Does sharing images of Russian prisoners of war violate the Geneva Conventions?
By Maggie Parkhill
Click here for updates on this story
TORONTO (CTV Network) — Videos of captured Russian soldiers in Ukraine are circulating widely on the internet, shared by some media outlets as well as the general public.
But does the creation of these videos – or even the sharing of them on social media platforms – break the Geneva Conventions? PROECTION AGAINST PUBLIC CURIOSITY
The general staff of Ukraine’s armed forces said on March 1 that Ukraine was holding 200 Russian prisoners of war, according to a Reuters report. Some of these PoWs have appeared in videos taken by Ukrainian authorities, as well as local and international media.
Some of these videos show soldiers saying they were duped by Moscow’s leadership about the reasons for the invasion of Ukraine. Others show prisoners tearfully calling their mothers, asking to be picked up in Ukraine and taken home.
One such video, which is nearly 10-minutes long, shows a Russian soldier with a bruised face speaking at a press conference in Ukraine, telling the media present that he had believed the misinformation spread about Ukraine in Russia, and specifically Russia’s claim that Ukraine was overrun with fascists and Nazis. He said he will accept jail time and feels shame for his involvement in the invasion, but that those still in Russia who believe the Russian leadership’s claims are “brainwashed.” One version of the video on Twitter has been viewed 12.2 million times, and has been retweeted more than 115,000 times.
But some human rights organizations are concerned that such videos are a breach of international law.
In a statement released Monday, Amnesty International said that prisoners of war captured during the invasion of Ukraine “must have their rights respected under the Third Geneva Convention.”
The Third Geneva Convention states that “prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.”
According to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), a neutral intermediary guaranteed access to prisoners of war under the 1949 Geneva Conventions, the protection against public curiosity was historically meant to prevent detainees from being used for propaganda purposes, and to prevent them from being subject to humiliations such as being paraded through the streets in enemy territory to boost morale.
But in a 2020 commentary on the ICRC’s interpretation of the Third Geneva Convention, the ICRC said that with the advent of photography — and later, videography – images of PoWs have been taken and disseminated to the public during the Vietnam War, the Gulf War and the war in Iraq.
The agency highlighted the development of social media as a cause for concern when it comes to abiding by Article 13, which protects against public curiosity.
“Protection from public curiosity has gained particular relevance in the recent past owing to the rapid developments in communication technology and the growing involvement of mass media in the coverage of armed conflicts, together with the ubiquity of social media as a means of distributing both images and comment,” the commentary reads.
In a tweet on March 4, the ICRC reiterated that the protection of PoWs against public curiosity includes avoiding circulating images of detainees publicly on social media. “Any public appearances can put prisoners of war at risk when they are returned to their home country, and also prove problematic for their families whilst they are detained,” said Joanne Mariner, Director of Amnesty International’s Crisis Response Programme, in a statement posted to the organization’s website.
“Article 13 of the Third Geneva Convention explicitly states that prisoners of war must be protected at all times, particularly from public curiosity. It is duty of the detaining power to ensure these prisoners’ rights are properly respected from the moment they are captured.” PROTECTION AGAINST INTIMIDATION
Under Articles 13 and 17 of the Third Geneva Convention, PoWs are also not allowed to be intimidated or coerced.
Historically, some PoWs have been coerced into giving statements against their own side of a war. In its 2020 commentary, the ICRC said that during the Vietnam War, U.S. pilots who had been detained were shown on television in Vietnam, where they were forced to make anti-American statements.
On social media, some users have come to their own conclusions about whether or not statements made by Russian detainees are voluntarily given.
In a tweet sharing the previously mentioned 10-minute video of a Russian PoW, Paul Sweeney, a member of Scottish Parliament, said that the statement was “clearly made willingly and with touching sincerity.”
After receiving some criticism, Sweeney replied in a tweet saying that Article 13 should not contravene a prisoner of war’s voluntary right to express themselves.
But without enough context or proof, Andrew Stroehlein, the European media director for Human Rights Watch, said it is difficult to determine whether statements made by prisoners of war are given genuinely or under duress.
“Although it may seem in some videos that PoWs are free to speak as they wish, they are held captive by another military force, and it’s almost impossible to judge from one video the conditions they face,” Stroehlein tweeted on March 3.
Stroehlein added that PoW protections are also meant to protect the families of soldiers back home in Russia, who may face retaliation for comments made about Russia while in detention.
And while the international community’s condemnation of Russia has particularly boosted videos of Russian PoWs speaking out on social media against Moscow’s military action, Stroehlein said the same rules apply for Ukrainian PoWs detained by Russian forces. According to Reuters, Russian media is reporting that their troops have detained hundreds of Ukrainian prisoners of war.
“The international obligation is upon states to uphold these standards, of course, but media outlets and even individuals have a part to play,” Stroehlein said. “So, please, think before you tweet.”
Please note: This content carries a strict local market embargo. If you share the same market as the contributor of this article, you may not use it on any platform.
Sonja Puzicsonja.puzic@bellmedia.ca
