[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                     EARLY SIGNS OF WAR CRIMES AND
                     HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES COMMITTED
                   BY THE RUSSIAN MILITARY DURING THE
                     FULL-SCALE INVASION OF UKRAINE

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                  SUBCOMMITTEE ON EUROPE, ENERGY, THE 
                          ENVIRONMENT AND CYBER

                                 OF THE

                      COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                             MARCH 16, 2022

                               __________

                           Serial No. 117-109

                               __________

        Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
        
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]        


       Available:  http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/, http://
                            docs.house.gov, 
                       or http://www.govinfo.gov
                       
                               __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
47-068PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2022                     
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------                         

                     COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York, Chairman
                  
BRAD SHERMAN, California              MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas, Ranking 
ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey                  Member
GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia	      CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey
THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida	      STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
KAREN BASS, California		      SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania
WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts	      DARRELL ISSA, California
DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island	      ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
AMI BERA, California		      LEE ZELDIN, New York
JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas	              ANN WAGNER, Missouri
DINA TITUS, Nevada		      BRIAN MAST, Florida
TED LIEU, California		      BRIAN FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania
SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania	      KEN BUCK, Colorado
DEAN PHILLIPS, Minnesota	      TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee
ILHAN OMAR, Minnesota		      MARK GREEN, Tennessee
COLIN ALLRED, Texas		      ANDY BARR, Kentucky
ANDY LEVIN, Michigan		      GREG STEUBE, Florida
ABIGAIL SPANBERGER, Virginia	      DAN MEUSER, Pennsylvania
CHRISSY HOULAHAN, Pennsylvania	      AUGUST PFLUGER, Texas
TOM MALINOWSKI, New Jersey	      PETER MEIJER, Michigan
ANDY KIM, New Jersey	              NICOLE MALLIOTAKIS, New York
SARA JACOBS, California		      RONNY JACKSON, Texas
KATHY MANNING, North Carolina	      YOUNG KIM, California
JIM COSTA, California		      MARIA ELVIRA SALAZAR, Florida
JUAN VARGAS, California		      JOE WILSON, South Carolina
VICENTE GONZALEZ, Texas		      
BRAD SCHNEIDER, Illinois            
                                  

                              , Staff Director
               Brendan Shields, Republican Staff Director
                                 ------                                

        Subcommittee on Europe, Energy,the Environment and Cyber

              WILLIAM R. KEATING, Massachusetts, Chairman

SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania             BRIAN FITZPATRICK, 
ABIGAIL SPANBERGER, Virginia             Pennsylvania,Ranking Member
ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey		     ANN WAGNER, Missouri
THEODORE DEUTCH, Florida	     ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois,
DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island	     BRIAN MAST, Florida
DINA TITUS, Nevada		     DAN MEUSER, Pennsylvania
DEAN PHILLIPS, Minnesota	     AUGUST PFLUGER, Texas
JIM COSTA, California		     NICOLE MALLIOTAKIS, New York
VICENTE GONZALEZ, Texas	             PETER MEIJER, Michigan
BRAD SCHNEIDER, Illinois

                      Leah Nodvin, Staff Director
                           
                           
                           C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

                               WITNESESS

Grozev, Christo, Chief Executive Officer, Bellingcat.............     9
Arend, Dr. Anthony Clark, Professor of Government and Foreign 
  Service, Chair, Department of Government, Georgetown University    23
Docherty, Bonnie. Senior Researcher, Arms Division, Human Rights 
  Watch..........................................................    33
Garlasco, Marc, Military Advisor, Pax for Peace..................    39

                                APPENDIX

Hearing Notice...................................................    72
Hearing Minutes..................................................    73
Hearing Attendance...............................................    74

 
  EARLY SIGNS OF WAR CRIMES AND HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES COMMITTED BY THE 
       RUSSIAN MILITARY DURING THE FULL-SCALE INVASION OF UKRAINE

                       Wednesday, March 16, 2022

                          House of Representatives,
                Subcommittee on Europe, Energy, the
                             Environment and Cyber,
                      Committee on Foreign Affairs,
                                                    Washington, DC.

    The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:11 a.m., 
via Webex, Hon. William Keating (chairman of the subcommittee) 
presiding.
    Mr. Keating. I call this hearing to order, the House 
Foreign Affairs Subcommittee. Without objection, we'll move 
forward.
    The chair is authorized to declare a recess of the 
committee at any point and all members will have 5 days to 
submit statements, extraneous materials, and questions for the 
record subject to the length and limitation of the rules.
    To insert something into the record, please have your staff 
email the previously mentioned address or contact the full 
committee staff. Please keep your video function on at all 
times even when you're not recognized by the chair. Members are 
responsible for muting and unmuting themselves and please 
remember to mute yourself after you're finished speaking.
    Consistent with House Resolution 965 and the accompanying 
regulations, staff will only mute members and witnesses as 
appropriate when they're not being recognized to eliminate 
background noise.
    I see that we have a quorum present and will now recognize 
myself for an opening statement.
    Pursuant to notice, we're holding a hearing today entitled, 
``Early Signs of War Crimes and Human Rights Abuses Committed 
by Russian Military During the Full-Scale Invasion of 
Ukraine.''
    During the hearing, witnesses will be presenting testimony 
including videos that vividly depict the situation on the 
ground in Ukraine.
    While the media displayed and the testimony of our 
witnesses are vital pieces of evidence, I want to warn the 
audience at the outset of the hearing that many of the topics 
discussed and the videos and photos that may be shown are 
graphic and they're disturbing.
    It's important to note that we have a real record of what's 
going on. So many times when this kind of activity occurs, 
activity that arises to the level of war crimes it is being 
denied by those who are perpetrating it, and that's the case 
with the Russian Federation.
    But it's also important to have a congressional record of 
this in place because decades later these same parties will 
continue to deny that it ever occurred. So now I'll begin with 
my opening remarks.
    Thank you all for participating in today's hearing on this 
timely and critical topic. We, tragically, find ourselves 
witnessing the worst war and humanitarian crisis in Europe 
since World War II.
    Despite being only 21 days into Russia's full-scale 
invasion of Ukraine, reports are already surfacing containing 
alarming implications of war crimes and gross violations of 
human rights by the Russian military.
    Every morning the world is confronted with new, shocking, 
horrible images of civilians in Ukraine that have been killed 
or wounded as a result of Russian military attacks.
    To be specific, recent reports indicate that Russia--the 
Russian forces have killed at least--and these are just the 
official reports--600 Ukrainian civilians, some of them 
children. It was noted by President Zelensky in this morning's 
address suggests that he numbers the number of child casualties 
over a hundred.
    One such girl, Anastasia Stoluk, only 10 years old, died 
from a gunshot wound while at her home in a village 40 miles 
north of Kyiv. Four members of her family of five, Anton, 
Svetlana, Polina, Semyon, were gunned down while trying to flee 
Kyiv. The youngest child was only five, and they are survived 
only by their one daughter, Sofia, who is in critical 
condition.
    Russian ordnances killed three of a family of four, Alise, 
Nikita, Tatiana, in Irpin. They are survived by their father, 
Serhiy.
    At this moment, the city of Mariupol is under siege and 
civilians are dying in what is quickly becoming the largest 
humanitarian tragedy of the war so far. Russian shelling has 
already hit a hospital and a maternity ward in Mariupol, 
leading to the death of a young mother and her newborn child. 
Compounding this tragedy, the lack of access to food, water, 
electricity, and other life-sustaining necessities, all in 
frigid temperatures, threatens the death of more than--many, 
many more innocent civilians.
    Finally, in addition to the human cost of this war, the 
Russian military has destroyed places of worship, sacred 
memorials, civilian infrastructure, children's playgrounds, in 
one of the most reckless set of acts of violence the world has 
ever seen.
    The Russian military has even shelled nuclear power plants, 
potentially exposing Ukrainians and the world at large to 
radiological poisoning.
    We must understand these things in concrete terms. These 
people in these places are real, husbands, wives, fathers, 
mothers, sons, daughters, sisters, and brothers being ripped 
from life early by a marauding army, craven leader.
    But we know all of this because, today, we have 
sophisticated and accessible technological devices that can 
show the world these atrocities. Potential Russian war crimes 
just can't be covered up the way they have in the past. They 
can't just be explained away or used for propaganda's sake. The 
images are real, their locations are real, and the perpetrators 
and their victims are real.
    Russia can no longer deny the atrocities they've committed 
in Ukraine.
    However, let me be clear. Vladimir Putin has not only 
invaded a sovereign democracy but his actions threaten the 
framework of our modern international order laid out after 
World War II to prevent other catastrophic events from ever 
occurring.
    So far, the U.S., along with the vast majority of countries 
in the international community, recognize the severe 
implications to not only peace and stability in Europe but to 
the rest of the world.
    Luckily, the institutions that many Americans and our 
allies worked so hard to create after World War II have worked, 
from the U.N. condemning Russians' actions to NATO providing 
tangible deterrence, to restrictions placed on Russian 
oligarchs by international financial institutions, to reporting 
by international media outlets.
    Our collective consciousness has awoken to this crisis and 
risen to the occasion to meet it in full force, now confronted 
with the injustices committed in Ukraine, NATO and EU members 
as well.
    Allies and partners around the world all working together. 
Asian areas, Japan, Singapore, Taiwan, allies in Australia are 
more unified than ever in condemning Vladimir Putin's war of 
choice.
    Our support for Ukraine is unprecedented, comprehensive, 
and resolute. We can't just say never again. We have to ensure 
never again. For those reasons and as chair of this 
subcommittee, I've made it my top priority of mine to shine a 
light on this incredibly, brutally taken out Russian military, 
their indiscriminate killing of Ukrainian civilians, the use of 
devastating weapons in heavily populated areas, and potentially 
targeting of civilians on purpose.
    All serve as a reminder to us that even in war certain 
rules must be followed. Ukrainians and Russians alike must know 
more than anyone that the rest of the world is watching and 
will not let such crimes go unpunished.
    In due time, I also hope that the Russian people see these 
photos and videos as well. They should know what their 
government is doing and the horrific plight of everyday 
Ukrainians.
    To accomplish this goal, the ranking member and I have 
brought together a distinguished group of witnesses to testify 
on war crimes and human rights abuses, their role in 
international law, the methods used to collect evidence and 
build cases for trial, as well as the types of weapons and 
tactics used by the Russian military.
    This testimony is essential to lay the foundation for 
future avenues of justice.
    To our expert witnesses, I thank you very much for being 
here today. I look forward to hearing your perspective on how 
the U.S., the EU, and various nongovernmental organizations can 
work in promoting awareness, gather evidence of possible war 
crimes in Ukraine, and holding any war crime criminals 
accountable for their actions.
    I want to thank the ranking member for joining with me and 
helping move this hearing forward.
    I'll now recognize Mr. Fitzpatrick for his opening 
statement.
    Mr. Fitzpatrick. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to 
thank Chairman Keating for his strong passionate statements and 
strong support for Ukraine.
    It's an honor to be working hand in glove with him and 
everybody on our subcommittee from both parties to make sure 
that we do everything we can to protect Ukrainians and hold 
Vladimir Putin fully accountable for everything, all the 
heinous war crimes and murderous actions he's engaging in right 
now.
    We have entered into the third week of Russia's invasion on 
the innocent country and the people of Ukraine. There have been 
about 600 civilian deaths, between 2,000 and 4,000 Ukrainian 
armed forces that have been killed, thousands of injured in 
Ukraine as well as Americans that have been killed.
    We know that the Russian military is, largely, reliant on 
mass artillery as well as unguided bombs and missiles. In a 
previous conflicts that Russia has engaged in allegations were 
raised of potential war crimes by Russian units specifically 
targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure. A few 
examples, including the Chechen wars of--from 1994 to 1996 and 
in 1999 to 2009 against the people of Chechnya.
    During both of those conflicts, Russian forces were accused 
of potential human rights abuses, including the killing of 
civilians, indiscriminate bombing and artillery attacks, and 
targeting civilian infrastructure. And the same horrendous 
events are now taking place, once again, in Ukraine.
    Russia's intervention in Syria is another example of when 
Russia has been accused of war crimes. In March 2020, the 
United Nations Human Rights Council accused Russia of 
complicity in war crimes for specifically targeting civilian 
areas and infrastructure in Syria. It is no secret what Russia 
is capable of and how far they will go to achieve total control 
of the old Soviet bloc.
    On February 24th, Russian President Vladimir Putin 
announced an unprovoked, unnecessary, quote/unquote, ``special 
military operation'' to supposedly, in his words, demilitarize 
and de-Nazify Ukraine.
    Since then, we have seen Russian forces attack and fire 
upon a nuclear plant, bomb civilian infrastructure buildings 
such as residential homes and apartments, destroy an operating 
maternity ward with infants inside, and target a pediatric 
cancer hospital.
    These are only a few of the horrific acts that the Putin 
regime has carried out and it is clear that they will stop and 
nothing, not even killing innocent children with cancer, to 
continue their rampage on Ukraine, and it is unfathomable that 
we, as a country, are going to sit by and watch these events 
unfold while the people of Ukraine are living in bomb shelters 
and falling asleep to the sound of gunshots, military 
airplanes, and explosions each and every day.
    Some examples of committing a war crime include 
intentionally killing civilians, torture, taking hostages, 
unnecessarily destroying civilian property, and so on.
    It is clear that Russia has demonstrated early signs of war 
crimes and human rights abuses in Ukraine, and this is not the 
first time Russia has been accused of committing war crimes and 
human rights abuses and it's clear it won't be the last.
    How many times will Russia have to be accused of committing 
war crimes for them to be stopped? The U.S. needs to stand up 
to these thuggish dictators like Vladimir Putin and take action 
to prevent Putin from wreaking even more havoc on innocent 
countries and innocent people.
    I look forward to hearing from our panelists to further 
this discussion. As Chairman Keating said, this is important, 
an important first step to build a record that we can use to 
forward a charging document and ultimate prosecution of 
Vladimir Putin for committing war crimes.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Keating. Thank you, Ranking Member, Mr. Fitzpatrick, 
and thank you for all you're doing in trying to stand up for 
the people of Ukraine within the committee and personally.
    As I introduce today's witnesses, I want to ask unanimous 
consent that their--all of their written statements be 
submitted for the record. I also, with the agreement of the 
ranking member, would like to mention, too, that because of the 
films that are here we're extending the time for these 
witnesses to speak and give their oral testimony as well.
    Again, I've been asked to warn members that these videos 
and the topics discussed are graphic in nature as we move 
forward. But they're, again, so important that we ensure an 
accurate document of what's actually occurring in Ukraine 
perpetrated by the Russian Federation.
    So I'll now introduce our witnesses. Thank you all for 
being here.
    Mr. Christo Grozev is the Chief Executive Officer of 
Bellingcat. Grozev focuses on security threats, Russian 
intelligence operations and Weaponization of information.
    He and his team earned the European prize for investigative 
journalism for exposing the identity of the suspects behind the 
2018 Sergei Skripal poisoning in the United Kingdom.
    I now recognize Mr. Grozev.

