Prosecuting Members of Russian Mercenary Groups for War Crimes, a Remedy for Victims?

‘Remedy is rare’ for the victims of atrocity crimes and human rights violations committed by contemporary mercenaries. Indeed, there have been only a few prosecutions of mercenaries fighting in Ukraine since 2014 and those have been specifically for the crimes of mercenarism or for engaging in foreign military service. A shift occurred, however, on 14 March 2025, when the Helsinki District Court sentenced Russian national, Yan (or Jan) Petrovsky (known as ‘Voislav Torden’) to life imprisonment after he was found guilty of committing war crimes in eastern Ukraine in 2014. Torden is a co-founder and deputy commander of ‘Rusich,’ a Russian neo-Nazi, Wagner-affiliate, and mercenary group, notorious for its brutality, and whose practices include summary executions, torture, and inhuman treatment of civilians and prisoners of war in various armed conflicts, including Syria.

While Torden was not and almost certainly could not have been prosecuted in Finland for mercenarism related to the conflict in Ukraine (due to the lack of an applicable crime – an issue that deserves a separate blog post), the case is also significant for other reasons. Primarily, it is the first successful universal jurisdiction case anywhere in the world leading to the conviction of a member of a mercenary group for war crimes committed in Ukraine prior to Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Second, it follows in the footsteps of The Hague District Court in the MH17 case by confirming the existence of an international armed conflict in Donbas in the early phase of the Russia-Ukraine war. Third, the case gives a modicum of hope to victims of war crimes in Ukraine that they will be able to have their case heard in court and have an opportunity to seek remedies for the harm suffered as a result of war crimes committed by members of mercenary groups. Nonetheless, the judgment in Torden demonstrates that victims have limited recourse to remedies in war crimes trials, not least because of the difficulties in obtaining evidence from occupied territories that could demonstrate a defendant’s involvement in the commission of crimes. While, in this case, digital evidence was crucial in reconstructing the sequence of events leading to the war crimes in an area of active hostilities, it may not always be sufficient to demonstrate the harm caused to individual victims by such crimes. 

Background to the Case

In July 2023, Finnish authorities arrested sanctioned Russian national Yan Petrovsky at Helsinki airport en route to France for a family holiday under the assumed name ‘Voislav Torden.’ Torden has been described as ‘one of Russia’s most notorious far-right militants’ and is long suspected of being involved in the commission of multiple atrocities as a mercenary, including in Syria. Torden is also inextricably linked with another Rusich co-founder, Alexey Milchakov, ‘who has developed a reputation for extreme brutality’, including suspected involvement in the torture, murder, and dismemberment of Syrian national Hamdi Bouta in 2017. Since the case fell within Finnish jurisdiction, an investigation into Torden’s alleged war crimes was subsequently launched in Finland. Torden denied all war crimes charges, with his defence arguing that the ‘entire indictment is based on misunderstandings and false evidence’ and that he was present in Donbas as a ‘journalist.’ 

After Torden’s arrest, the Ukrainian authorities sought his extradition under terrorism provisions (Article 258-3(1) Criminal Code of Ukraine), since the conflict in eastern Ukraine was treated as an ‘anti-terrorist operation.’ The extradition request was denied by Finland’s Supreme Court on the basis that it would violate Finland’s Article 3 obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights due to poor pre-trial detention conditions in Ukraine.

The Charges

In October 2024, the Finnish National Prosecution Authority brought five separate charges of war crimes against Torden in Helsinki District Court, after a preliminary investigation by the Finnish National Bureau of Investigation. Broadly speaking, the charges alleged that Torden was involved in the treacherous killing of 22 Ukrainian soldiers and the serious wounding of another four, as well as other serious violations of international humanitarian law relating to the treatment of wounded and killed enemy soldiers in the Donbas region of Ukraine in 2014. The charges corresponded to the underlying war crimes as stipulated by the Rome Statute, which Finland had earlier ratified, and set out the details of the multiple war crimes alleged: 

1. Making improper use of a flag […] resulting in death or serious personal injury. The charge relates to the military operation led by Torden on 5 September 2014, in his capacity as deputy leader of ‘Rusich’, whereby the unit under his command allegedly used a Ukrainian flag to ambush the Ukrainian ‘Aidar’ battalion. As a result, at least 22 Ukrainian soldiers were killed, and several others were wounded. Adjoining civil claims were filed by victims in relation to this charge.

