Royal Commission of Inquiry: Investigating War Crimes in the Hawaiian Islands

Royal Commission of Inquiry: Investigating War Crimes in the Hawaiian Islands

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.


The Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) was established by Proclamation of the Hawaiian Kingdom Council of Regency on June 17, 2019, yet there has been no coverage in either the mainstream media or the alternative media. Most people are simply not aware that the Hawaiian Islands have been under a prolonged and illegal occupation by the United States since January 17, 1893.

What is the RCI, its mandate and its investigative authority? This brief article will attempt to answer these questions and, consequently, bring a broader awareness of the American occupation.

A simple Google search of Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom will reveal that the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in The Hague, Netherlands, acknowledged the Hawaiian Kingdom to be a State or country and its government is the Council of Regency. This continued existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a country was not affected by the illegality or duration of the American occupation. The PCA was established in 1899 by the United States and other countries to resolve international disputes.

In 1999, arbitration proceedings were initiated at the PCA between a Hawaiian national and the government of the Hawaiian Kingdom—the Council of Regency. The dispute centered on the unlawful imposition of American laws over the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom. At the PCA’s website, it states:

Lance Paul Larsen, a resident of Hawaii, brought a claim against the Hawaiian Kingdom by its Council of Regency (“Hawaiian Kingdom”) on the grounds that the Government of the Hawaiian Kingdom is in continual violation of: (a) its 1849 Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation with the United States of America, as well as the principles of international law laid down in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969 and (b) the principles of international comity, for allowing the unlawful imposition of American municipal laws over the claimant’s person within the territorial jurisdiction of the Hawaiian Kingdom.

Larsen was not able to maintain his lawsuit without the participation of the United States, despite being formally invited by the parties, because it was the United States that caused the injury to him and not the Council of Regency. He was claiming the Council of Regency was liable for the injury by allowing the imposition of American laws, which the Council rejected. Consequently, the United States was a necessary third party.


However, for the Council of Regency, the significance of this case is the PCA’s acknowledgment of the Hawaiian Kingdom’s continued existence as a State before the arbitral tribunal was established. Before the PCA could form the arbitral tribunal to resolve the international dispute, Article 47 of the 1907 PCA Convention required that one of the parties had to be a State. The proceedings were initiated on November 8, 1999, and the arbitral tribunal was formed on June 9, 2000, which is after the PCA verified the Hawaiian Kingdom to be an existing State.

The United States, which is a contracting State to the 1907 PCA Convention and a member State of the PCA Administrative Council, did not object to these proceedings and even entered into an agreement with Larsen and the Council of Regency to have access to all records and pleadings of the case. This agreement was brokered by Phyllis Hamilton, Deputy Secretary General of the PCA, between the parties and the American Embassy in The Hague. For more information on this case, download the article “Backstory—Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom at the Permanent Court of Arbitration (1999-2001).”

In 2005, the United Nations at its World Summit adopted the principle of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) its populations from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing. In 2009, the General Assembly reaffirmed the principle, and in 2021, the General Assembly passed a resolution on “The responsibility to protect and the prevention of genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.”

According to the International Committee of the Red Cross Study on Customary International Humanitarian Law, Rule 158 specifies that “States must investigate war crimes allegedly committed by their nationals or armed forces, or on their territory, and, if appropriate, prosecute the suspects. They must also investigate other war crimes over which they have jurisdiction and, if appropriate, prosecute the suspects.” This “rule that States must investigate war crimes and prosecute the suspects is set forth in numerous military manuals, with respect to grave breaches, but also more broadly with respect to war crimes in general.”

Picture of Queen Lili’uokalani, Hawai’i’s last queen, who was overthrown in a U.S. invasion on January 17, 1893. [Source: Hawai’i Archives]

While Larsen was not able to maintain his suit against the Council of Regency, it did bring to the attention of the international community the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty during military occupation. Usurpation of sovereignty during military occupation is the imposition of the laws and administrative policies of the Occupying State over the territory of the Occupied State. It was declared to be a war crime in the aftermath of the First World War by the Commission on Responsibilities in its 1919 report, to which the United States was a party.

In the annex of its 1919 report, the Commission charged that in Romania the German authorities had instituted German civil courts to try disputes between subjects of the Central Powers or between a subject of these powers and a Romanian, a neutral, or subjects of Germany’s enemies.” In Serbia, the Bulgarian authorities had “Proclaimed that the Serbian State no longer existed, and that Serbian territory had become Bulgarian.”