     STATEMENT OF CHRISTO GROZEV, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, 
                           BELLINGCAT

    Mr. Grozev. Thank you very much for inviting us, Chairman 
Keating.
    First, a few words on what Bellingcat is doing in this 
conflict and how it all started, from our perspective. 
Bellingcat was established in 2014 as a global collaborative 
platform for investigations based on open source data.
    Over the last 7 years, our researchers have scoured through 
tens of thousands of images and videos from war-torn countries 
including Syria, Ukraine in 2014-2015, and Yemen, and our main 
focus has been to verify through methods such as geolocation, 
chronolocation, and contextual research visual evidence of the 
use of weapons, whether conventional or chemical, against 
civilian targets.
    Evidence gathered and verified by Bellingcat has already 
served as the basis of prosecutorial investigations in the case 
of, for example, the shooting down of Malaysian airliner MH-17 
in 2014 by a Russian military brigade and in the killing of a 
Georgian asylum seeker in Berlin in 2019 by the Russian 
government. Using the war in Yemen as a test case, we developed 
a robust methodology of verification, preservation of chain of 
custody, investigation, and archiving of incidents of harm 
caused to civilians during wartime.
    These methods were, in fact, tested thoroughly and deemed 
acceptable for use in courts by an English common law judge. 
With Russia's invasion of Ukraine in February this year, 
Bellingcat directed all of our resources to gathering, 
verifying, and preserving evidence of harm to civilians in this 
new conflict.
    We engaged the same verification methods previously tested 
in the Yemen case. These include a robust system of evidence 
gathering by a dedicated team that is firewalled from 
Bellingcat's editorial team, this to ensure the integrity of 
the evidence and to avoid any potential bias in data gathering.
    Each reported incident is logged, validated, described, and 
archived, with attribution of weaponry used and origin of 
attack being added to each case whenever this is possible to 
determine through the use of open source methods.
    The purpose of this evidence gathering is to provide a 
dataset of prevalidated incidents of civilian harm to judicial 
bodies that will investigate cases of war crimes, such as the 
International--the ICC, the prosecutors of individual countries 
that invoke their universal jurisdiction on war crimes, such as 
Germany and Spain, that have already taken on this 
responsibility and likely the Netherlands, and maybe other 
countries.
    The goal of this project is not to replace the actual 
investigative bodies of these countries. It is to speed up the 
process of verification and, in turn, to significantly shorten 
the time to serving justice to the victims and their families. 
In just 19 days of war, Bellingcat has recorded more than 350 
incidents that have caused harm to civilians, most of this 
deadly harm.
    Of these, just over 10 percent, between 35 and 40, appeared 
to be egregious cases of violations of the law of warfare with 
unwarranted targeting of residential buildings, and in some 
cases, even hospitals and maternity wards, and with 
indiscriminate use of inhumane munitions such as cluster bombs 
in or near residential areas.
    While Bellingcat has not yet completed the process of 
attribution of origin of attack, most of these attacks appear 
plausibly attributable to the Russian side of the conflict and, 
in some cases, the Russian government has even unapologetically 
taken credit for the attacks on civilians.
    Under the time constraint, this testimonial will focus on 
just five examples from the most egregious cases of civilian 
harm that had been verified and archived by us. First would be 
the intentional missile strike on Mariupol's maternity hospital 
on the 9th of March 2022.
    Many of you have seen the haunting images of the aftermath 
of the strike, which left two dead and at least ten wondered. 
Surreally, further casualties were prevented because the 
Russian government had indicated the previous day that its 
forces planned to strike a maternity hospital in Mariupol under 
the unsubstantiated claim that it served as a recruiting 
station for Ukrainian volunteer battalions.
    We will try to share this video, even though many of you 
have seen it already, or video from the aftermath of this 
shelling.
    [Video shown.]
    Mr. Grozev. This is video of the aftermath of the shelling 
of the maternity hospital. I would like to express--well, to 
add to this the fact that in the days after this was recorded 
and broadcast worldwide the Russian government actually 
launched a disinformation campaign where they claimed that 
these videos had been faked and represented crisis actors. In 
fact, pregnant women were played by actresses, they said.
    We have looked into these allegations as we do with every 
such claim and we found them to be completely unsubstantiated 
and these videos have been verified by us and by many others.
    Second, I would pinpoint the air strike on a Chernihiv 
residential area, actually, several residential areas, on the 
3d of March this year. At least eight dumb bombs, unguided 
bombs, causing indiscriminate and uncontrollable death were 
dropped into the middle of a residential area, killing about 50 
people and we're still counting.
    Let's have a quick look at the video in this egregious case 
as well.
    [Video shown.]
    Mr. Grozev. This is an example of just one of the A bombs 
that were launched into Chernihiv.
    Third, the strike on the Kiyv TV tower on the 1st of March 
this year, which also killed three innocent civilians and hit a 
nearby Holocaust Memorial. We'll have a quick look at the video 
that has been verified by us in this case as well.
    [Video shown.]
    Mr. Grozev. Needless to say, a TV tower is located at the 
center of the city and there's no plausible way that it could 
be targeted without consideration of civilian damage, and we 
see that in this case as well.
    Moving on to the fourth case I would like to bring to your 
attention is the air strikes in Kharkiv on the 1st of March 
2022, which may have been targeting an industrial area but hit 
a residential block of flats, killing dozens of civilians.
    Let's have a look at video from the aftermath of that as 
well.
    [Video shown.]
    Mr. Grozev. And, last, we can also pinpoint the widespread 
use of cluster munitions, especially in the city of Kharkiv, 
which have repeatedly impacted civilian areas, countless 
civilian casualties, all foreseeable when using cluster 
munitions near residential areas.
    And the last video we will look at is from Kharkiv.
    [Video shown.]
    Mr. Grozev. These are the telltale horrible signs of 
cluster munitions, in this case, exploding near a playground 
near a kindergarten.
    These are only five of the nearly 40 cases of 
indiscriminate or intentional targeting of residential areas 
that has caused multiple civilian casualties. We are going to 
actually attach a full list of incidents and make it available 
to--as an appendix to all members of the committee.
    We believe many of these will be investigated as possible 
war crimes. However, I'd like to mention that not all potential 
war crimes are easily captured on camera and uploadable on 
social media by firsthand witnesses.
    We have also received private videos and photographs as 
well as direct witness reports, parts of which we have been 
able to also verify, that may likely constitute war crimes. 
These include, for example, photographs of bodies of civilians 
with clearly visible signs of torture and mutilation, which 
were geolocated and time stamped to areas and times where 
troops from the so-called Spetsnaz units of Chechnya's leader 
Ramzan Kadyrov had been located just hours earlier.
    These photographs were made available directly to 
Bellingcat by witnesses who could not upload them to social 
media for fear of being tracked down and reprisals against 
them.
    In other cases, witnesses interviewed by us told us of 
intentional killings by a member of these Chechen units of 
civilians on--of murders of civilians in villages, who had seen 
the route of the armed units likely in order to eliminate 
witnesses who might report later on the movements to Ukrainian 
armed forces.
    We will make such evidence also available to international 
investigators and as an appendix to this report. We also 
submitting some photographs from the mutilated bodies, which I 
would not like to make public in this video stream but are 
available to members of the committee.
    The Russian invasion in Ukraine has only lasted 19 days, 
but has already caused thousands of civilian casualties through 
Russia's indiscriminate use of old-fashioned but powerful dumb 
bombs, the use of cluster munitions to target residential 
areas, the shelling of towns with imprecise multi-rocket launch 
systems, and the targeted killings of civilians by at least 
certain parts of the invading forces.
    Investigating these potential war crimes will take years. 
However, an early awareness of normative of civilian casualties 
is the only way to engage the international community to 
pressure Russia's authorities into stopping this cruel war.
    Bellingcat will continue to validate and make public each 
reported instance of harm to civilians, and to this goal today 
we're launching a special civilian harm tracking website at 
Ukraine.bellingcat.com, where everybody can trace the civilian 
harm in real time.
    Thank you very much, Chairman, and I'm available for any 
questions from the members of the committee.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Grozev follows:]

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Keating. Thank you very much.
    And if members of the committee want to view those 
photographs, please contact our staff and we'll arrange for 
that viewing to occur.
    Dr. Anthony Clark Arend is a professor of government and 
foreign service at Georgetown University and chair of the 
Department of Government. His research focuses on international 
law, national security law, and human rights. He founded 
Georgetown's Institute for International Law and Politics.
    We welcome you this morning, and please begin with your 
testimony.

    STATEMENT OF ANTHONY CLARK AREND, , PH.D., PROFESSOR OF 
     GOVERNMENT AND FOREIGN SERVICE, CHAIR, DEPARTMENT OF 
               GOVERNMENT, GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY

