Here is a fictional response speech delivered by the ICC Chief Prosecutor in direct reply to the defense of Vladimir Putin — presenting the prosecution’s moral, legal, and factual case with strength and clarity:

 Here is a fictional response speech delivered by the ICC Chief Prosecutor in direct reply to the defense of Vladimir Putin — presenting the prosecution’s moral, legal, and factual case with strength and clarity:

Response to Defense of Vladimir Putin]

Honourable Judges of the International Criminal Court,

The defense has spoken with fire and flourish, but what they have offered is not a defense grounded in justice — it is a political speech masquerading as legal reasoning. Their words attempt to shield a powerful man behind borders, technicalities, and misdirected outrage. But today, in this courtroom, we are not judging ideology — we are judging war crimes. And no head of state, however powerful, is above the law.

Let us begin with the cornerstone of their defense — that the Court has no jurisdiction. Russia may not be a party to the Rome Statute, but Ukraine is. Ukraine has accepted the jurisdiction of this Court, twice — in 2014 and again in 2022. And the crimes we are discussing were committed on Ukrainian soil, against Ukrainian civilians, under the command structure of the Russian Federation. Jurisdiction, therefore, is not in question.

The defense then claims sovereign immunity. But I remind this Court — international criminal law has evolved. Sovereign immunity does not protect leaders from crimes against humanity, genocide, or war crimes. That principle was settled at Nuremberg, reaffirmed by Rome, and upheld in cases involving Sudan, Liberia, and former Yugoslavia. We do not allow thrones or flags to shield mass murder.

And now we come to the heart of the matter. The crimes — real, documented, undeniable:

Bucha, where bodies of civilians lay in the street, hands tied behind their backs, execution-style.

Mariupol, bombed into dust, its maternity hospitals and shelters destroyed by missiles, with the coordinates known in advance.

Deportation of children — thousands taken across borders without consent, in clear violation of the Geneva Conventions.

Deliberate targeting of civilian infrastructure — power grids, schools, apartment blocks.

These are not battlefield errors. These are deliberate acts ordered, endorsed, or ignored by the Russian chain of command — a chain that leads directly to Vladimir Putin.

The defense attempts to cloak these crimes in national security concerns. But there is no legal doctrine that allows the annihilation of civilians, the bombing of humanitarian convoys, or the kidnapping of children, under the guise of protection. National security is not a license to commit atrocities.

They say this Court is biased. That it does not try Western powers. And we agree — there must be greater equity in global justice. But the solution is more accountability, not less. One injustice elsewhere does not erase the crimes of today. The ICC must remain a court of law, not of political balance sheets.

Putin’s defense asks for equal treatment. But equality before the law does not mean impunity. It means accountability — and that’s exactly what this trial represents.

They ask for dismissal. We ask for justice.

Honourable Judges, this Court was created for moments like this — when a powerful individual, shielded by politics and protected by fear, is finally called to answer to the world.

Today, we do not stand against a nation. We stand for the victims — for the raped, the executed, the displaced, the silenced. Their blood cries out not for vengeance, but for truth.

Let this Court speak not with hesitation, but with courage. Let justice echo louder than politics. Let the name Putin become not a symbol of impunity — but a reminder that even the mighty can be held accountable.

Thank you.