It listed several other war crimes committed by Bulgaria in occupied Serbia: “Serbian law, courts and administration ousted”; “Taxes collected under Bulgarian fiscal regime”; “Serbian currency suppressed”; “Public property removed or destroyed, including books, archives and MSS (e.g., from the National Library, the University Library, Serbian Legation at Sofia, French Consulate at Uskub).” It also charged that the German and Austrian authorities had committed several war crimes in Serbia: “The Austrians suspended many Serbian laws and substituted their own, especially in penal matters, in procedure, judicial organization, etc.”

The war crime of usurpation of sovereignty during military occupation was referred to by Judge Blair of the American Military Commission in a separate opinion in the Justice Case, that “This rule is incident to military occupation and was clearly intended to protect the inhabitants of any occupied territory against the unnecessary exercise of sovereignty by a military occupant.” Australia, Netherlands and China enacted laws making usurpation of sovereignty during military occupation a war crime. In the case of Australia, the Parliament enacted the Australian War Crimes Act in 1945 that included the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty during military occupation.

This war crime is also considered particular customary international law and binding on the Allied Powers of the First World War, whether they enacted a domestic law or not. The Treaty of Versailles listed these countries, which include the United States of America, Great Britain, France, Italy and Japan, principal Allied Powers and Associated Powers that include Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, China, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, now known as Czech Republic, Ecuador, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Liberia, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Romania, South Africa, Thailand, and Uruguay.

In the Hawaiian situation, usurpation of sovereignty during military occupation serves as a source for the commission of other war crimes within the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom, which includes the war crimes of compulsory enlistment, denationalization, pillage, destruction of property, deprivation of fair and regular trial, deporting civilians of the occupied territory, and transferring populations into an occupied territory. The reasoning for the prohibition of imposing extraterritorial prescriptions or measures of the occupying State is addressed by Professor Eyal Benvenisti:

The occupant may not surpass its limits under international law through extra­territorial prescriptions emanating from its national institutions: the legislature, government, and courts. The reason for this rule is, of course, the functional symmetry, with respect to the occupied territory, among the various lawmak­ing authorities of the occupying state. Without this symmetry, Article 43 could become meaningless as a constraint upon the occupant, since the occupation administration would then choose to operate through extraterritorial prescription of its national institutions.

On March 22, 2022, the United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC) was made aware that the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty was and continues to be committed by the United States over the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom, when the author, on behalf of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers and the American Association of Jurists both of which are NGOs with observer status to the HRC, delivered an oral statement.

The RCI was established in similar fashion to the United States proposal of establishing a Commission of Inquiry after the First World War “to consider generally the relative culpability of the authors of the war and also the question of their culpability as to the violations of the laws and customs of war committed during its course.”

In accordance with Hawaiian administrative precedence in addressing crises, the RCI was established by “virtue of the prerogative of the Crown provisionally vested in [the Council of Regency] in accordance with Article 33 of the 1864 Constitution, and to ensure a full and thorough investigation into the violations of international humanitarian law and human rights within the territorial jurisdiction of the Hawaiian Kingdom.” The author has been designated as Head of the Royal Commission, and Dr. Federico Lenzerini, Ph.D., as Deputy Head. Pursuant to Article 3—Composition of the Royal Commission, the Head of the Royal Commission has been authorized to seek “recognized experts in various fields.”

The RCI acquired legal opinions from the following experts in international law: on the subject of the continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom under international law, Professor Matthew Craven from the University of London, SOAS, School of Law; on the subject of the elements of war crimes committed in the Hawaiian Kingdom since 1893, Professor William Schabas, Middlesex University London, School of Law; and on the subject of human rights violations in the Hawaiian Kingdom and the right of self-determination by the Hawaiian citizenry, Professor Federico Lenzerini, University of Siena, Italy, Department of Political and International Studies.

These experts, to include the Head of the Royal Commission, are the authors of chapters 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of Part II of the Royal Commission’s eBook—The Royal Commission of Inquiry: Investigating War Crimes and Human Rights Violations Committed in the Hawaiian Kingdom.

