Nicholas Maher, BTN High Reporter: Right now, a lot of people are talking about war crimes, but what actually is a war crime, how difficult is it to punish a war criminal, and are war crimes ever justified?
That last question is something that a lot of people are arguing at the moment, but it's also the easiest one to answer, so, let's get it out of the way quickly.
Matthew Smith, Fortify Rights: War Crimes are never justifiable, and answering war crimes with more war crimes, is completely unacceptable.
Daniela Gavshon, Human Rights Watch: It doesn't matter who started the war, it doesn't matter who was right or wrong in starting the war, it doesn't matter that one party may have done something horrible, and the other party thinks that they're justified there is no justification.
Okay, so with that sorted, let's break the rest of this down into 4 different parts: Who decides what a war crime is? What are the different types of war crimes? How is evidence collected? And how are war criminals brought to justice?
The concept of "the rules of war" goes back a long time but only recently did most of the world agree on how wars should be conducted. This is known as International Humanitarian Law and it's made up of a patchwork of different treaties and conventions, like the Geneva Conventions which were created after World War Two.
Because International Humanitarian Law is pulling from a number of different sources, not all countries agree on every single law within it. They may recognise one convention, but not another and this is where things start to get a little bit complicated. But pretty much every country recognises the core idea that it's not about stopping the killing of enemy fighters, it's about trying to minimise suffering and protect people that aren't involved in the fighting like civilians, or soldiers that have surrendered.
So, what are the different types of war crimes?
When answering this question human rights groups often point to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, which breaks things down into 3 different categories. You've got War Crimes, Crimes Against Humanity and Genocide — there's a bit of overlap between the 3 things, but they're largely considered to be separate.
When it comes to war crimes, and this may seem obvious, it's when you break the rules of war during an armed conflict, and there are a lot of different crimes that fall under this category. Like, killing civilians, torture and taking hostages, but it can also cover things like denying medical care or attacking historical monuments or forcing people to leave their homes.
And it's not just what you do during a conflict, but also how you conduct yourself when you're actually fighting. That can mean using child soldiers or using civilians as human shields, for example firing missiles from inside a crowded school, because your enemy can't retaliate without putting civilians at risk.
There's also something called collective punishment which is punishing a group of people that may not be involved in the conflict, just because you suspect some of the people living there might be enemy soldiers.
And then there's the use of certain weapons. They may be considered inhumane because they cause unnecessary suffering, or it could be because they're indiscriminate, not targeted, and likely to cause collateral damage and harm civilians. A lot of these crimes may seem pretty straightforward but where things start to get a bit murky is when proportionality comes into it.
Daniela Gavshon: In international humanitarian law, there is an acceptance that there will be some civilian losses, but its anticipated military advantage has to outweigh that.
Basically, if your military goal is considered important enough, and you take steps to minimise collateral damage by giving warnings beforehand or using targeted attacks, civilians can die without it being considered a war crime.
The next category covers Crimes Against Humanity which are a step up from war crimes at least in terms of scale.
Daniela: It has to be committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack and it needs to be directed against any civilian population.
A war crime can be the death of just one person, whereas crimes against humanity are often organised campaigns with the aim of killing or torturing or displacing a large group of civilians over a period of time. Another big difference is that crimes against humanity don't need to take place during a conflict. Think Apartheid in South Africa, or the way that Joseph Stalin used to make his political opponents disappear in the Soviet Union.
The final category is genocide. What separates genocide from Crimes Against Humanity is that the end goal needs to be the complete destruction of an entire group of people. For example, during the holocaust, in which 6 million Jews were killed… the goal of the Nazis was to exterminate the Jewish people completely. Genocide also doesn't technically have to involve killing. It could take the form of trying to starve a group of people, or taking away their children.
Now, when it comes to proving war crimes, Human Rights groups play a big role in the collection of evidence.
Mohamed Duar, Amnesty International: We spend thousands of hours researching, monitoring and documenting human rights abuses, in an effort to put perpetrators to justice.
That can involve interviewing witnesses and survivors, working with local organisations and journalists, and going through huge amounts of photos and videos to try to reconstruct events.
Daniela Gavshon: When you're building a case, you're not relying on one piece of evidence, you're relying on a patchwork of information that can piece it together and also be corroborated.
There are plenty of challenges that come with collecting evidence, like needing to work in active war zones, going through huge amounts of data and then having to verify everything.
Daniela Gavshon: Sometimes there's just too much, there's so much coming out.
So, once all of the evidence is collected, what happens next?
Human Rights Groups create detailed reports and pass them on to international bodies or governments that might follow it up with another investigation, or they might be passed on to groups that will then use that evidence to build a legal case. Some human rights groups like Fortify Rights even go as far as pursuing legal cases themselves.
Actually prosecuting war criminals in court, however, is challenging for a number of reasons. Proving that a war crime has simply taken place can be straightforward, but actually linking it to an individual, especially if they're someone high ranking that wasn't directly involved on the ground, can be very tough, and it's those high ranking officials that are often the ones that end up in court because of how expensive and time consuming these types of cases are. It can also be quite difficult to prove the more extreme acts, like genocide and crimes against humanity because you also need to prove intent.
And even before you get to any of these issues, there's the problem of actually finding a court that will take your case. It's often not possible to go to court in the country where the crime was committed, because the country may still be at war, or it may be the government that has committed the crime.
Daniela Gavshon: You know, often you find that they obviously won't investigate themselves.
There are international tribunals and courts like the International Criminal Court, but its powers are limited because not every country recognises its authority. For example, Russian President Putin has an arrest warrant out for war crimes with the ICC, but, as long as he avoids countries that recognise the ICC, he likely won't have to face trial.
Another option are the domestic courts of countries that have universal jurisdiction. An example of this happened in France in 2014, when it convicted Pascal Simbikangwa for his role in the Rwandan Genocide.
The bottom line is that actual war crime convictions aren't all that common, but that doesn't mean that the work of Human Rights Groups goes to waste. The detailed reports and evidence that human rights groups put together can lead to international pressure, and travel bans on war criminals.
Early reporting on war crimes can also sometimes help to stop a conflict from escalating, and it can lead to support and assistance for victims of war crimes and make sure that the crimes committed against them aren't forgotten.