of violations is a prerequisite for holding perpetrators accountable. Historical experience demonstrates, however, that without institutionalising evidence collection processes, gathered materials risk remaining merely historical records rather than becoming admissible evidence in criminal proceedings.
As early as the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, armed forces began to maintain more systematic records of losses, document the consequences of military operations, and accumulate official records. During the First World War, military reports, bombardment maps, and destruction assessments were used to systematise information on combat operations. Following the Second World War, this approach took on new significance. The Nuremberg and Tokyo trials demonstrated that documents, orders, official correspondence, operational journals, and other wartime records could serve as important sources of evidence. These proceedings represented one of the first examples of the systematic use of information collected by military structures to establish responsibility for international crimes, including command responsibility.
A similar approach continued to develop in subsequent decades. In the practice of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), not only military documents but also intercepted communications and other materials obtained through military intelligence during hostilities were used as evidence. For example, in Prosecutor v. Popović, such information helped establish the coordination of operations and the role of individual commanders in the events at Srebrenica. In more recent conflicts, including those in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, a substantial portion of primary information was likewise collected by military units that were the first to gain access to the scene of events.
Ukraine is now going through the same historical process, but under the conditions of the twenty-first century. The key difference is that, in the past, battlefield information was collected primarily after hostilities had ended. Today, however, we are doing this during an ongoing war. Moreover, due to the intensity, scale, and technological complexity of modern warfare, the window for preserving evidence is no longer measured in months or days, but in hours. At the same time, it is important to take into account the specific characteristics of Ukraine's criminal justice system. It was historically designed for peacetime investigations, where crime scenes are accessible and investigators can conduct procedural actions under relatively stable conditions. International crimes, however, have a fundamentally different nature, particularly during a large-scale war. Hundreds of kilometres of active frontline, rapidly changing operational circumstances, the threat of repeated attacks, limited safe access, and the enormous volume of digital material create an entirely different reality. Under such conditions, the traditional model, in which law enforcement authorities arrive only after an incident has occurred or react to unlawful content from open sources, is increasingly proving insufficient.
This gap can, at least in part, be bridged by the military itself. Military personnel are often the first to witness the aftermath of attacks and to obtain access to photographs, videos, coordinates, drone footage, intercepted communications, and reports from combat positions. They understand the operational context and are often able to assess the direction of an attack, the type of weapon used, and the nature of the damage inflicted. However, for such information to become part of future justice processes, it must be properly collected, preserved, and transferred. This requires the development of effective mechanisms for integrating elements of documentation into military processes.
Since the beginning of the full-scale invasion, the Ministry of Defence and the Armed Forces of Ukraine have undertaken various efforts to document violations of the law of armed conflict on the battlefield. Training programmes have been conducted, methodological materials developed, and procedures for transferring information established. This work has continued for more than four years. Yet in modern warfare, information and materials with potential evidentiary value are often lost not only because of restricted access or security risks, but also due to the absence of appropriate procedures and a lack of understanding of their significance directly on the battlefield.
As a result, documentation efforts remain fragmented. Numerous training programmes, exchanges of experience with international partners, the assignment of additional responsibilities to existing legal support structures, and participation in international educational initiatives have not yet produced a comprehensive and sustainable system. This is largely due to the absence of a unified mechanism for documenting evidentiary information and maintaining a proper chain of custody. Consequently, there is a clear need for institutional and practical mechanisms capable of ensuring the proper documentation, preservation, and transfer of such information.
For this reason, the key issue today is the institutionalisation of the process. The establishment of the Directorate for the Documentation of Violations of the Law of Armed Conflict within the Military Law Enforcement Service of the Armed Forces of Ukraine is intended to transform isolated practices into a coherent system. The objective is not to replace criminal investigations or duplicate the functions of prosecutors, but rather to create a professional first-line mechanism for handling information generated directly in combat conditions.
And this is precisely where it becomes important to explain why the Military Law Enforcement Service was chosen for this role.
The Military Law Enforcement Service (MLES) is a specialised law enforcement formation within the Armed Forces of Ukraine that, among other responsibilities, assists – within the limits of its competence – operational-search bodies, pre-trial investigation authorities, and courts. However, in the context of documenting international crimes, its significance extends beyond this formal status.
The MLES possesses an established infrastructure throughout the country that is fully integrated into the military command system. It operates within the military environment, understands the operational situation, interacts directly with military units, and is capable of functioning in combat zones. For these reasons, the MLES is institutionally the most suitable platform for developing a specialised mechanism for documenting violations of the law of armed conflict under battlefield conditions, without expanding its mandate beyond the limits established by law and without assuming the functions of pre-trial investigative bodies.
In practical terms, the MLES should serve as a bridge between military units and the criminal justice system. Its role would include developing unified standards, providing methodological guidance, coordinating interaction with investigators and prosecutors, organising the preservation and transfer of materials, and integrating documentation processes into military information systems. This model is important not only for future criminal proceedings in Ukraine and before international judicial mechanisms. It is equally significant for strategic analysis, diplomacy, countering disinformation, and prevention efforts.
Within the armed forces of NATO member states, work with battlefield information has long been regarded as an integral element of operational law and battlefield forensics. This approach serves not only the purposes of future criminal accountability but also the maintenance of military discipline, the assessment of the lawfulness of the use of force, and strategic communications during armed conflict.
Accordingly, it would be appropriate in the future to consider clarifying the legal status of the MLES with a view to enhancing the effectiveness of its work with evidence of war crimes in combat zones, strengthening efforts to prevent violations of international humanitarian law during military operations, and addressing a range of related issues, including the problem of unauthorised abandonment of military units.
As an example of battlefield evidence collection, Ukraine has already observed elements of a similar model in practice during the international investigation following the downing of flight MH17 in 2014. International investigative teams and the Royal Netherlands Marechaussee were deployed to the crash site and, despite restricted access and significant security risks, were able to locate, preserve, and document materials essential for subsequent criminal investigations.
We worked for a long time to develop effective mechanisms and, ultimately, in pursuit of Ukraine's national interests, proposed our own model. Today, Ukraine has taken an important institutional step: thanks to the understanding and support of Ukraine's Minister of Defence Mykhailo Fedorov, Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine Oleksandr Syrskyi, and Head of the Military Law Enforcement Service Vitalii Levchenko, the Directorate for the Documentation of Violations of the Law of Armed Conflict has been established. This reflects the recognition that the battlefield can no longer remain a space where evidence is lost due to a lack of access, standards, or a responsible mechanism for its preservation. In the conditions of modern high-intensity warfare, the path to justice begins at the very moment information is obtained on the battlefield itself. The law does not stop at the frontline. For this reason, the proper documentation of violations has become not only an element of military practice but also a foundation for ensuring international accountability and advancing the development of international criminal law.