According to Article 1(2) of the proclamation, “The purpose of the Royal Commission shall be to investigate the consequences of the United States’ belligerent occupation, including with regard to international law, humanitarian law and human rights, and the allegations of war crimes committed in that context. The geographical scope and time span of the investigation will be sufficiently broad and be determined by the head of the Royal Commission.”

The Royal Commission began by providing Preliminary Reports on various subjects relative to its mandate and its investigation of war crimes that meet the constituent elements of mens rea—criminal intent, and actus reus—the act or acts of committing the crime.

In mid-November of 2022, the RCI published its initial criminal and war criminal reports no. 22-0001, 22-0002, 22-0002-1, 22-0003, 22-0003-1, 22-0004, 22-0004-1, 22-0005, 22-0005-1, 22-0006, 22-0006-1, 22-0007, 22-0007-1, 22-0008 and 22-0009.

These reports identified senior leadership of the United States, the State of Hawai’i, and its Counties, which include President Joseph Biden and State of Hawai’i Governor David Ige, to be guilty of committing the war crimes of usurpation of sovereignty during military occupation, deprivation of fair and regular trial, and pillage. The RCI criminal reports provide the necessary evidence for the issuance of arrest warrants and prosecution by foreign countries.

Usurpation of sovereignty has not only victimized the civilian population in the Hawaiian Islands for more than a century, but it has also victimized the civilians of other countries that have visited the islands since 1898 who were unlawfully subjected to American municipal laws and administrative measures. These include State of Hawai’i sales tax on goods purchased in the islands but also taxes placed exclusively on tourists’ accommodations collected by the State of Hawai’i and the Counties.

The Counties have recently added 3% surcharges to the State of Hawai’i’s 10.25% transient accommodations tax. Added with the State of Hawai’i’s general excise tax of 4% in addition to the 0.5% County general excise tax surcharges, civilians who are visiting the islands will be paying a total of 17.75% to the occupying power. In addition, those civilians of foreign countries doing business in the Hawaiian Islands are also subjected to paying American duties on goods that are imported to the United States destined to Hawai’i. These duty rates are collected by the United States according to the United States Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and the Trade Agreements Act of 1979.

The far reach of the victims of war crimes committed in the Hawaiian Islands includes civilians throughout the world in various countries.


Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Dr. Keanu Sai is Head of the Royal Commission of Inquiry. He also served as lead Agent for the Hawaiian Kingdom in Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom at the Permanent Court of Arbitration from 1999-2001. Dr. Sai is also a faculty member at the University of Hawai‘i where he teaches political science and Hawaiian Studies in both undergraduate and graduate courses. Dr. Sai can be reached at

Featured image is from


Russian POWs in Makeevka Executed by Ukraine Soldiers

Marine1063 – November 20th, 2022

In this clip you can see the Russian service men surrendering and been made prisoner and then the same men in the same location laying dead on the spot.
The names of perpetrators of the brutal execution of Russian POWs became known as the killers did not even hide their faces, their names became known very quickly.
The perpetrators, allegedly responsible for the murder, are border guards Artur Bortnichuk and Nazar Mikhailovsky, graduates of the Ministry of Internal Affairs University in Kharkov. The wounded “Andrukha” most likely is Andrey Sokol.
It is worth noting these are not Nazis from the Azov battalion or the Right Sector, but ordinary AFU soldiers, who absolutely inhumanly and criminally gathered the prisoners and shot them point blank right on the spot.

SourceSouth Australian Gov Criminal Organisation

Attempt to Try Russian Leaders for War Crimes Is Part of the West’s Weaponization of the International Criminal Court

Attempt to Try Russian Leaders for War Crimes Is Part of the West’s Weaponization of the International Criminal Court

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.


International Criminal Court (ICC) continues to serve as a “battering ram for U.S. and NATO policy,” as the former U.S. ambassador-at-large for war crimes in the Clinton administration defined it.

The quote above does not come from President Putin of Russia or from President Xi of China. It comes from David Scheffer, former U.S. Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Issues (1997-2001) in the Clinton administration and lead negotiator for the United States during the creation of not fewer than five international criminal tribunals, namely for ex-Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Cambodia and the International Criminal Court (ICC).