    Dr. Arend. Chair Keating, Ranking Member Fitzpatrick, 
members of the subcommittee, I want to, first, commend the 
chair and the ranking member for their important leadership on 
this critical issue.
    As the chair said, we are at a very grave time in our 
history. The very structure of the international system is 
being challenged. The Russian invasion of Ukraine is a clear 
violation of international law, without question.
    Article 2 paragraph four of the United Nations Charter 
explicitly prohibits the use of force against the territorial 
integrity or political independence of any State, and that is 
exactly what is happening now.
    But, as Mr. Grozev demonstrated, there is also rather clear 
evidence that war crimes are also being committed by Russia and 
their affiliates. The purpose of my testimony this morning is, 
really, to ask two questions.
    First of all, what do we mean by war crimes and, second, 
how can war crimes be enforced? In other words, how can those 
who perpetrate war crimes be brought to justice?
    So the first question, what are war crimes, this is 
something that the chair and the ranking member both alluded 
to. In short, war crimes are violations of the laws of war, 
also known as international humanitarian law or the law of 
armed conflict.
    That law is embodied in a series of treaties, including the 
1907 Hague Convention on the laws of land warfare, and the very 
famous Geneva Conventions of 1949, and they include the kinds 
of violations that, frankly, we just saw, the deliberate 
targeting of civilians, the deliberate targeting of unoccupied 
and unarmed towns and villages, the deliberate targeting of 
hospitals and medical facilities, the use of torture, the 
mutilation of bodies, the use of weapons like cluster 
munitions, which cause unnecessary suffering, the mistreatment 
of prisoners of war, and we could go on.
    Those are what we mean by war crimes, and the great work of 
Bellingcat and others is demonstrating, is recording, is 
memorializing these kinds of actions.
    Now, the question before the world community and, 
certainly, before the Congress is how do we enforce these laws? 
How do we prevent war crimes from occurring, in part, by 
punishing those individuals who have perpetrated these horrific 
actions?
    In general, there are two broad mechanisms for enforcing 
war crimes. One, international tribunals and, two, domestic 
enforcement, and let me say a little bit about each of those.
    International tribunals--we really started taking war 
crimes seriously after the horrors of the Holocaust. The 
Nuremberg Trials demonstrated how individuals could be held 
accountable. Well, the Nuremberg Trial was an international 
tribunal. It was an ad hoc tribunal established for that 
purpose.
    We have seen similar ad hoc tribunals: the International 
Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia, the International Criminal 
Tribunal for Rwanda, the Special Court for Sierra Leone. It is 
possible that, in this case, a special ad hoc tribunal could be 
convened to try Russia and Russia's affiliates and anyone else 
for committing war crimes.
    The challenge here is that unless at some point Russia 
consented to the jurisdiction of that ad hoc tribunal, its 
legitimacy would be called into question and it would be 
unlikely that individuals would be brought before that 
tribunal.
    However, there is hope. In a post-Putin world, meaning 
Putin is no longer in power, it is possible that Russia, to 
regain legitimacy, may actually consent to such a tribunal. For 
example, after Slobodan Milosevic was in power, Serbia actually 
sent him to The Hague to be tried by the International Criminal 
Tribunal for Yugoslavia.
    So there is hope there. But there is also, as Mr. Grozev 
mentioned, a permanent international tribunal, the 
International Criminal Court. Now, while neither Russia nor 
Ukraine are parties to the Rome Statute, which established the 
International Criminal Court, because Ukraine has previously 
consented to the jurisdiction of the court, investigations are 
beginning. It would not surprise me if at some point we see 
individuals indicted by the ICC.
    If those individuals are captured by Ukraine or someplace 
out of Russia, they could be sent to The Hague if they are 
indicted. And, again, in a post-Putin regime, Russia itself may 
even be willing to send high-level officials who were engaged 
in these actions to The Hague.
    So those are sort of our range of international tribunals. 
But there's one other mechanism I want to mention relating to 
enforcement and that is domestic enforcement, and Mr. Grozev 
alluded to this.
    Under international law, there is a concept of a universal 
crime. War crimes are a universal crime, and as a universal 
crime, any State has enforcement jurisdiction over individuals 
that commit that crime.
    Mr. Grozev mentioned Germany and Spain and, perhaps, the 
Netherlands may, in accordance with their domestic law, choose 
to prosecute those individuals. That is an option.
    In the United States, the applicable statute is the War 
Crimes Act, and while this requires that the perpetrator be an 
American national or the victim be an American national, we 
have already seen evidence that there may be targeting of 
individual Americans, including journalists, so that is a 
possibility.
    Finally, I want to mention civil suits that could possibly 
be brought against people who have perpetrated war crimes. This 
might not be something we would immediately think of.
    But the Alien Tort Statute provides this option. The Alien 
Tort Statute was incorporated by Congress in the Judiciary Act 
of 1789 and it allows aliens, meaning non-U.S. nationals, to 
bring suit in U.S. courts for a tort in violation of the law of 
nations or a treaty to which the United States is a party.
    That means a non-U.S. national in the United States could 
bring a civil suit against an individual who had perpetrated a 
war crime. If there are assets of that individual in the United 
States, a judgment could attach those assets as an effective 
way of punishing this war criminal.
    Now, it is true that the Supreme Court in the Kiobel case 
said that there is a presumption against the extraterritorial 
application of the Alien Tort Statute. I think the case of war 
crimes might be an exception.
    But I think, even more significantly, Congress could make 
an exception. Congress could explicitly say that the Alien Tort 
Statute would apply to war crimes committed in the Russia-
Ukraine war.
    If Congress were to adopt a statute to that effect, that 
would give U.S. courts jurisdiction to be able to hear cases 
where individuals could bring claims against Russian nationals 
and others who had committed war crimes.
    So these, I think, are some of our options for enforcement. 
Needless to say, I would be happy to go into more detail during 
the question and answer period.
    I want to thank the chair and the ranking member and the 
members of the subcommittee.
    [The prepared statement of Dr. Arend follows:]

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Keating. Thank you, Doctor. Thank you for your 
explanations.
    Ms. Bonnie Docherty is a senior researcher in the arms 
division of Human Rights Watch. She's also the associate 
director of armed conflict and civilian protection as well as a 
lecturer on law at the International Human Rights Clinic at 
Harvard Law School.
    She focuses arms and the protection of civilians during war 
as primary areas of her concern. Docherty played a leading role 
in the negotiations for the Convention on Cluster Munitions and 
advocated against the use of these weapons by analyzing their 
impact in Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, and Georgia.
    You are now recognized for your testimony. Thank you for 
being here.

STATEMENT OF BONNIE DOCHERTY, SENIOR RESEARCHER, ARMS DIVISION, 
                       HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH

    Ms. Docherty. Chair Keating, Ranking Member Fitzpatrick, 
and members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to 
participate in this hearing.
    I would like to highlight two types of weapons that Russian 
forces are using widely and with devastating effects on 
civilians in Ukraine, cluster munitions and explosive weapons 
with wide area effects.
    The use of these types of weapons has a long history. I, 
personally, have documented cluster munition use in 
Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel, Lebanon, and Georgia, and have 
investigated the effects of explosive weapons in populated 
areas on health care in eastern Ukraine in 2016.
    My Human Rights Watch colleagues have done extensive 
research on these weapons in numerous other conflicts. Russia 
has been using cluster munitions in Ukraine since the beginning 
of its full-scale invasion.
    On February 24th, Russian forces launched a cluster 
munition ballistic missile that struck near a hospital in the 
Donetsk region, killing four civilians and injuring 10. Four 
days later, Russian rockets with cluster munition warheads 
rained submunitions down on three neighborhoods in the city of 
Kharkiv, and you saw the video of that earlier.
    One resident told Human Rights Watch, ``The bangs lasted 
for about 2 minutes. When I went out, I saw three covered 
bodies lying in the street, and one wounded person being taken 
away by emergency services.''
    Cluster munitions are large weapons containing dozens or 
hundreds of smaller submunitions. They can endanger civilians 
at the time of attack, especially when used in towns or cities, 
because they spread the submunitions over the size of a 
football field.
    In addition, many of the submunitions failed to explode and 
lie around like land mines for months, years, or even decades. 
Russia is not a party to the Convention on Cluster Munitions, 
the international treaty that bans these weapons, but Russia's 
cluster munition attacks have been unlawful because they 
involve inherently indiscriminate weapons that cannot 
distinguish between combatants and civilians, and individuals 
responsible for ordering or carrying out cluster munition 
attacks against civilians or civilian objects with criminal 
intent_that is either intentionally or recklessly_would be 
committing war crimes.
    Russian forces' use of explosive weapons with wide area 
effects in populated areas represents an even greater peril for 
the civilians of Ukraine. Explosive weapons include a wide 
range of munitions such as rockets, missiles, or aerial bombs.
    The harm they cause is magnified when they have wide area 
effects. That is, they have a large blast or fragmentation 
radius, they are inaccurate, or they deliver multiple munitions 
at the same time, such as cluster munitions.
    Russian forces' use of these weapons in Ukraine's cities 
and towns has been catastrophic, and the U.N. Office of the 
High Commissioner of Human Rights has highlighted it as the 
major cause of the more than 1,800 civilian casualties recorded 
as of yesterday.
    On March 3d, Russian aircraft dropped multiple unguided 
munitions in the neighborhood of Chernihiv, a city in 
northeastern Ukraine and, again, you saw the video of that 
earlier.
    The attack killed at least 47 people, according to local 
officials, and wounded many others. It also significantly 
damaged an apartment building, a hospital, a pharmacy, and 
other civilian structures.
    A doctor at the hospital described the blast as a windstorm 
that filled the basement with dust. He treated children with 
fragment wounds, including an 11-year-old boy with metal shards 
in his brain and damage to his skull.
    In addition to causing immediate civilian casualties and 
structural damage, the use of explosive weapons withwide area 
effects in populated areas produces long-term reverberating 
effects.
    Destruction of infrastructure, such as power plants or 
water treatment facilities, interferes with basic services 
including health care and education, and, in turn, infringes on 
human rights. Large numbers of civilians become displaced and 
the consequences of Russian forces' bombing and shelling of 
Ukraine's population centers will endure long after active 
hostilities end.
    Given the well-documented pattern of direct and 
reverberating effects, the use of explosive weapons with wide 
area effects in populated areas heightens concerns that attacks 
are indiscriminate and disproportionate and, thus, unlawful. 
Individuals carrying out such attacks with criminal intent are 
responsible for war crimes.
    We were glad to hear that the United States will support 
investigations by the International Criminal Court into alleged 
war crimes in Ukraine. In light of the massive civilian harm 
caused by Russia's use of these weapons and the possibility 
that Ukraine could also use them, we urge the United States to 
take two additional steps.
    First, the U.S. should condemn the use of cluster munitions 
and the use of explosive weapons with wide area effects in 
populated areas. At least seven NATO countries and the NATO 
Secretary General have already spoken out against Russia's use 
of cluster munitions, and such international pressure can make 
a difference.
    Second, the U.S. should strengthen its own policies on both 
types of weapons. The U.S. should join the Convention on 
Cluster Munitions, which has 110 States parties including most 
NATO member States.
    At a minimum, the U.S. should reinState a policy signed in 
2008 by then Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, which required 
the U.S. to cease using all cluster munitions with a more than 
1 percent failure rate by 2018. The Trump administration 
reversed that policy in 2017.
    In addition, at the negotiations of a new international 
political declaration on explosive weapons in early April, the 
U.S. should agree to a commitment to avoid the use of explosive 
weapons with wide area effects in populated areas.
    Thank you again for allowing me to testify and I'm happy to 
answer any questions you may have.
    Thank you very much.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Docherty follows:]

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Keating. Thank you very much.
    Finally, our last witness, Marc Garlasco, is a military 
advisor for PAX for Peace. He's a former Defense Intelligence 
Agency analyst who left the intelligence community to work on 
human rights issues and civilian casualties mitigation. 
Garlasco has worked for Human Rights Watch, the United Nations, 
and the Center for Naval Analysis.
    We welcome your presence here today and now recognize you 
for your testimony.

  STATEMENT OF MARC GARLASCO, MILITARY ADVISOR, PAX FOR PEACE

    Mr. Garlasco. Chairman Keating, Ranking Member Fitzpatrick, 
distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for the 
opportunity to appear before you and speak about Russian war 
crimes in Ukraine.
    To understand what is happening in Ukraine, we need to only 
look at Russian actions in Syria. I am here today to share with 
you my experience investigating Russian war crimes in Syria and 
their implications on the civilian population of Ukraine.
    As the military advisor on the U.N. Syria Commission of 
Inquiry, I examine the tactics, weapons, and conduct of all 
parties to the conflict. We are witnessing likely Russian war 
crimes broadcast daily from within Ukraine.
    Unfortunately, for those of us that investigate war crimes, 
none of this is new, as these acts by Russia have been tested 
on the battlefield of Syrian villages, towns, and cities.
    We have all been horrified by the brazen attack on a 
maternity hospital in the city of Mariupol last week. Yet, I 
fear we will see many more such attacks on protected places 
because of Russia's prior practice.
    In Syria, the group Physicians for Human Rights implicated 
Russia in 244 attacks on hospitals and medical facilities. Now, 
I investigated the use of sarin by the Syrian air force in Khan 
Sheikhoun in 2017. While this attack garnered the world's 
attention for use of weapons of mass destruction against 
civilians, the follow-on strikes on Syrian hospitals in the 
region by the Russian air force is less well known.
    For example, we found Russian jets carried out strikes on 
the Al-Rama Hospital in Khan Sheikhoun hours after the Syrian 
chemical strike. This attack deprived the local population of 
life saving treatment.
    Russia States it has a robust precision strike capability, 
yet that has been almost completely absent in Syria, where 
weapons have been, largely, unguided, indiscriminate, and used 
against the civilian population.
    In Syria, Russian aerial bombs were almost exclusively 
unguided and targeted urban centers. We are seeing the same 
tactic of bombing the population into submission in Ukraine.
    More than one was taken from a Russian propaganda video 
released by the Russian Ministry of Defense. It shows Russia's 
premier attack aircraft, the Sukhoi 34, as it takes off for 
operations in Ukraine. It is carrying only dumb bombs.
    These OFAB 250 were used widely in Syria in attacks on 
civilians, and we're seeing widespread use of them throughout 
populated areas in Ukraine.
    These unguided bombs should not be employed in populated 
areas due to their inherent inaccuracy and widespread effects. 
Russia also relies on cluster munitions and their inherently 
indiscriminate effects when used in cities.
    Syria will likely be contaminated by Russian cluster bombs 
for decades. We're seeing the same weapons in Ukraine. Image 
two is a photo of a Russian artillery rocket in the city of 
Pokrovsk. Each rocket contains 552 DPI CM submunitions with a 
standard volley of 12 rockets containing 6,624 bomblets.
    Typical dud rates for cluster bombs are 25 percent, meaning 
we may soon see millions of these indiscriminate killers 
unleashed on Ukraine, killing on contact, and creating de facto 
minefields that kill for years.
    The use of starvation as a weapon of war is a war crime. 
The Commission documented the use of siege tactics in Syria 
where Russian and Syrian military trapped the population in 
urban centers, surrounded them, and starve them out.
    I fear we will see the same tactic applied in Ukraine as 
Russia moves to encircle Kyiv and other urban areas. They may 
also attack aid convoys, as happened in Syria.
    In 2016, I investigated a deliberate attack by the Syrian 
air force on a U.N. aid convoy in Urum al-Khubra outside 
Aleppo, an attack labeled by the U.N. as a war crime. The 
strike on the convoy was preceded by persistent Russian UAV 
traffic, giving our team reasonable concern Russia provided 
Syria with targeting information.
    It is critical humanitarian aid convoys in Ukraine are 
given safe passage, but I fear we may see a reprisal of this 
tactic. The group Air Wars has documented up to 6,381 Syrian 
civilians killed by Russian attacks in Syria during some 6 
years.
    I fear Ukrainian civilian casualties will dwarf that number 
before the month is out. What can you do? I began my career as 
a civilian intelligence officer in the Defense Intelligence 
Agency.
    The intelligence community has a lot to offer to war crimes 
investigations, and has in the past provided important support. 
They can publish an order of battle and chain of command so we 
know what units are committing war crimes and who is giving the 
orders.
    The IC can begin a declassification process to provide air 
tracks and signals intercepts of attacks on civilians. They can 
also provide data on weapons launched into civilian areas so 
attacks can be matched to harm.
    Finally, the U.S. Government can support the new U.N. 
Ukraine War Crimes Commission with funding so it can conduct 
investigations into war crimes in Ukraine.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Garlasco follows:]

