Let’s start with the fact that international law is not just words, it is the spirit, which determines how the law should be interpreted. So, what is the spirit of IV Geneva Convention and Protocol I, which are the main treaties regulating protection of civilians in war zones?

Article 4 of the Convention states that “Persons protected by the Convention are those who […] find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict of which they are not nationals.” This means that Convention is aimed to protect...

...the most obvious victims (being the nationals of the attacked party) from the attacking Party. In our case, Convention is clearly aimed at protecting Ukrainians (and people of other nations) from Russia.

Geneva Convention is not about equalizing the actions of the aggressor and the victim. It is about the protection of the victim FROM the aggression. All actions of Ukraine army should be viewed in the context of the protection it ensures for 40 million Ukrainians citizens.

AI states that “Int humanitarian law requires all parties to a conflict to avoid locating, to the maximum extent feasible, military objectives within or near densely populated areas.” That’s true. Did Ukrainian army violate this rule? No.

There are no densely populated areas on the frontlines anymore. 80-90% of people left in the first months of Russian aggression. Moreover, this obligation applies "to the maximum extent feasible", meaning "within the actual ability of the party to comply with it".

Ukraine has no actual ability to fight outside of populated areas. Firstly, because there’s no military infrastructure available to accommodate the fighting of such scale. Ukr is defending against a much larger enemy and “city fortresses” is the only way to stop it.

Expecting a defensive force to came out of its fortifications is contrary to basic logic and there’s no requirement in Geneva convention to do it. Secondly, because Russians expressly attack populated areas and kill/rape civilians, so Ukr army should be there to protect them.

AI continues: “Other obligations to protect civilians from the effects of attacks include removing civilians from the vicinity of military objectives and giving effective warning of attacks that may affect the civilian population.” –

Removing civilians is happening for the last 5 months. Ukrainian authorities have consistently asked people to evacuate. Evacuation corridors were opened. Ukrainian soldiers risked their lives to evacuate civilians while Russia was shelling the corridors.

Evacuation trains leave Eastern regions of Ukr every day. Everybody who wanted is already out. “Giving effective warning” which AI refers to is an obligation of the Russian army which does the offensive. It is a blatant lie say Ukrainian should do this while they are in defence.

The last by not least – AI relies on testimonies of witnesses which for years were subject to Russian propaganda and may create whatever stories to fit their narrative of Ukr army being the “bad guys”.

Jesus, if this is confirmed, it would be insane! A Ukr think tank discovered that @amnesty may have used testimonies collected on the occupied territories where people could have been under pressure to blame Ukr army just to get through the filtration and not to be killed.

To make it clear, ANY evidence collected in such kind of a situation are simply ineligible and Amnesty International had no right to use them. If they did this, it is a gross misconduct, and absolute shame. AI report based on such evidence should be immediately withdrawn

@olesya_on @UnrollHelper

@olesya_on Tldr* azov can cope all they like. You can carry their water, doesn’t change the effect this will have on aid😂

@olesya_on So long story short, You cannot commit war crimes if you're the defender? Hmmm I don't think that's how that works 🤔

@olesya_on This is not a legal thread.

@olesya_on @andymoz78 Amnesty have done themselves no favours here, cancelling subscription FFS!!