Scheffer used the battering-ram image while talking about the first international criminal tribunal established in May 1993, the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia. He said:

“By then, the tribunal was a potent judicial tool, and I had enough support from President Clinton, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Secretary of Defense William Cohen, and other top officials in Washington to wield it like a battering ram in the execution of U.S. and NATO policy.” (All the Missing Souls, A Personal History of the War Crimes Tribunals, Princeton University Press, 2012)

This quote is important today as calls resound to bring Russian citizens and the president of Russia before international criminal courts, whether they exist or are being planned. The calls are being issued by NATO countries, the European Union as well as by UN organizations and by the obedient Western media.

NATO and European Union strategy is becoming clear. Their goal is to weaponize international criminal justice and human rights, today against Russia, today and tomorrow against China or any other country that dares to say NO to what the United States and its allies or vassals are trying to impose—or save. Here are a few examples:

  • The ICC has declared itself to have jurisdiction over Russia even though Russia is not a member. According to ICC prosecutor Karim Khan, that is not a problem, “Legally yes it wouldn’t represent an obstacle to our jurisdiction.” Prosecutor Khan travels to Ukraine under the benevolent and totally impartial protection of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, whose many documented crimes committed since 2014 are of course not mentioned.

In March 2022, the UN Human Rights Council appointed Judge Erik Møse to head the UN Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine that would investigate alleged crimes in Ukraine that could lead to indictment of Russians. Møse was judge at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda from 1999 to 2009. (see below)

Møse’s Commission also conducted its investigation under the very kind protection of the Ukrainian Armed Forces. It produced a report on September 23 that quite predictably concluded that Russians had committed war crimes. Unsurprisingly, it also concluded that Russians had committed sexual crimes and that the victims were 4 to 82 years old.

Equally unsurprisingly, no mention was made about the well-documented crimes of the Ukrainian Army from 2014 on, particularly in the Donbas.

  • The International Bar Association is working closely with the Ukrainian Bar Association to prepare for criminal trials to be conducted in Ukraine or before the ICC. Mark Ellis, Executive Director of the IBA, recently declared that the fact that Russia is not a member of the ICC is not a problem. Russian political and military authorities could be indicted, tried and, in the case of a conviction and regime change, could be arrested wherever they are.

The Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General in charge of issues related to sexual violence, Pramila Patten, declared at a Paris press conference on October 14 that acts of rape, mutilation and sexual aggression were part of the Russian military strategy. She also claimed that Russian soldiers were equipped with Viagra. She presented no evidence, but simply parroted the report of the Commission of Inquiry led by Judge Møse referred to above.

Pramila Patten [Source:]

  • Josep Borrell, the EU’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs, takes every possible occasion to threaten Russia militarily while at the same time boasting about how great international criminal justice is. Borrell is the man who says Europe is a garden while the rest of the world is a jungle that is threatening to invade the garden. He also calls on the European gardeners to go and show the backward peoples of the jungle how they should live.

The product of a unipolar world order

The fact that the first international criminal tribunals after Nuremberg were created in the 1990s is significant. It would not have been possible before 1990.

According to the late Ramsey Clark, former U.S. Attorney General,

“There would be no UN had it been implied in any way in the Charter that there would be a criminal tribunal. If it had been put in directly, the meeting would have been over. People would have packed their bags in Washington before the San Francisco meeting and left. The United States would have been the first to leave.” (Rwanda and the New Scramble for Africa, p. 171)

The tribunals established in the 1990s are a pure product of the New World Order announced by George H. W. Bush after the fall of the Soviet Union. It was to be a unipolar world order led by the United States. The U.S. would control the international institutions, make the laws, identify the guilty people, indict, try and punish them, while remaining unaccountable for their own acts. The Clinton administration took over in 1993 to lead the creation of the tribunals that his negotiator boasted about as a “battering ram in the execution of U.S. and NATO policy.”

Ramsey Clark insisted:

“I wouldn’t underestimate the central wrong of selecting people for prosecution. It’s enemies they’re choosing. It really is war by other means and it’s very cruel.” (Ibid., p. 185)

That is how the tribunals operated. In ex-Yugoslavia, mainly Serbs were indicted, but not a word was mentioned about NATO’s massive bombing and destruction of ex-Yugoslavia.