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Keating. I want to thank our witnesses for your 
testimony and the detailed nature of that testimony. I'll now 
recognize members for 5 minutes.
    Pursuant to House rules, all time yielded is for the 
purposes of questioning our witnesses. Because of the virtual 
format of this hearing, I'll recognize members by committee 
seniority, alternating between Democrats and Republicans.
    If you miss your turn, please let my staff know and we'll 
circle back to you. If you seek recognition you must unmute 
your microphone and address the chair verbally. I'll now 
recognize myself for 5 minutes.
    I think I'll address to Dr. Arend first this question. 
Given the configuration of the Russian Federation, the way it's 
organized, the way it functions as a country, the hierarchical 
command, can you describe for us how Vladimir Putin himself, 
could be held as a war criminal?
    Dr. Arend. Absolutely, and I would begin by saying the 
Russian hierarchy these days is a little bit unclear, meaning 
we do not exactly know fully how things are working. We do not 
have the kind of intelligence that we may have had during the 
time of the Soviet Union.
    But based on everything I know, Putin's decisions are the 
ones that are being implemented. My impression is that he is, 
clearly, the decisionmaker. He knows what's happening. He 
cannot claim that he is ignorant. And even then, under the 
concept of command responsibility, he knows or reasonably 
should have known the kinds of activities that are taking 
place.
    So it seems clear to me, and, obviously, the committee 
could bring in people who are Russian experts and can talk more 
about the details of the Russian hierarchy, but it seems 
absolutely clear that he knows what's going on.
    And as a consequence, much as Milosevic was brought before 
the International Criminal Tribunal in Yugoslavia, Vladimir 
Putin himself could be brought before any tribunal that would 
be established.
    Mr. Keating. I note--could any of the other witnesses--
would you care to comment on this? I noticed Mr. Grozev was 
nodding his head.
    Mr. Grozev. Very briefly. I would like to add to this that 
it's an unusual case of concentration of decisionmaking 
military power that we see in Russia, unprecedented even under 
Soviet times.
    We received a lot of inside information from worried 
witnesses close to Putin who have said that the decision to 
invade was held close to his chest and was withheld even from 
people that typically would be considered members of the small 
circle of confidants. Maybe three to four people were only 
involved with the actual decisionmaking and he was personally 
involved.
    What I also believe, based on the outflow of information 
that is coming from the Kremlin, because of the fact that many 
people even with the closer circle disagreed with this 
decision, I'm confident that there will be a lot of ready 
witnesses in a future tribunal that will come forward and will 
speak to exactly the inner dealings of the decisionmaking.
    Mr. Keating. Anyone else wish to comment on that?
    I'll just note that there have been reports of captured 
Russian officers who have said they've been ordered to attack 
civilian targets, ordered to attack hospitals, and we have seen 
the same conduct in Syria, as was mentioned before.
    I just want to ask Mr. Garlasco, too. The introduction of 
Syrian soldiers, the military, into the mix, as has been 
reported, what concerns do you have regarding the introduction 
of these Syrian military soldiers?
    Mr. Garlasco. Thank you, Chairman Keating.
    The main concern that I would have with the introduction of 
Syrian soldiers is that they have a very poor adherence to 
international humanitarian law or laws of armed conflict, if 
any adherence at all.
    We already see very poor adherence to the law from the 
Russians, and so their compatriots in Syria have shown similar 
disregard for the laws of war. And so my concern would be 
you're bringing in troops that are even more poorly trained 
than the Russians are and we would see vast war crimes with the 
application of Syrian forces.
    Mr. Keating. Could anyone comment, too, on the fact 
President Zelensky mentioned at a prior meeting that other 
Members of Congress were at as well that he was a target of 
assassination carried out, he thought, by the Chechens or 
something.
    Could you comment on the kind of action, if that's proven 
true, where they're targeting officials for assassination? You 
also shared how a municipal mayor of one of the cities was 
taken to the basement, tortured, and killed. These kind of 
assassinations, could you comment on those tactics as well? 
Anyone--anyone can jump----
    Dr. Arend. Yes. Just, Chair, if I can jump in on that.
    To me, those would also be clear violations of 
international law by targeting civilians, targeting anyone for 
assassination. I have heard the reports about mayors being 
targeted. That would be a clear violation of international law, 
a violation of the Geneva Conventions and, indeed, violations 
of international law, even if there were no armed conflict 
going on.
    Mr. Keating. I now yield to the ranking member, Mr. 
Fitzpatrick, for 5 minutes for his questions.
    I'll now recognize Representative Wagner for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Wagner. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for organizing this 
absolutely critically important hearing, and I want to thank 
our witnesses for their expertise and their work on these 
critical issues.
    I traveled to Poland and the Ukrainian border just over a 
week ago as part of a bipartisan delegation of Foreign Affairs 
Committee members and I saw for myself the incalculable human 
cost of Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
    We met just a few of the millions of Ukrainians fleeing 
Putin's brutal war on their people and I spoke with women who 
had left their husbands, their sons, their fathers, behind to 
fight the Russian assault on a free and democratic Ukraine.
    The strength and the courage of the Ukrainian people have 
demonstrated in the face of such suffering has galvanized the 
free world to craft a swift, I think, and unified response to 
Putin's invasion.
    Putin is a butcher. His cold-blooded attacks on Ukrainian 
cities, including on apartment complexes, civilian 
infrastructure, orphanages, maternity hospitals, and 
humanitarian corridors are nothing short of evil, plain and 
simple.
    We all just listened to the historic address to Congress by 
President Zelensky of Ukraine and we must keep them in the 
fight. Providing Ukraine with the MiG-29 jets that they have 
been requesting for some time is no different than the weaponry 
and lethal military aid that we are already providing.
    We must work with Poland to make that happen, and 
humanitarian corridors must be secured at the very least. The 
United States and our allies must continue to send an 
unmistakable message to Putin that we will not allow his 
repugnant crimes against civilians to become commonplace. War 
crimes are a profound offense to all peaceful and responsible 
nations and they must always be met with severe consequences.
    President Zelensky's strong plea at the end of his speech 
to America must be heard and met. In his words, ``You are a 
leader of your Nation. You are the leader and you must be the 
leader of the world. Your nation must be the leader of peace.''
    While I was in Poland, I met with women civil society 
leaders who urged us in the strongest possible terms to impose 
more pain on Putin to punish his unspeakable crimes against 
Ukrainians, including by going after the oligarchs, as 
President Zelensky mentioned in his address, who support his 
criminal regime.
    Ms. Docherty, what are the major gaps in the current 
sanctions system and what can the U.S. and allies do better to 
tighten the screws on Putin and prevent Russia from skirting 
these sanctions?
    Ms. Docherty. Thank you, Representative Wagner, for the 
question. I appreciate that, and I think that highlighting the 
humanitarian consequences of the conflicts is key.
    Human Rights Watch does not take a position on the 
sanctions,--we maintain neutrality on those issues in part 
because it allows us to assess the violations of international 
humanitarian law with more impartiality.
    However, I think it is essential--excuse me, would you like 
to go ahead?
    Mrs. Wagner. I would just say--well, let me go on the. The 
government of Russia has already been sanctioned twice under 
the U.S. Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and Warfare 
Elimination Act of 1991 for its use of chemical weapons.
    It's clear these sanctions have failed to instill a strong 
enough deterrent against Russia's future use of chemical 
weapons.
    Ms. Docherty, how could U.S. sanctions be used more 
effectively, do you think, to deter Russia's use of chemical 
weapons?
    Ms. Docherty. I think our focus, I would say, would be more 
on the deterrence through international criminal law and I 
think the importance of documentation of potential war crimes 
of which there is widespread evidence is crucial. I think the 
U.S. support of the international criminal investigations is 
crucial and I think also to address some of this--the issues 
you saw at the Polish-Ukrainian border States can help those 
people through humanitarian aid and securing the humanitarian 
corridors that have been agreed on.
    All of those are crucial efforts that need to be undertaken 
as soon as possible.
    Mrs. Wagner. And every time they tried to secure a 
humanitarian corridor, Putin shelled that humanitarian corridor 
and took out those convoys. It is reprehensible.
    I thank you for your input. I thank you all for the work 
that we're doing, and I think this committee and you, Mr. 
Chairman, for addressing this issue.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Keating. Thank you, Representative.
    The chair now recognizes Representative Cicilline for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Cicilline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to 
the ranking member for convening this very important hearing.
    I too, recently traveled to the border of Ukraine and 
Poland with many colleagues and saw firsthand some of the 
consequences of Russia's aggressive and unjustified invasion of 
Ukraine, and, of course, this morning, we heard directly from 
President Zelensky.
    So, Mr. Grozev, I'd like to begin with you. You know, I 
think so much of the analysis is kind of how do we get Vladimir 
Putin to understand the implications of what he's doing and to 
continue to suffer consequences as a result.
    And so I'm wondering whether Bellingcat or any of your 
partners have found evidence to suggest there are any internal 
actors within the upper echelons of the Russian Federation that 
are either advising Putin to use methods of war that amount to 
war crimes, or conversely, are there advisors that could 
influence Putin to wind down these hostilities and to, 
particularly, underscore that severe consequences of the kind 
of war crimes he's committing?
    Mr. Grozev. This is an extremely valid question. We see 
evidence of both. We see a very small, militarized circle, a 
corrupt militarized circle around Putin that is actually making 
commissions on all Russia's arms sales, both domestically and 
internationally, that are advising an escalation.
    But we do see evidence, including whistleblowers, that are 
reaching out to media and to us directly that suggested a 
growing part of the silovik circle of the sort of power 
structures are very uncomfortable with the economic and other 
costs and human costs of the war, not so much imposed on 
Ukraine but imposed on their own compatriots.
    And I think that we are at an unprecedented moment in the 
recent Russian history where there's a sufficient degree of 
dissent in the elite near Putin that needs to be engaged with, 
and I think that's where part of what the United States should 
focus his efforts on is.
    Mr. Cicilline. Thank you. And, Dr. Arend, you described a 
number of ways that we might be able to hold Vladimir Putin 
accountable for his war crimes. Do you have a view on kind of 
which is the best venue to proceed and the kind of prospects 
for success?
    Because we talk a lot about holding him accountable for 
these war crimes but being able to actually do that, I think, 
is incredibly important.
    Dr. Arend. I think that's exactly right, Congressman. I 
think it's a challenge while he is in power, but what I think 
could be done as a multi-track approach, I think, if the 
International Criminal Court were to indict him they would be 
able to hold that over him.
    I also think that civil suits under the Alien Tort Statute 
in the United States that would be directed against assets that 
are held by Putin himself, the oligarchs and others, would also 
be a way to squeeze the oligarchy and, potentially, be able to 
exert pressure on Putin.
    In addition, as Mr. Grozev said, some of the other States 
like Germany and Spain and, potentially, the Netherlands 
exercising universal jurisdiction would also, I think, be very 
good.
    Mr. Cicilline. Thank you.
    And, Ms. Docherty, you know, since 2014 in Donbas and 
Crimea Russian proxies have targeted journalists and dissidents 
and funneling information about atrocities out of these 
regions, and multiple journalists have been killed in the full-
scale invasion of Ukraine, including American Brent Renaud, 
while others have been very seriously injured, and we know that 
the Russian journalists that are critical of Putin and his 
regime are targeted as well.
    And so as we're trying to make sure the world understands 
what's going on, how difficult will it be for independent 
members of the press to operate in Ukraine should Russia 
capture additional territory and what would Russia's plan look 
like to suppress free expression during an occupation of 
Ukraine and how might that impact the world's response to this 
violence?
    Ms. Docherty. Thank you for the question.
    Obviously, it's crucial to be dealing with the conduct of 
the war but it's also crucial to be thinking about human rights 
such as free expression, both in Ukraine but also it's also 
important to be thinking about it in Russia as well, I just 
wanted to add.
    Protection for journalists is key. I'm not sure I have the 
answers for how to ensure it at this stage. But I think 
continued calls for protecting journalists from attacks at this 
point, which is a fundamental right under international 
humanitarian law. That they are protected actors, just like 
civilians are, is an important thing to be keeping in mind.
    And it needs to continue not just during the hostilities 
but also if there were to be an occupation, that right would 
continue in that situation.
    Mr. Cicilline. Thank you very much.
    I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Keating. Thank you. The chair recognizes Mr. Mast for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Mast. Thank you, Chair. I appreciate it.
    I have a--I would like to begin with just a general 
question for all of our witnesses.
    Is it your understanding that you are here to advise on the 
potential for adjudicating some sort of war crime against 
Vladimir Putin sometime in the future or to provide a case to 
us as Members of Congress in discussing about violation of 
international law and war crimes, whether there has been some 
threshold that the United States should support a no-fly zone 
or giving jets to the Ukraine? What would be your understanding 
of why you're here?
    Dr. Arend. Congressman, I can weigh in. My sense is that I 
am here to provide an understanding of the international legal 
framework for both what constitutes war crimes and how one 
might go about prosecuting individuals who have committed war 
crimes.
    Mr. Mast. Nothing about whether Putin has crossed some 
threshold at this point or anything else or whether we should 
increase our involvement today? That would be accurate?
    Dr. Arend. Yes. My sense is that my purpose here was to 
provide a legal structure and a legal framework and to make 
suggestions as to how the United States could encourage the 
