The Protection of Journalist Viktoriia Roshchyna under International Humanitarian Law

Viktoriia Roshchyna, a Ukrainian journalist whose reporting centered on crime, human rights and Russia’s actions in occupied Ukraine, died in Russian captivity. She was a contract journalist, working for numerous unbiased information retailers comparable to Ukrainska Pravda, in addition to the Ukrainian service Radio Free Europe. Viktoriia disappeared on 3 August 2023. She was captured in summer season 2023 whereas reporting close to the Zaporizhzhia nuclear energy station throughout her fourth journey into Russian-occupied territory. Viktoriia was held with out cost or entry to authorized companies and had nearly no contact with the skin world. She died in detention after a 12 months, aged 27, beneath unknown circumstances. Preliminary forensic findings point out that in detention, the journalist was tortured, had burn marks from electro shocks, suffered damaged ribs, and her head was shaved. When Viktoriia’s physique was returned in February 2025 to Ukraine, her mind, eyes and larynx have been lacking. This submit examines the worldwide humanitarian regulation (IHL) framework that ruled the safety of Viktoriia Roshchyna in a state of affairs of navy occupation. It displays on whether or not her reporting from occupied territory constituted hurt to the occupying energy or in any other case amounted to direct participation in hostilities. It additional highlights the obligations owed by Russia to Ms. Roshchyna beneath the regulation of occupation as soon as Viktoriia got here beneath Russian management and was detained. The commentary concludes by emphasizing that defending journalists in armed battle is the duty of opponents via efficient implementation of their worldwide humanitarian regulation and worldwide human rights regulation obligations.

Viktoriia Roshchyna as a journalist: The protecting framework of IHL

Whether or not freelance or employed by a media organisation, IHL equally protects journalists as civilians. Viktoriia Roshchyna loved IHL safety not solely when she fell into the palms of Russian brokers but additionally whereas she was within the Russian-occupied Zaporizhzhia investigating its detention system. In worldwide armed battle, journalists are talked about in Article 4(A)(4 ) Geneva Conference III 1949 (“warfare correspondents”), Article 79 Further Protocol I 1977 (“journalists”), and customary regulation Rule 34 (“civilan journalists”). IHL comprises no provision prohibiting journalistic actions throughout armed conflicts. Journalists can subsequently report and perform their skilled duties in instances of armed conflicts. Underneath Article 79 Further Protocol I 1977, journalists are thought of to be civilians, offered they take no motion adversely affecting their civilian standing. The broader challenge to think about is which actions would possibly adversely have an effect on Viktoriia’s standing as a civilian?

The phrase ‘no motion adversely affecting their standing as civilians’ implies that journalists should not take part immediately in hostilities. In the event that they did, not solely would they be attacked at some stage in such participation, however it could additionally impression their skill to interact of their skilled duties. This safety framework must be distinguished from Article 4 of Geneva III. This text contains warfare correspondents among the many classes of individuals entitled to prisoner-of-war (POW) standing, offered they’ve been approved by the armed forces they accompany and issued an identification card in accordance with the mannequin annexed to the Conference. Article 4(A)(4) Geneva III characterizes warfare correspondents as people who carry out official or sanctioned capabilities for the armed forces whereas not qualifying as combatants beneath IHL (at 906). They’re subsequently finest understood as civilians assigned particular roles (§ 1456). The authorized standing of warfare correspondents exists solely within the context of worldwide armed conflicts. On this respect, Geneva Conventions I (Article 13), II (Article 13), and III (Article 4) persistently place warfare correspondents amongst “individuals who accompany the armed forces with out truly being members thereof,” topic to prior authorization by the armed forces involved (at 458). The 2020 Worldwide Committee of the Purple Cross Commentary to GC III additional clarifies the excellence between warfare correspondents, who will not be members of the armed forces however approved to accompany armed forces, and different journalists, who lack such authorization (§ 1049). Ought to warfare correspondents fall into the palms of the enemy, they’re entitled to POW standing, whereas different journalists are thought to be civilians and could also be interned solely when completely vital for causes of safety (§§1049-1050). Ought to the individual not be entitled to the safety of POW standing, they should be accorded safety pursuant to Geneva IV, offered the standards of Article 4 are met. Viktoriia Roshchyna didn’t fall beneath Article 4 Geneva III: she was a contract journalist in harmful skilled mission in armed battle, on an occupied territory, and subsequently a civilian that needed to be accorded the safety as envisaged by Article 79 Further Protocol I, Article 4 Geneva IV, and customary Rule 34.

Did Viktoriia Roshchyna’s reporting represent hurt to the navy occupant?