International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia | United Nations<br /> International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia” width=”549″ height=”412″ data-attachment-id=”48184″ data-permalink=”” data-orig-file=”″ data-orig-size=”480,360″ data-comments-opened=”1″ data-image-meta=”{"aperture":"0","credit":"","camera":"","caption":"","created_timestamp":"0","copyright":"","focal_length":"0","iso":"0","shutter_speed":"0","title":"","orientation":"0"}” data-image-title=”international-criminal-tribunal-for-the-former-yug” data-image-description data-image-caption data-medium-file=”″ data-large-file=”″></p>
<p><span>The International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia (ICTY) was reminiscent of a Stalinist show trial where mainly Serbs, but no U.S. or NATO officials, were prosecuted. [Source: <a]

The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda was probably the worst case of victors’ justice. Whereas war raged when the events in question took place, only members of the former government or opponents of the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) and its leader Paul Kagame, who was backed by the U.S. and UK, were indicted.

Court hearing during the "Butare case"

The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda was as heavily politicized if not more than the tribunal for Yugsolavia. [Source:]

Despite irrefutable evidence of crimes committed by the RPF and by Paul Kagame himself—who triggered the mass killings in Rwanda by invading the country illegally from Uganda, and as evidence indicates, shot down the airplane of Hutu president Juvenal Habyarimana—he and his entire army have enjoyed total impunity.

What has happened to the people the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda acquitted, sentenced or sentenced and eventually freed? In short, some of the acquitted or “freed” people are still under house arrest in Niger years after they were acquitted or “freed,” stateless, without papers, without the right to join their families, and/or abandoned by an international kangaroo court.

Others are sent to 21st century penal colonies in Benin, Mali, and Senegal, but not to The Hague, headquarters of the ICC. It is a judicial apartheid for Africans. The question arises: How could the UN High Commission on Human Rights entrust the inquiry into crimes in Ukraine to a judge like Erik Møse who left such a flagrant violation of human rights in his wake and who has been silent about solving the problem?

Is the ICC Racist? | Justice in Conflict


Déjà vu all over again

The current calls to indict Russian authorities, citizens and the president of Russia resemble exactly what NATO did in 2011 to Libya and to Muammar Gaddafi.

In March 2011, shortly after U.S. Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice declared that Qaddafi was providing Libyan troops with Viagra to help them rape women, the very obedient ICC prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo, upped the ante, saying that Qaddafi had ordered that hundreds of women be raped and that Gaddafi himself “decided to rape.” He produced no evidence.

The UN Commission on Human Rights also quickly sent investigators to identify the crimes committed, including rape and the use of Viagra by the Libyan Armed Forces. When their report came out in March 2012, the investigators concluded that there was no evidence of any systematic policy of sexual violence.

Nonetheless, Moreno Ocampo insisted that the new Libyan authorities had irrefutable evidence to that effect. He appeared to want to provide more propaganda to justify the destruction of Libya and the assassination of Muammar Qaddafi on October 21, 2011. (Source: Slouching Towards Sirte: NATO’s War on Libya and Africa, Maximilian Forte, Baraka Books, 2012, pp. 253-256.)

Russia is not Libya

Fortunately, Russia is not Libya and the unipolar world is sputtering out. Yet old habits die hard and can continue to destroy people and lives.

Although the promoters of so-called international criminal justice are going to have a hard time making their dreams come true, they can still score propaganda points, especially when most of the Western media are satisfied to parrot NATO and EU spokespeople.


Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Robin Philpot is a graduate of the university of Toronto and founder of Baraka Books in Montreal. He is author of A People’s History of Quebec, with Jacques Lacoursière (Baraka Books, 2009); and Rwanda and the New Scramble For Africa: From Tragedy to Useful Imperial Fiction (Baraka Books, 2013), among other works. Robin can be reached at [email protected].

Featured image is from ICC


Ukrainian Army: UAF Execute Captured Russian Soldiers… Blatant War Crimes

Ukrainian Army: UAF Execute Captured Russian Soldiers… Blatant War Crimes

Free Speech Warrior – November 3rd, 2022

SourceSouth Australian Gov Criminal Organisation

Ukrainian Official Confirms ‘Hunt’ to Kill Suspected Pro-Russian ‘Losers’

Ukrainian Official Confirms ‘Hunt’ to Kill Suspected Pro-Russian ‘Losers’

Ukrainian Interior Ministry adviser Anton Gerashchenko told the U.K. Daily Mail in an article published Wednesday that Ukrainian “intelligence services” were killing Ukrainians suspected of collaborating with the Russian military “like pigs” in areas where Kyiv has pushed back the ongoing invasion.

