Friday saw what was arguably the biggest news in international justice in many years: the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued arrest warrants for Russian President Vladimir Putin and Russia’s children’s rights commissioner, Maria Lvova-Belova.

These were the first arrest warrants in relation to the ICC’s ongoing Ukraine investigation and concerned the abduction of children from Russian-occupied parts of Ukraine. As we’ve pointed out in this newsletter when addressing this issue several times before, the forced transfer of populations from occupied territory is a war crime.

The question now is: what next?

Well, first of all, don’t expect Putin to be in The Hague next week. Russia is not a member of the ICC, and they’re not going to just hand him over, obviously.

And his trial will not begin without him. The ICC doesn’t try people in absentia – the defendant must be present.

So what happens now is a waiting game.

There are two precedents for the ICC handing down arrest warrants for sitting heads of state. The first was Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, but perhaps that example doesn’t tell us much, since he was soon killed in the chaos that engulfed his country.

The second is Sudanese president Omar al-Bashir – now, former president – sought by the ICC on charges of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity committed in Darfur. The ICC issued an arrest warrant for him in 2009, and he’s not in The Hague yet, although his fall from power in 2020 has sparked greater hope.

What al-Bashir has faced over the years, even when he was in power, is restrictions on his travel. The 123 countries who are members the ICC have a legal obligation to arrest those with ICC warrants against them.

Al-Bashir did manage to visit ICC members Nigeria in 2013 and South Africa in 2015, but even then, there was huge pressure for his arrest.

This is likely what Putin, also now an ICC fugitive, will face for the time being: he’s not going to be able to travel like he did before. Until or unless there’s some kind of change of power in Russia, this might be the most we can expect.

Still, the impact of the arrest warrants is significant. It sends two signals. The first is to the victims of crimes committed by Russian forces since 2014, saying the wheels of justice are turning.

The second is to potential perpetrators – many of whom will not enjoy the same feeling of protection as a president – that giving orders to commit or tolerating serious crimes may lead to a prison cell in The Hague.

And the ICC’s investigation will continue, and more arrest warrants on more charges are to be expected…

When it comes to seeking justice for war crimes, “whataboutism” is a weak and often disingenuous response.

Looking at serious abuses in country A and then saying, “but what about the serious abuses in country B?” – “whataboutism” is a type of argument often used to intentionally distract attention from current crimes in one place by bringing up past crimes somewhere else. It helps victims in neither country, of course.

Still, it’s impossible not to notice the coincidental timing of the International Criminal Court’s first arrest warrants related to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine coming almost exactly on the 20th anniversary of another disastrous invasion, that of Iraq in 2003.

Almost half a million people lost their lives in Iraq, millions lost homes, and countless civilians suffered abuses by all parties to the conflict.

There’s extensive evidence of likely war crimes by coalition forces, including the US and UK. They dropped thousands of inherently indiscriminate cluster munitions in populated areas and conducted indiscriminate airstrikes that killed civilians.

US forces also tortured detainees in Abu Ghraib and other detention sites and wrongly killed protesters. UK forces have been responsible for abuses of hundreds of Iraqi detainees, including torture and unlawful killings.

Accuse me of “whataboutism” if you like, but the victims of these grave crimes also deserve justice. Human Rights Watch has long argued that the perpetrators must be held accountable, and we continue to fight for that today.

FIFA, international football’s governing body, has reversed its absurd decision to award Saudi Arabia’s state tourism agency sponsorship of the Women’s World Cup.

It’s good news, but the question remains: how could the decision have happened in the first place?

The Women’s World Cup is the flagship global women’s football event, and Saudi Arabia is infamous for its extreme discrimination against women and girls.

The tournament has also long been a moment to celebrate both women’s rights and the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people, another group whose rights Saudi authorities violate ruthlessly.

FIFA’s decision to award “Visit Saudi” sponsorship of the Women’s World Cup showed shocking disregard for this repression. Top female players rightly condemned it as an “own goal.”

The reversal of the outrageous decision is a victory for human rights, to be sure, but FIFA has a looooong way to go still. The hope is this U-turn represents a realization at FIFA that they need to take human rights seriously across all of their operations.

(compiled by Lisa Maier)

• The road to war: recalling the chase for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq (Reuters) 
• Nicaragua’s crisis needs a bold regional response (HRW in English, La Nación in Spanish) 
• Why the EU double standards on mental help for asylum seekers? (EUobserver) 
• Ex-Australian soldier charged with war crime over Afghan killing (Al Jazeera)