How the International Criminal Court Issued Arrest Warrants for Senior Russian Officials
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Diplomatic Legal Hub
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2026/08/03
By Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Independent Journalist and DLH Coordinator
What legal and procedural steps lead the International Criminal Court from assuming jurisdiction over a situation to issuing an arrest warrant for a senior state official?
The Six Arrest Warrants
Six. That’s the formal number of senior Russian officials with arrest warrants issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC). Many Ukrainians, indeed many foreigners, remain alert to one: President Vladimir Putin. However, the six remain lesser known to wider publics. Vladimir Putin, President of the Russian Federation, and Maria Lvova-Belova, Commissioner for Children’s Rights in the Office of the President of the Russian Federation, were issued an arrest warrant on March 17, 2023.
Sergei Kobylash, Commander of the Long-Range Aviation of the Russian Aerospace Force, and Viktor Sokolov, Commander of the Black Sea Fleet, were issued an arrest warrant on March 5, 2024. Sergei Shoigu, Minister of Defence of the Russian Federation at the relevant time, and Valery Gerasimov, Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces and First Deputy Minister of Defence of the Russian Federation, were issued an arrest warrant on June 24, 2024. How did these occur, though? More procedurally, what makes these come to the fore?
Jurisdiction Under the Rome Statute
The Rome Statute, the foundational treaty for the ICC, must have jurisdiction over a “situation.” Before the legitimate consideration of an arrest warrant for any allegations of misconduct by a senior state actor, including the aforementioned, the alleged conduct must occur within the jurisdiction of the ICC. In addition, these must fall within distinct jurisdictional conditions for separate crimes: crimes against humanity, crime of aggression, genocide, and war crimes.
Documentation and Sources of Evidence
These and other crimes can be reported and submitted from multiple sources. For example, on March 12, 2026, I took part in the presentation by the UN Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine presentation to the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, Switzerland, entitled “Q&A: Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine reports new evidence of war crimes” and was able to ask one question. The efforts for documenting crimes are everywhere from numerous reasonably authoritative sources. These become part of the determination in declaring a reasonable grounds for an arrest warrant or not.
Referring a Situation to the Prosecutor
A situation must reach the Prosecutor through a State Party referral, UN Security Council acting under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, or an investigation initiated by the Prosecutor (proprio motu). Ordinarily, for the first and the last options, the territorial or state nationality of the suspect must be a State Party (signatory to the Rome Statute) or accepted the ICC’s jurisdiction.
The Prosecutor’s Initial Assessment
Following these principles, the Prosecutor determines if an investigation may proceed, or not. The Prosecutor evaluates if a reasonable basis for a crime being committed, if a prospective case would be admissible, or if there are substantial reasons exist in zero investigation in the service of justice. The latter may seem counterintuitive, but it becomes a logical consequence of a comprehensive consideration of the interest of justice and the use of resources for an investigation under its jurisdiction, or not.
Authorization for Proprio Motu Investigations
When proceeding proprio motu, the Prosecutor must obtain authorization from the Pre-Trial Chamber. Thus, the Prosecutor will submit material, permit victim representations, then the judges determine if a reasonable basis to proceed exists. This authorization does not apply when an investigation follows a State Party or Security Council referral.
Complementarity and Admissibility
Now, the ICC exists as a complementary court to the national criminal jurisdictions. Hence, the common commentaries around the General Prosecutor of Ukraine and the ICC interspersed independently and together. If case lacks sufficient gravity then the case is inadmissible. Which is to say, and to add, if a state with jurisdiction is investigation/prosecuting, genuinely investigating and decided not to prosecute, or tried the person for the same conduct, then the case to the ICC becomes inadmissible, because it remains primary, i.e., in some sense, becomes necessary when State Party national courts fail.
State Notification and Jurisdictional Challenges
Following this, certain investigations become initiated. The Prosecutor notifies relevant states. A state may respond by notifying or investigating the relevant conduct. In that case, the Prosecutor must defer to the state. Unless, the Pre-Trial Chamber authorizes ICC investigation. Jurisdictional and admissibility questions can be challenged after an issued warrant. A warrant is neither a conviction nor final word on a case.
Investigative Duties and Evidentiary Standards
During investigation, the Prosecutor must investigate incrimination and exoneration evidence. They can collect evidence, question persons, seek state cooperation, protect confidential information, preserve evidence, and protect witnesses and other persons. Investigations must connect specific evidence to a particular individual to specific crimes in a legally recognized form. General allegations remain insufficient for an individual arrest warrant.
The Arrest-Warrant Application
The Prosecutor must apply to the Pre-Trial Chamber for an arrest warrant with the application including the person’s name and identifying information, the specific ICC crimes allegedly committed, a concise statement of the alleged facts, a summary of the evidence, and an explanation of why arrest is necessary.
The Judicial Safeguard
Therefore, the path from a situation to an arrest warrant is a path from the Prosecutor request to the Pre-Trial Chamber issuance. This separation becomes a central judicial safeguard of legitimacy.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