The British newspaper highlighted multiple examples of individuals — civilians with backgrounds such as chicken farm security guard and alleged pedophile — currently in Ukrainian custody and facing prosecution for aiding the Russian invasion. Those cases, where some form of legal process appears to be in place, contrast significantly with Gerashchenko’s insistence that Ukrainian law does not protect collaborators and that the government is actively encouraging extrajudicial killings.

Russia invaded Ukraine in early 2014, colonizing its Crimean peninsula with little interest from then-President Barack Obama or the greater West. Russian strongman Vladimir Putin expanded what became an eight-year-old war in the Ukrainian Donbas region, which borders Russia, this February, announcing a “special operation” to eradicate alleged “Nazism” in Ukraine by overthrowing President Volodymyr Zelensky. Zelensky, who is Jewish and lost family in World War II, has expressed outrage and disgust at the accusations.

This time, unlike under the Obama presidency, the administration of leftist President Joe Biden and allies in Europe have reacted to Russia’s escalation by pouring billions of dollars into the Ukrainian military and implementing sanctions on the Russian economic, which have led Russia to expand trade ties with third-party nations such as India and Brazil.

The Daily Mail highlighted the harrowing situation in Balakliya, eastern Ukraine, where the reported discovery of a Russian torture chamber at a local police station following the ouster of Russian forces has prompted civilian outrage and retaliation. Russian occupiers spent about six months running Balakliya; Zelensky announced the full liberation of the town on September 8, according to Ukrainian state media outlet Ukrinform.

KYIV, UKRAINE - APRIL 18: Advisor to Minister of Internal Affairs of Ukraine Anton Gerashchenko makes statements on Bucha, which came to the fore with allegedly killing of civilians, and civilian casualties at other regions of Kyiv and efforts of Turkiye's to end the war in Ukraine during an exclusive interview in Kyiv, Ukraine on April 18, 2022. (Photo by Metin Aktas/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images)

Adviser to Minister of Internal Affairs of Ukraine Anton Gerashchenko in Kyiv, Ukraine on April 18, 2022. (Metin Aktas/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images)

The newspaper claimed that Ukrainian officials are compiling lists of alleged collaborators and quoted the Interior Ministry official as stating that a “hunt” was on to kill them.

“A hunt has been declared on collaborators and their life is not protected by law,” the Daily Mail quoted Gerashchenko as saying. “Our intelligence services are eliminating them, shooting them like pigs.”

Gerashchenko, an active Twitter user, has not shared the remarks in the Daily Mail interview on his social media profile at press time, though he has discussed the situation in Balakliya.

Another unnamed Ukrainian official referred to the targeted individuals, mostly identified as civilians, as “losers.” The alleged collaborators are reportedly facing retribution because Russia did not allow them to cross the border.

The documents allegedly shared by Ukrainian government officials appeared to confirm at least 29 “retribution killings.” Elsewhere, the newspaper identified another 29 “suspicious deaths” of individuals suspected of aiding the Russians.

The Ukrainian officials’ attitude towards collaborators in the Daily Mail report is reflected in past public statements emphasizing the importance of neutralizing the threat of alleged traitors, with or without due process.

“If I could have the opportunity to check all of our country’s citizens for involvement in cooperation with the Russian Federation, I would definitely do it, because this is a very dangerous situation,” National Defense Secretary Oleksiy Danilov said in August, appearing to encourage aid from the public in helping find collaborators. “And it doesn’t matter where those moles are today. We need to find and ‘poison’ these rats.”

“We need to ensure that none of them remain on our territory. This is a matter of our national security. And their presence in any agencies is very, very dangerous. Why? Because the Russian Federation does not give up hope of achieving its main goal — to destroy us as a state,” Danilov asserted, according to Ukrinform.

At the onset of the war escalation in February, Zelensky announced that the government would hand out firearms to any civilian seeking to aid in fighting Russia; in less than a month, Ukrainian officials said they had distributed 18,000 firearms to civilians. Ukrainian officials have also enabled the civilian capture of Russian military equipment by announcing in March that civilians do not need to declare Russian tanks or other valuable items in their taxes.

As of September, Ukraine’s State Bureau of Investigation (SBI) had announced 881 legal cases related to charges of “high treason” and “collaborative activities.”