2. Wilful killing. The charge relates to the killing of at least 4 Ukrainian soldiers who were rendered hors de combat in the aftermath of the ambush and was also accompanied by civil law claims from victims. The charge was proved in relation to the killing of one Ukrainian soldier.

3. Causing great suffering and mutilation. The charge relates to the mutilation of a Ukrainian soldier in the aftermath of the deadly ambush on the ‘Aidar’ column.

4. Outrages upon personal dignity. The charge relates to the taking and disseminating of derogatory photos of a fallen soldier at the scene of death.

5. Denying quarter. The charge relates to announcements online and on social media that Rusich will not ‘show mercy’ and ‘take no prisoners.’

It is clear from the judgment that the Finnish court considered Torden, along with other members of the Rusich group, as combatants rather than mercenaries. In any event, the Finnish Criminal Code does not appear to criminalize mercenarism, with once exception in relation to the specific Crime of Aggression (Section 4a) which criminalizes the use of mercenaries in carrying out such an act.

Applicable Law

The Court invoked Chapter 11, Section 5(1) (212/2008) of the Finnish Criminal Code, which enables Finland to exercise universal jurisdiction over atrocity crimes, including war crimes, ‘regardless of where they were committed, and irrespective of the nationality of the victims or perpetrators…’. The first part of the war crimes definition implements the list of underlying acts enumerated in Geneva Conventions I, II, III, IV and Additional Protocols I and II to the Geneva Conventions and other violations of the rules and customs of war, whereas the second part refers to war crimes in the Rome Statute or other treaties ratified by Finland. 

The Outcome  

Although Torden denied his role as deputy commander of ‘Rusich’, the Court in its unanimous decision held that 

‘[d]uring the period of the acts charged in the indictment, [he] was undisputedly a member of a group or group of volunteers known as Rusich, which took part in an armed attack against soldiers of the Aidar battalion of the Ukrainian armed forces in the Luhansk region of eastern Ukraine.’ 

He was convicted of war crimes charges 2-5, while charge 1 was dismissed on the basis that the evidence presented to the Court did not conclusively establish that the Rusich unit was ‘responsible for organizing and carrying out all aspects of the ambush and firefight’. The presence of the Ukrainian flag at the checkpoint was a key element to demonstrate the war crime of improper use of the flag, but it was a contested issue as victims and witnesses provided different recollections of the incident. Due to the dismissal of charge 1, civil claims for damages brought by four injured survivors and the families of the 22 soldiers who were killed, failed. Chapter 5 §4a of Finland’s Tort Liability Act provides that persons who were particularly close to a deceased person may claim compensation where the death was caused intentionally or through gross negligence. In terms of charge 2, the court ordered that the mother and sister of the victim wilfully killed by Torden had a sufficiently close relationship to him that they should be paid compensation in the amount of €4000 + interest and €3000 + interest, respectively.

The Sentence

Sentencing Torden to life imprisonment, the Court took the view that charge 2 (wilful killing) was the most serious of the war crimes he committed in his role as a commander. This charge, combined with the seriousness of charges 3-5, meant that a fixed-term prison sentence was considered insufficient punishment for the war crimes and he was therefore sentenced to life imprisonment, the maximum penalty. Generally in Finland, conditional release (parole) is granted after 12 years. As it stands currently, the Prosecution is appealing the Court’s decision not to convict Torden on charge 1, while he remains in custody pending an appeal against his conviction on charges 2-5.

