of aggression is particularly significant because it is the only one of the four which is a leadership crime. that is to say, soldiers on the ground cannot be charged with the crime of aggression. it is a handful of people who participated in the decision to start the war and to continue. 50 decision to start the war and to continue- - - decision to start the war and to i continue. . . very continue. so easy to prove? very straightforward continue. so easy to prove? very straightforward to continue. so easy to prove? very straightforward to prove continue. so easy to prove? very straightforward to prove in - continue. so easy to prove? very straightforward to prove in relationj straightforward to prove in relation to mr putin, mr lavrov. the intelligence, the military staff, the finances, it becomes more difficult to know who was involved and what they did, and that is the purpose of this new centre. great to talk to yon purpose of this new centre. great to talk to you. thank
An international centre opened on Monday in The Hague to support nations already building cases against senior Russian leaders for the crime of aggression resulting from the country's invasion of Ukraine.
the news about her death, and also tweeting tributes to her. human rights groups in ukraine have called her death a war crime. victoria s death comes as efforts to hold russia legally accountable for the war in ukraine took a step forward with the opening of a special tribunal in the hague. the body, which is backed by the european union, the united states and ukraine itself, has been set up specifically to deal with the crime of aggression . human rights lawyer philippe sands came up with the initiative and hejoins us now. i want to start with your thoughts about victoria, because you knew her very well, didn t you? i did about victoria, because you knew her very well, didn t you? very well, didn t you? i did know her, we very well, didn t you? i did know her. we were very well, didn t you? i did know her, we were last very well, didn t you? i did know her, we were last together- very well, didn t you? i did know her, we were last together in - very well, didn t you? i did kno
what has happened. she was in the restaurant, it was a civilian restaurant, it was a civilian restaurant, it was a civilian restaurant, it seems to have been explicitly targeted, in other words it wasn t an accident, it wasn t a missile gone wrong. this looks very much like the kind of war crime, ironically, she was herself investigating, and so it is a deep personal shop, investigating, and so it is a deep personalshop, i have investigating, and so it is a deep personal shop, i have got to say, that someone you know so well and he was really a civilian carrying out her writer s activities should be caught up in this. and that is why the efforts today in the hague are so very important. that the efforts today in the hague are so very important. the efforts today in the hague are so very important. that move on the crime of aggression, so very important. that move on the crime of aggression, how so very important. that move on the crime of aggression, how significant| crime of aggr
manifestly illegal war, it was invented in 1945, it is to be called crimes against peace. it then slipped away, the large powers were not greatly in favour of it because of the concerns they had it would be applied to them, but in the context of russia s were in ukraine, which is clearly illegal, there is now this move to set up a tribunal. this is not a tribunal, this is an effort to gather evidence which a future tribunal. ., , ., to gather evidence which a future tribunal- - - tribunal. how different is all of that from the tribunal. how different is all of that from the moves tribunal. how different is all of that from the moves we - tribunal. how different is all of that from the moves we have i tribunal. how different is all of i that from the moves we have already had from the international criminal court for arrest warrants against vladimir putin? just explain the differentiation, by this is significant given we have already had that? the significant given we have alread