“As noted, 315 people were served with notice of charges, 216 people were put on a wanted list. In addition, 1,164 people are being checked for involvement in treason and collaborative activities,” Ukrinform reported last month. “Most cases were opened in Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson regions, and Kyiv city.”

Zelensky appeared to hint in remarks in April, in which he announced legal processes against two generals stripped of their rankings in response to alleged evidence of treason, that extrajudicial handling of such accusations would be deemed necessary.

“Regarding antiheroes. Now I do not have time to deal with all the traitors. But gradually they will all be punished,” Zelensky said, announcing, “the ex-chief of the Main Department of Internal Security of the Security Service of Ukraine Naumov Andriy Olehovych and the former head of the Office of the Security Service of Ukraine in the Kherson region Kryvoruchko Serhiy Oleksandrovych are no longer generals.”

In July, Zelensky also moved to strip Prosecutor General Iryna Venediktova and Security Service Head Ivan Bakanov of their titles in response to hundreds of cases of alleged treason under their leadership.

“Such an array of crimes against the foundations of the country’s national security and the connections that have been exposed between the employees of the security agencies of Ukraine and Russia’s special services rise very serious questions to the relevant leaders,” Zelensky said at the time. Observers deemed the move particularly dramatic as Bakanov was a childhood friend of Zelensky’s.
The latest announcement of a high-profile potential treason case was reported on Thursday, according to Ukrinform, implicating lawmaker Renat Kuzmin. The Ukrainian SBI formally accused Kuzmin of “high treason” on Monday for sharing social media posts deemed to be pro-Russia.

“In particular, starting in March 2021 and even after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Kuzmin voiced propaganda narratives in his addresses, messages on social networks, and on his own website,” Ukrinform claimed. “The purpose of posting such statements was to shape up anti-Ukrainian sentiment in society and exert media influence to the detriment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity, inviolability, and security of the state.”

While international law allows for due process trials for alleged collaborators, the situations described by the Daily Mail in which the Ukrainian government appears to be encouraging the extrajudicial execution of civilians may run afoul of war crimes. As dictated by the Rome Statute, warring parties are considered to be engaging in criminal behavior if engaging in the “willful killing” of protected persons, which includes civilians. The Rome Statute also explicitly outlaws “intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities.”

Enablers of the opposing warring party or collaborators represent a gray area in international law, not explicitly identified in the Rome Statute as protected parties but also not falling into the category of formal combatants, rendering them civilians.

Ukraine is not a party to the Rome Statute. War crimes, however, are considered part of a small group of laws known as “peremptory norms” in international law, meaning any court anywhere has the jurisdiction to enforce them.

Human rights organizations have denounced Russia for widespread evidence of the mass killing of civilians in Ukraine.

“In recent weeks, we have gathered evidence that Russian forces have committed extrajudicial executions and other unlawful killings, which must be investigated as likely war crimes,” Amnesty International Secretary-General Agnès Callamard denounced in May.  “The intentional killing of civilians is a human rights violation and a war crime. These deaths must be thoroughly investigated, and those responsible must be prosecuted, including up the chain of command.”


Ukrainian AFU Murderers Blatantly Slaughter Civilians In Newly Recaptured Kupyansk (18+)

December1991 – October 3rd, 2022

SourceSouth Australian Gov Criminal Organisation


SGT Report Published September 30, 2022

Enjoyed this video? Join my Locals community for exclusive content at!

Feel Focused, Energetic and Rested Today, click the link below
Use coupon code ( SGTR ) to get an extra 10% off

Dr. Lee Vliet and Todd Callender return to SGT Report to expose the FDA’s approval of the UNTESTED mRNA poison bioweapon in a wide variety of “vaccines” coming to a pharmacy near you. Join us on October 6th:


SourceSouth Australian Gov Criminal Organisation


SGT Report Published September 30, 2022

Enjoyed this video? Join my Locals community for exclusive content at!

Feel Focused, Energetic and Rested Today, click the link below
Use coupon code ( SGTR ) to get an extra 10% off

Dr. Lee Vliet and Todd Callender return to SGT Report to expose the FDA’s approval of the UNTESTED mRNA poison bioweapon in a wide variety of “vaccines” coming to a pharmacy near you. Join us on October 6th:


SourceSouth Australian Gov Criminal Organisation


Please help truthPeep spread the word :)