further investigation of war crimes and potential prosecution. 
Yes, sir.
    Mr. Mast. So I'll appreciate--I'll just stick with that. I 
think I'm asking a question that most would agree that is the 
purpose of this hearing, to evaluate some kind of war crimes in 
the future.
    I think it's important for the American people to know that 
just minutes ago we heard from the president of Ukraine, 
President Zelensky, and we're having a hearing, in my opinion, 
that is entirely tone deaf unless the purpose of it is to help 
evaluate whether we should be enforcing a no-fly zone or 
granting jets to Ukrainian pilots to go out there and fight the 
Russians.
    And my opinion of why this is taking place is to ease the 
conscience of a Congress that just heard from a president that 
is pleading for assistance where 435 members of the House of 
Representatives and 100 members of the Senate sat in an 
auditorium and listened to the Ukrainian president plead for 
help because of the unconscionable crimes going on in his 
country, the people being burned, buried in rubble, the infants 
killed, the attacks, and not even all of the members of the 
Foreign Affairs Committee are sitting together right now 
minutes after evaluating that plea.
    Members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee are not 
meeting with us from the Foreign Affairs Committee later today 
to say, what did you think about what President Zelensky said 
and what is our evaluation of what we should do in the face of 
his plea.
    All of us, as members of House Foreign Affairs and Senate 
Foreign Relations, and State Department, and others, we do not 
have this on our calendar to discuss later today or later this 
week where we will all get together and very sincerely debate 
the plea of President Zelensky.
    We will not be sitting with President Biden to discuss 
this. We will not be sitting with Secretary of State Antony 
Blinken to discuss this. I think that is unconscionable on our 
part.
    I think we are negligent in our duties and I think the 
American people should know that members of the Foreign Affairs 
Committee and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and 
Blinken and President Biden and others have not, since the 
inception--since the beginning of this Ukrainian invasion all 
sat together behind closed doors discussing and debating what 
we should actually be doing, whether sending jets to Ukrainian 
fighters actually moves us up somewhere in some ladder of 
escalation into conventional war or thermonuclear war.
    We have not all sat together, and given that, a deliberate 
debate, or whether we should be looking at this in terms of 
should we have people on the ground or not. We have not all sat 
together and had a debate in that way.
    We owe Congress more, we owe the American people more, and 
we owe President Zelensky and the Ukrainian people, who are 
pleading for our help, we owe them more than what we're doing 
right now to try and ease our conscience from lifting a 
military finger in their defense--from not----
    Mr. Schneider. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Mast [continuing]. Military finger. I have no more 
time. But if I did have time I would yield.
    Mr. Keating. No. The gentleman's time has expired. I would 
say that since the gentleman's comments were directed toward 
the chair and, perhaps, the ranking member himself, too, let me 
suggest that it's never being tone deaf to speak up, 
investigate, hold accountable people that kill innocent 
children, women, men, that target schools and hospitals.
    So the importance of this hearing is relevant time wise and 
I'd suggest it's one of the most important issues to expose at 
this time, not just for our country but for the world.
    I now yield to Representative Wild 5 minutes.
    Ms. Wild. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I find this hearing to 
be very pertinent and timely, particularly, given that as I was 
sitting here on this hearing I received a breaking news alert 
of 12 Ukrainians standing in line for bread who were just 
killed by Russian shelling. The travesty of what is happening 
there is just unbelievable and, yes, we must address these war 
crimes.
    My first question is to Dr. Arend.
    Dr. Arend, having never ratified the Rome Statute, the 
United States, like Russia, is not a member of the 
International Criminal Court, the ICC, but the United States, 
also unlike Russia, has taken actions to support the ICC's work 
in some instances, including adopting a policy of opposing 
invitations, facilitation, or support for travel by individuals 
subject to outstanding ICC arrest warrants.
    As we think about the need to reaffirm the rules-based 
international order in the face of this outrageous aggression, 
is it fair to say that although other countries who are not 
members of the ICC would, obviously, need to make the decision 
to join voluntarily, would it significantly strengthen the 
ICC's credibility if the United States became a member?
    Dr. Arend. Absolutely. I would strongly support U.S. 
ratification of the Rome Statute. I understand that the statute 
is not perfect.
    But I think when we look at the advantages and 
disadvantages, it would be much in America's interest to be a 
party to the Rome Statute and it would be in the interest of 
the international community because it would strengthen the 
rules relating to prosecuting people for committing war crimes.
    Ms. Wild. Thank you for your very succinct answer and 
definitive answer.
    Short of ratifying the Rome Statute and becoming a member 
of the ICC, are there intermediate steps that we could be 
taking to bolster the ICC's work that might be helpful for 
strengthening international justice?
    Dr. Arend. Absolutely. As you mentioned before, the United 
States has supported efforts by the International Criminal 
Court. We could, certainly, go on record in this particular 
case that we would support those efforts, and in past times, we 
have also supported U.N. Security Council resolutions 
encouraging referral to the International Criminal Court.
    Those would be some of the things, and pledging cooperation 
with the prosecutor, including providing, when possible and 
when plausible, intelligence information that would help the 
prosecutor bring cases against Putin and a variety of other 
individuals.
    Ms. Wild. Thank you.
    Is Mr. Grozev--yes, Mr. Grozev is with us.
    Mr. Grozev, I have a question for you. As you work to 
document instances of criminality by Russian forces, have you 
gained a sense of how the Russian government and military's 
decisionmaking mechanism functions?
    Have you seen any evidence that Putin and the most high-
ranking officials may be taking precautions that shield 
themselves from possible prosecution?
    Mr. Grozev. We have obtained information that gives us an 
understanding of how the decisionmaking functions. But part of 
what we focused upon is whether or not the Russian intelligence 
that encouraged them to proceed with the war and has--clearly, 
has been faulty, whether that understanding has taken place at 
the Kremlin, and it has, and that was important for our 
understanding of the future of the conflict.
    What we do know at this point is that the initial political 
plans that--political intelligence that Russia had received--
the Kremlin had received that suggested a very quick defeat, 
bolstered by agents of influence in Ukraine that would have 
supported the Russian position--the Russian invasion--has 
completely failed, and this has been delivered--this 
information has been delivered to President Putin, which means 
that President Putin is currently or has been over the last 
several days trying to come up with an alternative strategy.
    And I'm certain that, given the understanding of the 
failure of the original strategy, he would have started 
planning for an escape legally and personally as well from 
this.
    And, again, this is why I'm encouraging as more--as much 
engagement with people around him, including the oligarchs, as 
possible, in addition to just simply attacking them through 
sanctions because these are the people who would help in 
preventing such shielding because they will be privy to all the 
information at this point in time.
    Ms. Wild. Thank you. And with about 40 seconds left, Dr. 
Arend, I have one more question for you. Do you expect that 
we're going to see cases brought forward that would lead to 
high-ranking Russian officials being tried and subject to 
arrest in multiple countries once they leave office?
    Dr. Arend. I do. I do see that happening. I see an 
indictment coming from the International Criminal Court. I also 
see some indictments coming from countries like Russia--like--
Germany and Spain and, potentially, others. Yes.
    Ms. Wild. All right. Thank you very much. That's all I 
have. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Keating. Thank you. The chair recognizes Representative 
Tenney for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Tenney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate this 
meeting, and also the ranking member.
    I think it's important to get these facts on the record and 
your expertise is greatly appreciated, and also just whether we 
have--where we can go with crafting legislation or coming up 
with legal solutions as Dr. Arend suggested.
    I'm going to just jump to my questions because I have a 
lot. My first question is to Ms. Docherty, and I just wanted to 
ask, reports have emerged that Russia has used the thermobaric 
weapons and cluster munitions against civilians in Ukraine.
    Have you seen evidence that Russia has used these weapons 
in Ukraine against civilian targets in a manner that violates 
international law, in your opinion?
    Ms. Docherty. Thank you very much for the questions, 
Representative Tenney.
    With regard to cluster munitions, definitely, they have 
used cluster munitions widely in civilian areas and killed 
numerous civilians.
    We do not have exact statistics on how many civilian 
casualties been caused but, definitely, they have used in 
civilian areas cluster munition rockets, particularly, but also 
missiles. We have documented several cases of that at Kharkiv I 
mentioned in my testimony, as well as other places, including 
near a hospital and so forth. So that's a particular concern.
    Ms. Tenney. So we do have evidence of that that we could 
use and, potentially, we could use?
    Ms. Docherty. Definitely, there is evidence.
    Ms. Tenney. OK. Also----
    Ms. Docherty. Definitely evidence. Definitely, there is 
evidence of inherently indiscriminate weapons that violate 
international humanitarian law.
    Ms. Tenney. I also just wanted to ask you your opinion, as 
the government of Russia has been sanctioned twice under the 
U.S. Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and Warfare 
Elimination Act of 1991 for its use of chemical weapons, and we 
have also seen the, you know, the use in Syria as well, it's 
clear these sanctions have failed to really stop them in a 
deterrent way, since Syria was more recent, and prevent them 
from the future use of these chemical weapons, could we use--
could the U.S. sanctions be done more effectively to deter 
Russia's use of chemical weapons?
    And I say that because I was meeting with a group of Syrian 
Americans this weekend who were very concerned that the 
chemical weapons could, potentially, be used as they were in 
Syria in this situation, and I just wondered if there was 
something we could do and that you would recommend with your 
expertise?
    Ms. Docherty. Sure, and let me answer real quickly on the 
thermobaric side of things as well.
    We do not have evidence that--we haven't documented 
evidence of use yet but we have seen evidence of Russian 
vehicles carrying thermobaric weapons. So it's possible that 
they could be used in the conflict, just to wrap up that first 
question.
    In terms of sanctions, I guess I would--do not have 
comments on the specific sanctions that could be used. But, 
obviously, it's an area of concern that they could use them. We 
do not have evidence at this point of having--certainly, not of 
having used them or any plans to use them at this point.
    So I do not have a specific answer to that question, in 
particular. But it's an area that we'll continue to monitor. 
It's an area we have tracked in the past. So thank you again.
    Ms. Tenney. Yes. Definitely need to find a solution to how 
we can do something that's effective to prevent that from ever 
happening.
    Mr. Garlasco. If I could just comment, very quickly, on the 
use of the thermobaric weapons. We do have evidence of the 
OFZAB-500 being used, which is a O-F-Z-A-B hyphen 500. This is 
an aerial bomb. It's categorized as a fragmentation high 
explosive incendiary bomb.
    This is a type of thermobaric weapon and there's a number 
of photos and videos that you can find that shows unexploded 
bombs of this type being removed from civilian homes. Thank 
you.
    Ms. Tenney. Great. Thank you. I appreciate that.
    I also just want to go to Dr. Arend. The Kremlin is 
intentionally spreading lies that the United States and Ukraine 
are engaged in chemical and biological weapons activities in 
Ukraine.
    These claims are part of a broader years-long 
disinformation campaign by the Kremlin to discredit the United 
States. For example, similarly disinformation campaigns 
perpetuated by the Russians, the Soviets, have included 
spreading false claims that COVID-19, HIV, were created in U.S. 
military labs.
    What is the Kremlin's goal and can you address this 
misinformation campaign? Because there seems to be just a lot 
of issue--there's a lot of discussion on this in social media 
and people are looking for answers and the truth here.
    Could you answer that quickly because I do have a legal 
question for you after that, if I have any time left?
    Dr. Arend. I think part of the disinformation campaign is 
just to confuse people, generally. But also, I think it's to 
confuse the Russian people so that the argument is out there 
that Russia is really doing this because of the evil Ukrainians 
and the evil Americans.
    Of course, that's absolute nonsense. But I think that's 
part of the plan.
    Ms. Tenney. Thank you.
    Now, I want to ask you, because you mentioned the Alien 
Tort Statute and I think Ms. Wild also mentioned can we 
actually bring these people to justice, and my concern is can 
we get jurisdiction over them.
    Can we compel appearances? Can we get remedies? And that 
was something a U.S.-based jurisdiction, but even on the 
international court stage--court situation, can we get that 
done?
    And you indicated there's a possibility and I just want to 
know how realistic it is because I think, right now, we are 
crying for justice as we see these horrific videos that--not 
just here but what President Zelensky showed the world this 
morning.
    We just--we want justice and we want to see Vladimir Putin 
pay the price for these horrific crimes and war crimes that we 
believe are happening. And we just want--I'd just like your 
legal expertise, if I have any time left on that.
    Dr. Arend. Yes. So, Representative Tenney, you're 
absolutely correct and I think there will be justice and we 
need it as quickly as possible. The only question is how long 
is it going to take.
    I think with the Alien Tort Statute we would need to have 
individual Russian citizens who have assets in the United 
States who can be reasonably accused themselves of having 
committed war crimes.
    So whether it's a general or an oligarch or someone 
directly involved, and then an individual who was injured, a 
Russian national could bring a civil suit in the United States. 
That's not going to be fast because we're still trying to 
assemble the information. You would need to prove beyond a 
preponderance of evidence in a civil suit in the court.
    But, I think, that would be one mechanism. In terms of 
exercising, whether it's Germany or Spain, exercising 
jurisdiction under the universality principle of enforcement 
jurisdiction, the likelihood is the Russian nationals are not 
going to be in Germany or in Spain, and so you're going to be 
less likely to be able to implement that sooner.
    I do not know all the details of Spanish law or German law. 