Significance of the Judgment and its Contribution to International Law

A crucial aspect of the Court’s assessment is the legal qualification of the armed conflict in eastern Ukraine in 2014 as an international armed conflict for the attribution of individual criminal responsibility for war crimes. At the time Torden and the Rusich group were fighting in the strategically important Donbas region and committing war crimes, the classification of the conflict was a contested issue. Russia consistently and vehemently denied any military involvement in Donbas, portraying it then as an ‘intra-Ukrainian conflict’ between the Ukrainian armed forces and pro-Russian forces. In its 2016 Preliminary Examination Report and subsequent reports until Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court could not conclusively establish that Russia exercised ‘overall control’ over the pro-Russian separatist groups in Donbas and therefore qualify the conflict as a single international armed conflict. It found that the available information pointed to the conflict being mixed in character, depending on the configuration of the parties involved in the hostilities.

The fact that a Finnish national court has classified the conflict in 2014 as an international armed conflict is therefore extremely significant. In so doing, the Court relied on multiple sources, including the definition of armed conflict outlined in the Tadíc case. It further relied on an expert report, the judgment of the Hague District Court of 17 November 2022 in the MH17 case, as well as transcripts from the joint inter-State proceedings before the European Court of Human Rights in Ukraine and the Netherlands v Russia confirming Russia’s effective control of eastern Ukraine as of 11 May 2014. The court noted Russia’s increasing role in directing and leading the separatist forces in the summer of 2014, including through the supply of manpower, intelligence, heavy weaponry and ammunition, accompanied by fierce fighting in Donbas. On that basis, it concluded that an international armed conflict existed. That finding had a direct impact on the framing of charges against Torden. 

Importantly, the Finnish court reviewed an impressive amount of digital evidence, including satellite imagery, social media evidence (both images and videos, mostly from the Russian social media platform Vk.com) and other open-source media information of evidentiary value. This demonstrates two things. First, the value of digital evidence, especially when reconstructing events in conflict areas, which are difficult or impossible to access. Second, it also shows that perpetrators often leave a digital trail confirming their involvement in alleged war crimes, making it difficult to deny allegations. This is particularly important for future prosecutions of members of mercenary groups given the, until now, assumed opacity of their activities. 

A Step Towards the Accountability of Members of Russian Mercenary Groups?

While the Torden case is unquestionably an important milestone in the utility of universal jurisdiction to prosecute war crimes committed in Ukraine and ensure a measure of accountability, doubts remain about its value as an effective route to achieve justice for victims. 

This is the first Ukraine-related universal jurisdiction case involving victims who have been directly affected by the activities of mercenary organisations, such as Rusich. In addition to the justice offered by a criminal conviction, this case is notable for the court’s order that Torden pay compensation to the family of the killed soldier. It is disheartening to victims, however, that a civil claim for damages adjoined to criminal proceedings is dependent on the success of the criminal case, as can be seen by the failure of the claim by the victims falling within the scope of charge 1 to obtain redress. Furthermore, financial compensation is a very narrow and ‘often inadequate’ form of remedy in human rights terms. Life imprisonment, of course, has the potential to act as an effective punitive and deterrent sentence. It certainly sends a strong message and shuts down Finland as a safe landing for Rusich members and others. It remains to be seen, however, whether other countries with universal jurisdiction laws in place will follow Finland’s lead and investigate, prosecute, and convict members of mercenary groups of atrocity crimes on their territory. Not least because of the numerous logistical and evidentiary challenges in bringing universal jurisdiction cases. The case also challenges the idea that opacity around mercenary activities inhibits accountability. Thus, the Torden case sets a valuable precedent on multiple levels. 

This blog is published as part of the ERC project ‘MERCURY’ which evaluates routes to  accountability for victims of human rights violations by mercenaries. It draws on a Ukraine Country Case Study which maps prosecutions of mercenarism and related atrocity crimes arising out of the Russia-Ukraine war.