Russian POW viral videos may break international law. What about sharing them?

Videos circulating on social media of captured Russian soldierscalling their families and denouncing theinvasion of Ukraine may be contributing to the violation of international law abouthow prisoners of war should be treated.

"Youmay not publish pictures of prisoners of war where they canbe recognized," said Marco Sassoli,a professor of international law at the University of Geneva and aspecial adviser on international humanitarian law to the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court. "And obviously [in these cases], they can be recognized."

Sassoli said since the videos of soldiers don't appear to humiliate the soldiers, they shouldnot be considered "war crimes," like, for example, the pictures of the abuseof Iraqi soldiers atAbu Ghraibprison in 2004.

Still, he said the pictures of captured Russian soldiers areclearly a violation of international humanitarian law.

The violation is committed by the state where this happens, meaning that Ukraine has the responsibility to protect the prisoners of war and not expose them to what's known as public curiosity.

People sharing such images on the internetor any media outlet that publishes such pictures "shouldn't contribute to violations of international humanitarian law, but rather contribute to its respect," Sassoli said.

Guarding against 'public curiosity'

One such video, which runs about 10 minutes andhas racked up more than 12 million views, shows what appears to be a captured Russian soldierspeaking, of his own volition, about the disinformation he said he was fed about Ukraine.

"I feel shame that we came to this country, to this territory, Ukraine's territory," he said.

Other videos circulating show captured Russian soldierswhoappear to be treated humanely, calling home to their families in Russia.

However, the third Geneva Convention, which applies to prisoners of war,states that"prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity."

According to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), public curiositywould includepublishing pictures of prisoners of war.

"Such disclosure could still be humiliating and jeopardize the safety of prisoners, families and other prisoners themselves once they're released," the ICRC states.

In the wake of the Russia-Ukraine conflict,the organization tweeted that prisoners of war "must be treated with dignity, and not exposed to public curiosity like circulating images on social media."

Caitlin Kelly, a spokesperson for the ICRC, said in an emailthatwhen the language of the Geneva Convention laws were originally written, public curiositycould have related tothe sharing of images of POWs via TV footage or black and white photographs.

"Today, it can mean an individual live streaming from his personal phone to millions of viewers. The fact that Twitter, Facebook and TikTok did not exist when the Geneva Conventions were created in 1949 does not change the original meaningand intent to protect POWs against public curiosity," she said."International humanitarian law does not make any distinction as to the communication channel used."

Gary Solis, a formeradjunct professor at Georgetown University Law Centerin Washington, D.C., who was acontributing writer to the ICRC's Commentaries to the Geneva Convention, believes the ICRCmay go too far in its prohibition of POWpictures.

"TheICRC takes a very broad view of what constituteshumiliation which is prohibited and reasonably so," he said. "But the ICRC, in my view, goes a bit beyond common sense whenthey sayno pictures. And they take such a broad definition of humiliating pictures."

Solis said, "IfI'm captured, I want the whole world to know I'm there ...so people will know that I'm alive.And if I should suddenly turn up dead, they'll know that there's something bad going on."

Designed to be 'overprotective'

John Cerone, a visiting professor of international law at Tufts University in Massachusetts, agreed that taking those videos is a violation of international law. But it's not what would be considered a"paradigm violation" for example, parading prisoners through the streets to be taunted and ridiculed.

WATCH |Russia using 'sledgehammer' tactics, retired generalsays:

Russia using 'sledgehammer' tactics against Ukraine, expert says

3 years ago

Duration 11:34

After early setbacks in the invasion of Ukraine, Russia has now taken a 'sledgehammer' approach to its attack, says retired general Rick Hillier, former commander of the Canadian military. Russia is smashing towns, cities and infrastructure without regard to collateral damage or civilian casualties, Hillier says.

Yet he said that even if the individuals weren'tbeing coerced, the pictures and videos of Russian soldierswould still be a violation of the Geneva Convention laws, which"aredesigned to be overprotective." This means that in almost all cases, it doesn't matter if the captured soldier is making such comments voluntarily, he said.

The Geneva Conventions"recognizethis inherently coercive atmosphere," he said.

The problem, Cerone said, is that there is no way to be "100 per cent sure" that a captured soldier appearing on a videois making comments of their own free will.

Such a situation creates pressures on POWs todo things they would not necessarily do otherwise, he said.

"They can expose themselves to harms ... in the case of Russian soldiersdenouncing the war,obviouslythey're potentially exposing themselves to harm if they are returned to Russia."

However, penalizing the sharing of such imagesshouldn't be a primary concern in this situation, he said.

"We're talking about a ranking of gravityof violations of the law of armed conflict. It's a much longer list with a lot more important stuff higher up on the list," he said.

Technically speaking,he saidUkraine is the principal duty bearer in this context and as a party to the Geneva Convention treaties, ithasan obligation to respect the rules and the treaties and totake steps to make sure others for example, private parties are complying with their obligations bynot circulating these images.

"If it's a state actor, it's a clear breach by Ukraine. If it's a private party,we have to look and seeto what extent is the Ukrainian government discouraging this,taking steps to try and prevent it from happening," Cerone said.

If a private person is publishing such videos, "that in and of itself would not be regarded as a violation of the Geneva Convention."

Yet Cerone agreed it would certainly be violating the spirit of the international law.