So there may be a possibility for attachment of property, 
however, even in the absence of somebody appearing in court. 
But that would be for others to talk about.
    Ms. Tenney. Thank you. It just seems like legally a stretch 
for us to get jurisdiction over these people and use the U.S. 
court system and how effective we could be internationally 
might--I just think it's going to be a stretch to get them into 
court here and actually get--you know, get them to appear if 
they're not already, you know, hidden away in some--squirreled 
away in some country, you know, where we can't get to them.
    It just--I just--it's curious. I mean, I think we need to 
explore every option to find justice because right now it's 
just--it's absolutely horrific what we're experiencing.
    But thank you. I think my time has run out. Thank you to 
everyone and the witnesses and thank you, again, to the 
chairman and the ranking member for bringing this important 
meeting at this important time in our country. Thank you.
    Mr. Keating. Thank you. The chair recognizes the gentleman 
who's the chair of Western Hemisphere, Civilian Security--
importantly in this issue--Migration, and International 
Economic Policy, Mr. Sires.
    Mr. Sires. Thank you, Chairman, for hosting this meeting 
today and thank you for the people who are testifying today.
    You know, as I look at this, I am--I wish I was as 
confident as you are that we can bring some sort of justice to 
this issue of war crimes, because I see what Putin did in 
Georgia and I see what he did in Syria. He seemed to have 
gotten away with everything that he did, all those criminal 
acts, and now we're seeing what he's doing here in the Ukraine.
    And we go back and forth on whether it is--where the 
responsibility falls on Putin. I'm just not that confident that 
we're going to be able to prove that these were war crimes. And 
I know we have all these videos and everything else, but can 
you talk to that a little bit and get me from where I am to a 
more positive view?
    And as far as journalists are concerned, journalists are 
under attack all over the world. We do not have to go very far. 
We just go to Mexico, where they're killed every week and we do 
not seem to do anything, you know, and that's just as horrible.
    So can you give me some confidence here? So I can view 
this, Dr. Arend?
    Mr. Garlasco. If I can just--Dr. Arend, if you do not mind, 
if I can just interject quickly. Representative Sires----
    Dr. Arend. Please--please do, Marc.
    Mr. Garlasco. Yes. I greatly appreciate the question. I've 
been working as a war crime investigator for almost 20 years 
now, and while I do admit that justice takes time, it does not 
mean that we should stop, that we should pause. We must always 
push for justice, particularly when human rights are violated 
or international war crimes.
    Mr. Sires. Oh, I didn't say that at all. I do not meant to 
interrupt, but I do not say that at all.
    Mr. Garlasco. Yes, sir. I think it's important for us to 
recognize that there are a number of mechanisms. Certainly, Dr. 
Arend has spoken about the ICC, universal jurisdiction. But 
there are other ways that we can go about bringing together the 
information.
    For example, the Commission of Inquiry, which the United 
Nations has recently empowered and has created, is a fact 
finding mission that goes out and does work on investigations 
on the ground in these countries.
    I, myself, have been on two. I've been on the Syria 
Commission and also the Libya Commission. I've also worked as a 
war crime investigator for the United Nations in Afghanistan.
    And these organization--I'm sorry, this commission is an 
important fact finding mission and if it is not backed by the 
powers of not only the United Nations but the member States, 
such as the United States, with funds and also, importantly, 
with political power, then they're unable to get the facts.
    You talk about us getting justice. In order to get justice, 
we have to have the facts so that when Vladimir Putin is, 
hopefully, brought before----
    Mr. Sires. Yes, but we have the facts in Syria, sir, and we 
have the facts in other places, and we do not--I do not see 
them moving forward. I'm afraid that we'll have the same issue 
here.
    Mr. Garlasco. It does take time.
    As Dr. Arend stated, you know, it took us a while to get 
Milosevic. We got Milosevic. I understand it's not--it does not 
feel good, but it's going to take time. Thank you.
    Mr. Sires. You know, the other thing that worries me, you 
know, you have all these dictators now surging in the Western 
Hemisphere and they see Putin get away with all the things that 
he does to his people, and I'm afraid that they're going to 
start doing the same thing in their own country, in Nicaragua 
and Venezuela.
    So we have to find a way to--the people that are 
responsible for war crimes to bring them to justice. I think 
that's the only thing that's going to, you know, stop--is going 
to stop this----
    Mr. Garlasco. I totally agree with you and I----
    Mr. Sires [continuing]. Because all the abuses on their 
people it's just constant and it keeps growing and growing in 
different areas.
    Mr. Garlasco. That's an important reason for United States 
to show leadership, to join the International Criminal Court, 
and to, hopefully, bring these individuals to justice someday.
    Mr. Sires. Look, I agree with you. I'm 100 percent behind 
bringing these people to justice. But I get frustrated. You 
know, when I see--when I see Zelensky and he showed that 
video--you know, you see that little boy running, you know, I 
mean, it breaks my heart and that this Putin--I mean, he--I do 
not understand why people are so afraid to go against this guy.
    The only guy that's giving Putin a black eye is this guy 
Zelensky. Quite frankly, he got away with it in Georgia. He got 
away with it in Syria, and we need this--you know, we need to 
support Zelensky as much as we can to punch this guy out in 
real life so he can't do this to the people in this world--the 
abuse on people, and I, for one, will support any kind of 
effort that this country wants to do to support Zelensky.
    So I thank you for being here today, and I apologize. I get 
frustrated with these--you know, especially with this guy Putin 
because while we sleep these guys plotting how to destroy the 
United States of America, and people in this country do not 
realize that. We have a president that called him a genius. How 
idiot that was.
    But I thank you. Thank you, Chairman, and my time is up.
    Mr. Keating. Thank you.
    The chair recognizes Representative Pfluger for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Pfluger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, for 
holding this very important and timely hearing. Like many 
others, obviously, very concerned. I have a military 
background.
    I'm extremely familiar, as a fighter pilot, with what it 
takes to deconflict from civilian casualties, to take every 
possible step to not engage with civilians. This is what I did 
for my professional career.
    I have a series of questions. So I want to start out with 
very--with a very basic--is Vladimir Putin a war criminal?
    Dr. Arend. Congressman, if I can venture to enter into 
this, while we do not have all the evidence and I think it's 
very, very important in order for us to get the forensic 
evidence in great detail, for us also to get any kind of 
testimony that's possible, it appears to me that Vladimir Putin 
has authorized the commission of war crimes. We have seen a 
variety of evidence, and while the final word is not in, it 
seems pretty clear to me that Vladimir Putin has committed war 
crimes.
    Mr. Pfluger. Does anybody--thank you very much. Does 
anybody have a different take on that?
    Mr. Garlasco. I do not have a different take on that. 
However, it is important, as Dr. Arend stated, to collect all 
the facts before we go forward with any kind of an indictment.
    Just as we wouldn't say someone in the United States is 
guilty before trial, the same thing should happen with Vladimir 
Putin.
    Mr. Pfluger. Yes. Absolutely. I agree with that and--but I 
also think that, you know, at this point in time, time is of 
the essence. We heard Zelensky just an hour ago. I met with him 
5 weeks ago in Kyiv.
    I meet with members of the Ukrainian parliament on an every 
other day or weekly basis. So time is of the essence here. Time 
is for--is not in the interest of the Ukrainian people right 
now every day that we delay.
    So let me ask another question. Are there ways that we can 
be sanctioning Russian oligarchs or other people inside of 
Russia who are traveling internationally who we know are either 
helping facilitate the transfer of weapons, who are part of the 
process of being part of authorizations of these war crimes 
that could be taking place?
    What can we do to these people right now?
    Mr. Garlasco. I would just like to reiterate that one of 
the things that we need to do, as Dr. Arend and I have stated, 
is to collect as much evidence as possible.
    As Bellingcat, for example, is doing with open source 
information, the intelligence community also needs to be 
collecting that and sharing what it can in an unclassified 
format with a variety of war crimes tribunals or war crime 
investigations that may go forward.
    We need to move forward with the facts, and this is 
completely separate from any kind of economic sanction that 
you're putting on the Russian oligarchs in parallel. But I 
think it's very important that we continue to move forward with 
the collection of as much detailed information as possible.
    Mr. Pfluger. Let me jump to my final question because I 
think it's extremely important, probably the most important 
question that I will ask.
    There's a responsibility to protect, as stated in the 
United Nations agreements that we have all signed up to. What 
is our red line for intervention? Is it a nuclear weapon? Is it 
the attack of a nuclear facility? Is it the indiscriminate 
bombing of innocent civilians?
    I mean, what is you all's recommendation on a red line for 
this administration?
    Mr. Garlasco. Congressman, I want to thank you for that 
question. I believe that the red line for that is above my pay 
grade. But what I will say is that the responsibility to 
protect is an important part of what is enshrined in the United 
Nations.
    As you know, NATO went to war in Libya, for example, 
because of the attacks on civilians in Benghazi. We then 
intervened and protected the civilian population. So there is 
that option, moving forward.
    Dr. Arend. And just from a legal perspective, the--where 
the red line is is also above my pay grade as well. However, I 
want to say that because an armed attack has occurred against 
Ukraine, under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, 
Ukraine has a right of collective self-defense, meaning right 
now it is lawful for other States in the international system, 
including the United States, to come directly to the aid of 
Ukraine.
    Whether that should happen now and how is a policy 
question, again, above my pay grade. But it is perfectly lawful 
under international law to provide defense in any form to 
Ukraine.
    Mr. Pfluger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I realize my time has 
expired and I appreciate you taking the interest in this 
hearing. I yield back.
    Mr. Keating. Thank you, Representative.
    And for the witnesses' edification, the full committee will 
be looking at the discussion of an AUMF and authorization to 
use military force, and that's something that the Foreign 
Affairs Committee will be addressing.
    So I thank the representative for his question and I'll now 
yield to Representative Costa for 5 minutes.
    I believe you're muted, Representative.
    Mr. Costa. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for the 
importance of this subcommittee hearing and the timeliness, 
given the dire circumstances that we are all dealing with and 
President Zelensky's speech this morning to a joint session.
    I want to ask a couple of questions related to the 
discussion we have already had today, and both to Mr. Grozev 
and Dr. Arend, to give more detail, Mr. Grozev--and I do not 
know if, Dr. Arend, you'd care to comment, but can you give 
members the sense of the scale and the scope of the alleged war 
crimes that are being carried out that are hard--that are hard 
to prosecute?
    We saw that video this morning and it was horrific, and we 
have seen other demonstrations of the acts of terror that this 
pariah, Putin, I think, should be held up to as a war criminal. 
But prosecuting them, as we looked at the example back in the 
1990's in Bosnia, how do we get there from here? I know a 
number of nations are in the process of taking action.
    Mr. Grozev. If I can quickly respond.
    First of all, there's, certainly, going to be hard 
prosecutable--in fact, easy to prosecute and prove evidence 
after the war is over. That will take years.
    But there is evidence of mutilation of prisoners of war. 
There's evidence of killing and mutilation of completely random 
civilians because they witnessed the army movements.
    There's evidence of, and we haven't made this public, 
there's evidence of, in fact, targeted killings of people who 
were thought by Russia to be on their side and they had been 
developed as assets and agents for a long time but they didn't 
come forward at the last minute and they----
    Mr. Costa. Testimony by captured Russian personnel can also 
be used?
    Mr. Grozev. Yes. Yes, of course, many of them, obviously, 
subject to the legal limitations of what--of not forcing a 
prisoner of war to testify, but many of them--many young 
conscripts who were captured were--did not even know they were 
going to war until the day they went and they willingly, at 
this point, are ready to testify as well.
    So I think it will be not difficult to prove the commission 
of war crimes in the future. What is really important now is to 
look at the open source evidence that provides real-time 
evidence of war crimes that cannot not have happened because 
they are there. We see the destroyed----
    Mr. Costa. So we need to be documenting this and making 
sure that we have the best information.
    Mr. Grozev. We're doing that, and it's a policy decision 
for governments to act. It's not so much a legal requirement or 
ban thereof.
    Mr. Costa. Dr. Arend----
    Mr. Garlasco. If I can just tag on to that, very quickly. 
You asked what are difficult war crimes to go after, and from 
my perspective, having run many war crime investigations in the 
past, really the issue that I'm looking at here is one of DPH--
direct participation in hostilities by the civilian population.
    We have some very brave Ukrainians taking up arms to defend 
themselves and their country. But because of this, they are now 
directly participating in hostilities and they make themselves 
lawful targets.
    When that happens, it becomes difficult for war crime 
investigators to go into a site and say a bomb was dropped on a 
building, an apartment building, let's say, and was that 
because the Russians were very poor in their targeting and 
just--and didn't do it well--they're not very professional. 
That's not a war crime.
    Is it because they were targeting people who are directly 
participating in hostilities? That is not a war crime. Or is it 
because they were trying to kill civilians in that building and 
they were using the direct participation of hostilities as an 
excuse? That then becomes very difficult to adjudicate and that 
is one of the harder things to prove on the battlefield.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Costa. Yes, and the misinformation and the outright 
lies that Russia has been active in during the course of this 
action, obviously, obfuscates a lot of that.
    Dr. Arend, my last question here. Congress, what can we do 
to strengthen the War Crimes Act in order to more directly 
prosecute Russia for war crimes? Do you have recommendations?
    Dr. Arend. I do, indeed, Congressman Costa. That, I think, 
is a very good question. At present, the War Crimes Act says 
you have to be an American national to be prosecuted or an 
American national has to be the victim of the war crime, and 