Viktoriia’s journalistic actions didn’t represent hurt to the occupying energy. Her reporting neither resulted in harm to Russia’s navy personnel nor injury to its navy belongings, nor did they adversely have an effect on Russia’s navy operations or operational capabilities. A journalist is

an individual who makes an attempt to acquire or feedback on or makes use of info for the press or for radio or tv; any correspondent, reporter, photographer, or cameraman, or his/her movie, radio or tv technical assistant, habitually finishing up such actions as his/her important occupation.

In step with this definition, journalistic exercise doesn’t represent hurt to the warring sides throughout the that means of IHL. Nevertheless, particularly in conditions of navy occupation, the notion of hurt could also be interpreted broadly and arbitrarily by the navy occupant, prompting it to discourage the journalists from reporting on points comparable to residing situations within the occupied territory or the best way the civilian inhabitants is handled, together with alleged violations of the regulation of armed battle. In doing so, the occupying energy abuses the idea of hurt by increasing its that means beneath IHL and justifies restrictive measures towards journalists. Hurt as such can be restricted to break or harm ensuing from conduct that might in the end impression the navy operations or navy capability of the occupying energy, thereby weakening its navy effectiveness. This can be the case if journalists immediately take part in hostilities towards the occupying energy (Article 79(2) Further Protocol I). Or when the occupant considers it vital for crucial causes of its safety to take security measures regarding protected individuals, subjecting them to assigned residence or internment (Article 78 Geneva IV). The invocation of crucial causes of its safety could, in flip, lead to unjustified restrictions that forestall journalists from exercising their skilled duties. 

Did Viktoriia Roshchyna’s conduct represent direct participation in hostilities?

It didn’t. Being a journalist and reporting throughout an armed battle doesn’t quantity to direct participation in hostilities. For Viktoriia Roshchyna’s journalistic conduct to qualify as direct participation, three cumulative parts should have been glad (at 46-64). First, the act should attain the required threshold of hurt; that’s, it should be prone to adversely have an effect on the navy operations or navy capability of a celebration to the battle, or alternatively, to trigger demise, harm, or destruction to individuals or objects protected towards direct assault. Second, there should be a direct causal hyperlink between the act and the anticipated hurt, that means that the conduct should immediately lead to such hurt or represent an integral a part of a coordinated navy operation resulting in that hurt. Third, the act should exhibit a belligerent nexus, particularly that it’s particularly designed to trigger the required hurt in help of 1 get together to the battle and to the detriment of one other. This threshold could also be met the place a journalist goes past acquiring or commenting on or makes use of info for the press or for radio or tv: collects tactical navy intelligence materials; transmits navy goal places and different related info for focusing on to the occupant’s adversary; or acts as a liaison between navy items in figuring out essential navy infrastructure for the occupant and directs their assaults accordingly. In such circumstances, the person would lose safety from assault at some stage in that act, although they might not lose their civilian standing as such. This might finally lead such people not to have the ability to proceed their journalistic actions.

Within the case of Viktoriia, she was indirectly taking part in hostilities. Viktoriia was exercising her skilled duties, reporting on Russia’s detention system in Zaporizhzhia, in Russian-occupied Ukrainian territory . On condition that her reporting sought to doc the remedy of Ukrainians held in Russia’s advert hoc prisons, the subject is of utmost public significance each domestically and internationally. It implicates core typical humanitarian protections that Russia will not be delivering to protected individuals beneath IHL. Scrutiny and journalistic reporting in regards to the remedy of detainees doesn’t in itself undermine public order of the occupied territory or safety of the occupant. Slightly, it pertains to the enforcement of binding IHL obligations. On this context, Viktoriia’s reporting would arguably convey to mild Russia’s IHL violations, notably of Genvea IV governing the safety of civilians in time of warfare and beneath occupation.

Russia’s crucial causes of safety with regard to Viktoriia Roshchyna

Did crucial causes of safety allow Russia to lawfully prohibit the freedom of Viktoriia Roshchyna beneath Geneva IV? It’s submitted that Russia unlawfully disadvantaged Ms. Roshchyna’s of her liberty. In accordance with lex lata, even within the absence of direct participation in hostilities, the occupying energy per Article 78 Geneva IV could resort to measures grounded in crucial causes of its safety, comparable to internment or assigned residence, successfully stopping journalists from finishing up their skilled capabilities. As famous within the latest Commentary to Article 78 of Geneva IV, the applying of this provision requires a two-step evaluation (§ 4264). First, the protected individual should pose a real risk to the safety of the occupying energy. Second, internment or assigned residence should be completely vital in response to that risk, that means that the danger can’t be adequately addressed via much less extreme measures (ibid).