that could, certainly, be expanded to include people who are 
not American nationals or not victims of some sort of action.
    So you could expand that to include other individuals who 
have perpetrated the war crimes. I think that would be a very, 
very good idea. It is more akin to the kind of universal 
jurisdiction statutes that other countries have.
    Mr. Costa. Well, Chairman Keating, my time has expired. But 
I think we should consider that when the full committee acts or 
holds a hearing on this within the next week or so as a 
recommendation in terms of how we can better strengthen the War 
Crimes Act and America's resolve to prosecute those who have 
been the greatest offenders.
    Thank you very much.
    Mr. Keating. I look forward to working with you and our 
office is in the process of doing that. So I enjoy your support 
and help in that regard.
    The chairman recognizes Representative Meijer for 5 
minutes.
    I'm not sure if Representative Meijer is still with us. I 
do not see him on the screen.
    Representative Meijer is still with us?
    Mr. Meijer. Can you hear me now, sir? Can you hear me now, 
sir?
    Mr. Keating. Yes.
    Mr. Meijer. OK, and I apologize for that. Thank you, Mr. 
Chairman, and thank you to our witnesses who are here today.
    I want to drill down on some of the other questions my 
colleagues asked. You know, we had that discussion on, you 
know, making sure after the fact that there is justice being 
served.
    I think the--one of the paramount goals is what we can do 
today to prevent, to dissuade that coercive ability that, I 
think, we're trying to do with the sanctions and when it comes 
to preventing, you know, the deliberate targeting of civilian 
areas.
    I guess my question would be, first, to Mr. Grozev. Do you 
see any indication on the open source side of the Russian 
military officials who are either ordering or carrying out 
indiscriminate attacks on civilian areas that likely constitute 
a war crime?
    That they are aware that they are committing potential war 
crimes and that they could be, you know, facing justice after 
the fact for those actions?
    Mr. Grozev. Yes, we do. There's a lot of verified audio 
recordings, intercepts of telephone calls, and this is actually 
one of the silver linings of this conflict.
    Because of the incompetence of the Russian army, they have 
totally been unable to use their secure communication system 
and they've, largely, communicated via open channels.
    There are tens of thousands of intercepted phone calls that 
will be made available and validated by future investigators, 
and in some of them you could hear the soldiers and the 
officers reporting to their loved ones that actually have been 
told to disregard civilian care and care of civilian 
casualties--not necessarily to target them offensively but to 
not really put them on the priority list and to assume that 
they should be in the line of fire.
    And this alone is evidence that they're aware and their 
commanders are aware of the likely commission of the crime.
    Mr. Meijer. And I guess just, you know, a little bit 
further on that. I mean, I'm not as familiar with Russian 
training, tactics, and procedures. I know in the U.S. military 
it is required that we understand the law of armed conflict. 
It's required that we understand proportionality, the avoidance 
of civilian casualties.
    You know, that's something that has been, you know, well 
understood, everything from local level rules of engagement to 
just what our basic training and requirements are. This may go 
beyond the scope of this hearing, but is that something that 
Russian soldiers, you know, understanding a lot of these are 
conscripts who seem very poorly trained and their basic 
elements of maneuver and tactical procedures seem laughable and 
incompetent, you know, is there any equivalent understanding of 
Geneva Conventions of law of armed conflict that is taught 
within the Russian military, whether at, you know, officer 
level or among enlisted?
    Mr. Grozev. I will answer very briefly and I'll ask other 
members of the
    [inaudible] to add to that. My understanding is that 
conscripts are taught that but at a very rudimentary level and 
without taking this seriously, because the concept of offensive 
war in Russia among the Russian military was also a--totally 
unthinkable until a couple of weeks ago.
    But important to know that in this conflict we also have 
private military contractors that are heavily used by the 
Russian side exactly to deflect responsibility and we have at 
least several hundred deployed in Ukraine, maybe more.
    We have talked to some of them and we know that they've 
been given a free hand to actually go after a list of civilian 
or military targets of people, kill lists, to go after and kill 
without necessarily complying with any international norms of 
warfare.
    Mr. Meijer. I do not know if there's any other witnesses 
who want to answer on that, or else I'll kind of conclude.
    You know, I guess, if there is an understanding--and Mr. 
Grozev, I really appreciate you sharing and putting on open 
source the failures of Russia's Era encrypted messaging system 
and so we have seen that evidence that they're aware of what 
they're doing.
    Is there any evidence that they are--or any intercepts or 
any awareness that some of the crimes could be on par with what 
has been tried in, you know, international courts? We mentioned 
Syria as something that had been kind of dissuaded or we had 
not seen the concentrated effort to get justice there.
    But, certainly, Bosnia, Serbia, you know, prior conflicts 
in the mid to late 1990's there had been concerted efforts. Are 
any of these Russian soldiers, officers, generals, do they 
express any hesitation or awareness of what justice may befall 
them?
    Mr. Grozev. Based on the few intercepts that have been made 
available publicly and to us, there are cases of officers being 
aware of what they're--what they're doing, of being 
uncomfortable but still following through with orders.
    So it's really going to be a case--in these cases is going 
to be a case of following the chain of commands to the person 
who was in charge of authorizing such unlawful methods.
    Mr. Meijer. Thank you.
    And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Garlasco. I just wanted to say quickly that any soldier 
that commits an unlawful--that accepts an unlawful order that 
they would then be up for a potential war crime indictment.
    Mr. Meijer. Great. Thank you.
    Mr. Keating. The chair recognizes Representative Schneider 
for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Schneider. Thank you, Chairman Keating, and I want to 
thank you for having this hearing. I want to thank our 
witnesses for taking the time to speak to us and to share your 
perspectives.
    Before I go to my questions, I want to reflect a little bit 
on comments earlier made by my colleague on the appropriateness 
of this hearing.
    And on the one hand, I agree it is imperative that we in 
Congress, and, in particular, the Foreign Affairs Committee, 
have the discussions about how we best help Ukraine fight 
against the Russians to defend themselves, to protect their 
territory, protect their rights, protect their sovereignty, and 
that is an important conversation. I was in the hall today when 
President Zelensky spoke to us and made his impassioned plea.
    But we can do two things at the same time and it is 
imperative as well and vitally important that we have this 
hearing today to talk about potential war crimes, to understand 
what we need to do to collect and protect the information to 
hold the people to account down the road.
    And so I just want to thank you for having this hearing. I 
look forward to, as you noted, to further discussions about 
other actions we might take.
    Shifting back to where we are now, and I apologize for the 
bell, long bell, if I can turn to Professor Arend. You used the 
term ``I'm not a lawyer'' but I think I understand the concept.
    You said reasonably should have known, and at the end of 
the day, we have seen the pictures, the pictures that were 
included in the testimony here of civilians tortured and 
murdered. We have seen the video that was shown here today, 
actions taken by soldiers in Ukraine, actions taken by 
artillery. But there's a chain of command and, ultimately, 
Putin is at the top of the command.
    Professor Arend, can you expand a little bit about the 
idea--well, you also said authorized commissions of war crimes, 
how hat fits together and why accountability runs through the 
entire chain of command.
    Dr. Arend. So thank you very much, Congressperson.
    It's a very important question, and the reasonably knew or 
reasonably should have known, I am going back to the Yamashita 
case, which was a trial in the Far East Tribunal after the 
Second World War, and under Yamashita there were a variety of 
war crimes that were taking place and the claim was he did not 
know, and the response of the tribunal was he was the 
commander.
    He had command responsibility. Either he knew or he should 
have known because he was the commander. And in this particular 
case, if we go all the way up to Vladimir Putin, I actually do 
believe he has ordered things which have been war crimes.
    That's my sense, again, without the forensic details on 
that. But even if he didn't order those things, he's seeing the 
same videos. He's hearing the same reports. He's, ultimately, 
making the decisions and he reasonably should have known.
    Mr. Schneider. Great. Thank you. And if I expand it 
further, we are in the thick of a war, twenty-first day of an 
unlawful assault on Ukraine, civilians being targeted, 
civilians dying.
    The prosecution of those crimes, though, and I'll open this 
to all the witnesses, does not happen immediately. It takes 
time. How important is it to collect information today so that 
we can effectively and successfully hold to account once we 
achieve the peace and the end of this war?
    Mr. Garlasco. Congressman, that is one of the single most 
critical things that the U.S. Government can do, is one of the 
single most critical things the United Nations and its 
investigators can do, and any support that you and the 
intelligence community can provide to those investigations 
would be absolutely critical. Regardless if we're able to get 
someone short term or long term, justice will find them.
    Mr. Schneider. Great. Thank you. And my last question in my 
last minute, I'll direct this to Mr. Grozev. You talked about 
the role of individual responsibility.
    So we talked about should have known. But for each 
individual, whether it is a front line soldier or a decorated 
general, what is their individual responsibility?
    Mr. Grozev. That is a very good question that actually 
leads a little bit back also to the question about what the 
United States can do in terms of better sanctioning.
    You are targeting the top oligarchs and the top generals, 
but a lot of the people who have some say in the process and 
know what they're doing are not being sanctioned, and this has 
relevance both on the military side but also on the civilian 
side.
    There are hundreds of employees of the Russian State that 
are enabling the war effort today while they are not sure 
whether they're following orders that are compliant with 
international law.
    I think an example should be made of several hundreds of 
these that we have identified and I'm sure that your 
intelligence would be much better than us identifying, and 
putting such people, mid-level people, on the sanction list 
because this will discourage others from actually jumping in 
and exposing themselves to sanctions.
    So these middle-level enablers, both on the civilian and 
the military side, are people that I think should be addressed 
in a further wave of sanctions.
    Mr. Schneider. Thank you.
    And, Mr. Chairman, my time is expired. I yield back.
    Mr. Keating. Thank you. The chair recognizes Representative 
Meuser for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Meuser. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Thanks very much, and 
thanks very much to the witnesses. Some compelling information 
being provided. It's appreciated and of great value.
    So let me ask you this just to start, please. Perhaps, Mr. 
Garlasco or any of the other witnesses. President Biden has 
said there will be severe consequences if Russia uses chemical 
weapons in Ukraine. In all due respect, I'm not sure what that 
means at this point. Do you--could you interpret what do you 
think that means?
    Mr. Garlasco. Thanks for the question, Congressman. The 
mindset of the President is not in my purview. I can say that 
Russia has not used chemical weapons in Syria. As a war crime 
investigator for the U.N. in Syria we found no evidence of 
Russia using chemical weapons.
    The Syrian government did, however, and they did it in 
support of Russia, for example, in the attack on Douma on April 
7th, 2018, which Bellingcat did an excellent investigation of.
    They showed how the Syrian government supported Russian 
attacks in the area using chlorine gas and killing upwards of 
50 civilians in a single strike. So we do know that while they 
have not used it they have been supported with chemical 
weapons. Thank you.
    Mr. Meuser. Thank you. Now, let me ask you this. So as this 
thing moves along and, you know, of course, we all saw 
Zelensky's comments this morning and offering that NATO, 
perhaps, would be off the table and perhaps he's offered other 
points in the negotiation to create a negotiation or some level 
of appeasement seeking peace, the--what additional atrocities--
and again, I'm not--I am asking your opinion here. You do not 
have a crystal ball or get into anybody's head. But do you 
think could occur within Kyiv if you were wargaming this?
    Mr. Garlasco. Well, you know, I have to ask you to really 
look to my organization, PAX, and the product that we put out 
under SiegeWatch.org. We have put together 10 separate reports 
on the history of sieges in Syria as conducted by the Russian 
Federation, how they systematically circled and starved out 
communities. They began with a surrender or starve order, and 
then it later changed to surrender or die.
    In fact, they were targeting tunnels that people were using 
to transport food goods into those areas. So there were direct 
targeting of civilians and their foodstuffs, medicine, et 
cetera, with the sieges.
    Mr. Meuser. Right.
    Mr. Garlasco. So my grave concern right now is the 
establishment of sieges within the cities, whether it's 
Mariupol or Kyiv or others, surrounding those areas, cutting 
the foodstuffs off, hitting food--we have already seen food 
warehouses hit. So you're going to really--they're putting the 
screws in the civilian population and that's a grave concern.
    Mr. Meuser. Wow, and that could be tens of thousands of 
people, of course, could perish.
    OK. Are there any drops? Are there--is there any other 
humanitarian aid that--I mean, not within the boundaries of 
Ukraine, of course, but is there any response to that as far as 
your intelligence and intellect and experience could respond 
to? Is there anything that we can do to help that situation?
    Mr. Garlasco. Well, it's--so it's--I think it's important 
that foodstuffs and goods come across the border. It would be 
great if the United Nations, you know, through the good offices 
of the United States or others, other member States, could 
negotiate food deliveries through World Food Programme, for 
example, as happened in Syria.
    The concern, of course, is, though, that those food convoys 
would then be targeted, as happened in Syria. So they would----
    Mr. Meuser. Would that--would that be a war crime. Do you 
think that----
    Mr. Garlasco. That's would absolutely be a war crime. 
There's no doubt that that would be a war crime.
    Mr. Meuser. Yes. OK. There's quite a few war crimes but 
that one is----
    Mr. Garlasco. Targeting--direct targeting civilians--
starvation as a----
    Mr. Meuser. In war is a war crime.
    So and I know you all discussed this before, but the ICC 
versus an independent tribunal--your quick thoughts on that?
    Mr. Garlasco. My quick thoughts is you take every single 
avenue you possibly can. You support the ICC. You support the 
Independent Commission of Inquiry. You support the OSCE's 
investigation. You support any universal jurisdiction 
investigation. You do not go down one road. You go down every 
road so that one of those screws sticks.
    Mr. Meuser. That's great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield 
back. I appreciate that very much.
    Mr. Keating. Thank you, Representative.
    The chair now recognizes Representative Jacobs for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Jacobs. Well, thank you, Chair Keating, for your 
leadership on this issue and for letting me join this 
subcommittee hearing.
    I wanted to, first, thank the witnesses for all of your 
incredibly important work and to talk about one of the really 
important issues, I think, we haven't gotten to enough, which 
is the use of cluster munitions, the deliberate targeting of 
hospitals, residential buildings, and I think an important part 
of how we handle this war will be ensuring accountability for 
those who have committed war crimes and crimes against 
humanity.
    The use of cluster munitions is, rightly, condemned by the 
international community. A hundred and twenty-three States have 
joined the Convention on Cluster Munitions.
    Unfortunately, the United States is not one of them. Ms. 
Docherty or Dr. Arend, can you speak to the importance of this 
convention and how might the U.S. being a party to this 
convention help our case in condemning Russia's unjustified 
egregious actions in Ukraine?
    Ms. Docherty. I'd be happy to speak to that. Yes.
    So the Convention on Cluster Munitions comprehensively bans 
use, production, stockpile, transfer of cluster munitions. A 
hundred and ten States have--are actually full parties to it 
and another--a number of other States have signed the treaty, 
meaning they are also obliged to uphold the object and purpose 
of the treaty, which would include not using cluster munitions. 
Also, the majority of NATO States and U.S. allies have joined 
the treaty.
    If the U.S. joined the ban, it would definitely give it the 
added moral high ground to condemn Russia's behavior in this 
conflict as well as in other conflicts. Russia-Syrian alliance 
used cluster munitions widely in Syria, and Russia-backed 
rebels and Ukraine both used them in the 2014-15 conflict.
    So it would--it's really crucial that the U.S. take steps 
toward joining the treaty and also to change its domestic 
policies. I mentioned in my earlier testimony that the Trump 
administration rolled back the policy under the Bush 
Administration that would have ceased use of most cluster 
munitions by 2018.
    So at a minimum, the U.S. should reverse the Trump 
administration's policy. But I encourage this--the country to 
join the treaty as soon as possible.
    Dr. Arend. And I just want to agree completely with what 
Ms. Docherty just said. I think it's vital that the United 
States ratify the Cluster Munitions Convention as soon as 
possible and also roll back those previous restrictions that 
she mentioned before. Very important in setting the example for 
the rest of the world.
    Ms. Jacobs. Well, I completely agree with you. The United 
States is in support of the ICC investigation on the situation 
in Ukraine.
    I think the support for an ICC investigation is incredibly 
important, especially as we have seen so many of the 
heartbreaking images from today and that you all showed, and I, 
honestly, hope this marks a change in the United States' stance 
on the ICC in general.
    So, Mr. Garlasco, and anyone else who wants to comment, 
could you share with us how the United States can be more 
supportive of this investigation as a nonmember of the ICC, and 
what kind of information can the U.S. provide to the court that 
would be helpful in prosecuting those who have committed war 
crimes in Ukraine?
    Mr. Garlasco. Thank you for this question, Representative 
Jacobs.
    First, it would be great if the United States showed the 
leadership of joining the ICC. But beyond that, there are a 
number of steps that the U.S. can take, as I stated in my 
testimony.
    The intelligence community, I'm certain, is currently 
collecting an awful lot of information it could declassify and 
provide to the ICC and other investigatory bodies that are 
currently ongoing.
    So that would be an important step. Also, an important step 
would be to fund these bodies. So, for example, the brand new 
Commission of Inquiry that the U.N. has just put forward and 
authorized requires funding so that it can begin its work. So 
these are a number of steps, of concrete steps, that the United 
States could take right now.
    Mr. Grozev. If I could jump in and add to that.
    I completely agree with Dr. Garlasco. The United States 
intelligence agencies traditionally compile a lot of 
information in the course of conflicts like this one and rarely 
share it either with judicial bodies or even with the general 
public. And, obviously, there's a balance to be made between 
national security and exposing the technical means and helping 
the judicial process.
    I just think that this balance should be reconsidered in 
the case--in similar cases in the past, such as the shooting 
down of MH-17, the airliner. The United States refused to share 
its intelligence data from satellites with the law enforcement 
bodies in investigating the case on the argument that it does 
not want to disclose its technical capabilities.
    But in this case, we're talking about, potentially tens of 
thousands of deaths, and providing that to law enforcement, to 
ICC, or to the Dutch or Spanish or German investigators would 
probably be a moral--a higher moral calling than some 
hypothetical damage to national security.
    Ms. Jacobs. Well, thank you. And in my last remaining 
seconds, I just wanted to see if any of you have thoughts on 
how we kind of balance the need to hold accountable and the 
need to try and cut a deal and end the conflict.
    You know, I have a master's degree in international 
conflict resolution. I feel like this question of peace or 
justice is one that we debate often. I think it's much more 
nuanced than that, as we know that there really won't be peace 
without justice.
    But if any of you have thoughts as we're looking at 
potential off ramps and deals on how we try and thread this 
needle and do both well?
    Dr. Arend. One quick comment on that, because that's 
exactly what I talk about in class when we try to balance peace 
and justice.
    So one thing I've heard some folks say is--and one was 
David Scheffer, who knows a tremendous amount--this is our 
former U.S. Ambassador on war crimes--is that all the sanctions 
need to be in place until people are brought to some kind of 
tribunal without judging the whole issue.
    I think that's going too far. I think if we saw Russian 
troops exiting Ukraine in a verifiable way we should reduce 
certain sanctions. I think if we saw other actions on the part 
of Russia we should reduce certain sanctions.
    So at least on that one piece of it, I do not think we 
should keep sanctions in place until people are brought to war 
crimes tribunals because that will, certainly, discourage any 
kind of off ramp.
    Beyond that, it's a delicate balance and we, I think, have 
to look at individual circumstances and individual cases.
    Ms. Jacobs. Thank you.
    And my time has expired so, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Keating. Thank you, Representative.
    The chair now recognizes Vice Chair Spanberger for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Spanberger. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    And I have been joining this committee hearing on and off 
through--in tandem with other--another committee hearing and I 
just want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for putting this 
together. This is one of the most extraordinary hearings I've 
participated in in terms of just the valuable information that 
the witnesses are providing. So to all the witnesses, thank you 
so very much.
    A couple of questions that I'd like to run through, and I 
know there's been some discussion related to social media and 
technology and so just jumping straight to what role do you see 
for social media companies in preserving the evidentiary record 
of war crimes or potential war crimes, and what role could they 
play in removing or curating information so that we can 
separate facts from lies?
    And I will open it up to anybody who wants to speak to it 
first.
    Mr. Garlasco. We saw a situation in Syria where a number of 
videos were being taken down by YouTube and other social media 
organizations, which led to a real crisis where we, in the 
United Nations Commission of Inquiry when I was on it, were 
unable to catalogue all of the videos that we needed to 
catalog.
    And so there was an outreach to a variety of organizations 
to keep that historical data. It is critical for any war crime 
investigation to have that, particularly, because of the chain 
of custody issue.
    And so since they would be the originators of that 
information, we would then turn to them to hold it within some 
kind of a--you know, a repository. So I think that's a really 
important and fine question that most people do not get about 
war crimes because we have turned to an era right now where 
social media is--you know, is prevalent, and we're watching the 
war crimes being broadcast live by people daily in Ukraine.
    So it really needs to be captured because of the concern 
that it might be taken down at some time by some--you know, 
some automated system within a YouTube algorithm, for example, 
that looks for some kind of violent act and takes it down, and 
that really needs to be catalogued. Thank you.
    Ms. Spanberger. And you said you had trouble--if I could 
just go back to your answer--you said you had trouble 
cataloging previously. Was that because the videos were getting 
pulled down?
    Mr. Garlasco. That's correct. It was because videos were 
being removed. There was a request by a variety of 
organizations to have videos reuploaded.
    Ms. Spanberger. And from a congressional standpoint, then 
I'm curious--perhaps an important place for us to followup is 
how those videos, while taken down, might be saved in some sort 
of repository and made available.
    Are you aware of any requirements or internal company 
policies of any of these social media companies that do keep--
when they take them down, they file them, they catalog them, or 
they have them available to individuals such as yourselves and 
your organizations?
    Mr. Garlasco. I am not aware of social media companies' 
policies, but, rather, the policies of some of these war crimes 
investigative bodies, such as the Commission of Inquiry, the 
independent investigative mechanism of the United Nations.
    They have very specific requirements on data protection and 
chain of custody, and so it would definitely behoove the United 
Nations and the social media companies to get together and to 
discuss how that information can be saved in such a way that 
supports future war crimes trials so that they are accepted by 
the war crime trials and not just thrown--the evidence being 
thrown out because you do not have chain of custody.
    Ms. Spanberger. Thank you very much, Mr. Garlasco.
    Would anyone else want to add to that line of questioning 
or to his comments?
    And so when we're looking at some of the propaganda efforts 
of the Russians, some efforts to obscure the record, some of 
the propaganda they're doing at home, what are some steps that 
we, the United States, could be taking, the Congress, or 
American social media companies to ensure the differentiation, 
kind of, of the historical record of Russian propaganda versus 
the atrocities on the ground?
    Mr. Garlasco. Well, you know, you just discussed taking 
videos down--videos for war crimes investigations that we do 
not want taken down. But propaganda videos we would want 
removed.
    I look specifically to the work of Bellingcat on the Douma 
investigation in 2018--you know, the fine work that they did. 
Immediately after their investigation came out, the internet 
was just plastered with stories--with false stories and it 
really mucked things up and made it very difficult.
    And so I would, you know, turn also to Christo to address 
that.
    Mr. Grozev. Yes. The disinformation machine in Russia works 
on a very efficient level, much more than any other country's 
propaganda machine that I'm aware of because it's diversified 
and decentralized.
    It works from the top down but it also has several centers 
run by oligarchs making their money off government contracts 
that actually work almost on a competitive basis with one 
another.
    So we are seeing a huge disinformation effort in all social 
media platforms that compete with the authentic content that is 
being produced by people actually witnessing the war crimes, 
and this fake content, essentially, provides a counterfeit 
version of reality. It's difficult to--for us to go after each 
incident of forged evidence.
    But for social media companies, it is relatively easy. 
There are algorithms they can use and they can, during times of 
war, tune them up somewhat on the--erring on the side of 
caution side as opposed to just allowing any search content 
that has been posted by an account that was created 3 days ago 
being widely available and widely seen.
    So asking social media companies to tune up their 
algorithms to be more cautious at this time is one thing that 
can happen. Another thing is that government accounts that 
spread disinformation should not just be noted with the 
disclaimer it's a government account.
    When they publish clear disinformation, such as the account 
of the Foreign Ministry of Russia, claiming that the people 
that were hurt or killed in the attack on the maternity ward 
were crisis actors, this is not only false--demonstrably 
false--it's also offending to the victims, and something like 
this should be taken down immediately as opposed to be given 
just a warning.
    Ms. Spanberger. Thank you very much.
    And, Mr. Chairman, thank you for letting me run over. I 
hope you agree that that response was worth the extra time. 
Thank you very much. I yield back.
    Mr. Keating. Thank you very much. I want to thank our 
witnesses. This has been an important and lengthy hearing. I 
want to thank all the members--the many members who 
participated in a very busy schedule to be part of this.
    I was a former prosecutor before I was a Member of Congress 
and I know how important it is to get the information, to talk 
to percipient witnesses in a timely fashion, to document, to 
chronicle, to authenticate evidence, and that has to be done as 
soon as it can be done.
    And today's testimony made clear the importance of the 
investigation side, the importance of looking at what tools are 
there, what tools could be expanded in terms of bringing people 
to justice, and making sure that this is an ongoing commitment 
and letting the world know that this is being done, which, I 
think, will have a deterrent effect as well.
    All these things are important. This committee is prepared 
to move forward on many of the things. In fact, we had some in 
motion before the hearing. You've helped us, I think, a great 
deal make those much more targeted, and we'll ask for your 
continued cooperation, if it's available, as we move forward to 
move with some results from this hearing.
    So I want to thank everyone. This was an important hearing 
and it's something that can't be left to do afterwards. It has 
to be done while things occur.
    So with that, members of the committee will have 5 days to 
submit statements, extraneous materials, and questions for the 
record, subject to the length and limitation in the rules.
    As I mentioned at the outset, we have made your written 
statements all part of the record and I want to thank you for 
those statements as well.
    With that, this hearing is adjourned. Thank you so much.
    [Whereupon, at 12:27 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

                                APPENDIX
                                
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


                                 [all]