What, then, can qualify as crucial causes of safety? Article 78 and the latest commentary don’t present which actions could also be thought of crucial causes of safety (§ 4252). It’s argued that the latter phrasing will be defined via acts that might be geared towards destabilising occupant’s efficient management over the territory, impairing public order and security of the occupied territory (Article 43 Hague Rules 1907), in addition to actions that might injury occupant’s infrastructure and hurt personnel, comparable to critical acts of sabotage (Article 68 Geneva IV). On this mild, the detention of Viktoriia raises three questions: Can criticism or publicity of IHL violations justify journalist internment? Can journalism pursuant to IHL represent a prison offence? And does essential journalism threaten public order and security beneath Article 43 Hague Rules?

The reply to all three questions is not any. Internment beneath occupation regulation pursuant to Article 78 Geneva IV should be based mostly on an individualized, concrete safety risk. Journalistic criticism and investigative reporting, in addition to publicity of misconduct of the occupant, wouldn’t ordinarily represent a reliable floor for internment. Underneath Article 68 Geneva IV, journalistic exercise can not give rise to prison legal responsibility or prosecution, as reporting—even when essential of the occupying energy or exposing their IHL violations—will not be an act of hurt and offence. As an alternative, it’s a skilled exercise safeguarded by IHL, anchored within the simultaneous studying of Article 79 Further Protocol I and Article 147 Geneva IV. Prison legal responsibility of the journalist would arguably stem from the act of breaching penal provisions as per Article 64 Geneva IV, or from acts inflicting hurt to the navy occupant pursuant to Article 68 Geneva IV. As regards guaranteeing public order beneath Article 43 Hague Rules, essential journalism doesn’t quantity to a risk to public order merely as a result of it’s unfavourable or exposes IHL typical violations of the occupant. Public order within the sense of Article 43, in accordance with this writer refers to territory’s societal stability and never navy occupant’s safety from criticism (at 83). The expression of criticism or the reporting of potential violations accordingly can not justify restrictive measures towards journalists on occupied territory.

What obligations did Russia owe to Viktoriia Roshchyna beneath the regulation of occupation?

It has been reported that earlier than her demise, Ms. Roshchyna was detained for 4 months in Russia-occupied Melitopol, the place she was held incommunicado and subjected to torture, together with electrical shocks. The journalist was subsequently transferred to a pretrial detention facility in Taganrog, Russia, described as a “hell on earth”, infamous for the mistreatment of Ukrainian POWs and civilian detainees. Viktoriia reportedly died whereas being transferred from that facility to Moscow .

Ms. Roschyna, as a journalist, would have been protected beneath Article 79 Further Protocol I and revel in protected individual standing beneath Geneva IV when she fell within the palms of the Russian Federation brokers (Article 4 Geneva IV). This implies as per Geneva IV she needed to be handled humanely, have entry to satisfactory meals and hygiene, shouldn’t have been tortured and her internment ought to have been according to the Article 78§ 2 Geneva IV necessities. Ms. Roschyna’s torture and demise, her being incommunicado would additionally violate Article 75 Further Protocol I. An additional challenge is Russia’s switch of the journalist to its personal territory. By doing so, Russia has violated Article 49 Geneva IV which prohibits forcible switch or deportation of protected individuals from the occupied territory. Article 49 permits solely the short-term evacuation of civilians, and solely the place required for the safety of the inhabitants or for crucial navy causes. The internment of the journalist ought to have continued on occupied territory in full observance of Geneva IV provisions and Viktoriia shouldn’t have been transferred to Russia (§ 3181). The acts inflicted upon Ms. Roschyna represent grave breaches in accordance with Article 147 Geneva IV and signify critical violations of the regulation of occupation, participating particular person prison accountability. 

The safety afforded to Viktoriia Roshchyna beneath IHL doesn’t function in isolation. Worldwide human rights regulation continues to use in conditions of armed battle alongside IHL. The concurrent applicability of those two our bodies of regulation is effectively established in worldwide jurisprudence, together with within the case regulation of the Worldwide Court docket of Justice (§ 99). Throughout navy occupation, the place the occupying energy workouts efficient management over territory and people, it’s certain not solely by IHL but additionally by its human rights obligations, which apply extraterritorially in such circumstances (ibid).

Conclusion  

The tragic case of Viktoriia Roshchyna, who was detained on occupied territory, tortured, and who in the end died in Russian custody, illustrates the dire penalties when IHL obligations are ignored. Viktoriia’s case underscores Russia’s failure to uphold IHL protections in occupied Ukraine. IHL doesn’t bar journalists from reporting on armed conflicts, together with from throughout the armed battle zones. It subsequently doesn’t prohibit journalistic exercise, it acknowledges the proper of journalists to hold out their skilled actions in such contexts. IHL imposes clear obligations on all events to a world armed battle, notably the occupying energy, to make sure the security {and professional} freedom of journalists by observing the related protecting guidelines.