What evidence has the ICC relied on in ordering the arrest of the President of Russia?

Question

A few days ago, International Criminal Court prosecutor Karim Khan said:

Today, the Pre-Trial Chamber has issued arrest warrants in relation to the following two individuals:

• Mr Vladimir Putin, President of the Russian Federation; and
• Ms Maria Lvova-Belova, Commissioner for Children’s Rights in the Office of the President of the Russian Federation.

On the basis of evidence collected and analysed by my Office pursuant to its independent investigations, the Pre-Trial Chamber has confirmed that there are reasonable grounds to believe that President Putin and Ms Lvova-Belova bear criminal responsibility for the unlawful deportation and transfer of Ukrainian children from occupied areas of Ukraine to the Russian Federation, contrary to article 8(2)(a)(vii) and article 8(2)(b)(viii) of the Rome Statute.

Incidents identified by my Office include the deportation of at least hundreds of children taken from orphanages and children’s care homes. Many of these children, we allege, have since been given for adoption in the Russian Federation. The law was changed in the Russian Federation, through Presidential decrees issued by President Putin, to expedite the conferral of Russian citizenship, making it easier for them to be adopted by Russian families.

I was a bit surprised by the particular charge, as I've followed acts such as the bombardment of (dual-use) civil infrastructure (energy, railways), and have heard allegations of intentional targeting of civilians in some cases, but this is the first I've heard of this movement-of-children thing.

What evidence has the court based its decision to issue arrest warrants on?

In particular, evacuating children from war-zones is something which I would assume happens, so what is the indication that children were moved where it is not allowed to move them, and with the intention of not returning them? Does it have something to do with the question of the recognition of the LPR and DPR as independent states and their later accession to the Russian Federation, after which orphans may perhaps have been treated as "any Russian orphan", without care to let them stay within the territories of the LPR/DPR?

Answer 1

What evidence has the court based its decision to issue arrest warrants on?

It is not disclosed.
The Rome Statute 58(3) does not require so.
From the Rome Statute 58(1)(b)(ii) it follows that the premature disclosure could be deemed undesired/prohibited.

---

The Rome Statute 58(3) is pretty much specific:

Article 58
Issuance by the Pre-Trial Chamber of a warrant of arrest or a summons to appear
3. The warrant of arrest shall contain:
(a) The name of the person and any other relevant identifying information;
(b) A specific reference to the crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court for which the person's arrest is sought; and
(c) A concise statement of the facts which are alleged to constitute those crimes.

…and nothing beyond that.

This is precisely the format of Karim Khan's statement quoted within the original question: paragraphs 1,2,3 correspond to sections (a),(b),(c).

Additionally,

Article 58
Issuance by the Pre-Trial Chamber of a warrant of arrest or a summons to appear

1. […] the Pre-Trial Chamber shall, on the application of the Prosecutor, issue a warrant of arrest of a person if […]
   (b) The arrest of the person appears necessary:
   (ii) To ensure that the person does not obstruct or endanger the investigation or the court proceedings;

I am not a lawyer, but from the common sense, I may assume that the premature disclosure of evidence would aid the suspect to obstruct the investigation and thus jeopardize 58(1)(b)(ii).
Therefore, it may be deemed unnecessary, not recommended, harmful, or even prohibited.

Source: Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (PDF)

---

If you are rather interested of hints about what could be the evidence:

• Deportations with a goal of forced change of victims' identity

Answer 2

Reports first emerged last spring that Ukrainian children in occupied territory were being taken to Russia, and some adopted by Russian families. This includes children taken from Ukrainian state institutions in the occupied areas, children whose parents had sent them to Russian-run “summer camps” from which they never returned, children whose parents were arrested by the Russian occupying authorities, and children who were orphaned by the fighting. Russia has admitted to holding at least 1,400 Ukrainian children it describes as orphans (source, The Guardian).

Many of these Ukrainian children have living relatives, who are desperately searching for them.

Russia has not publicly issued a list of Ukrainian children evacuated and detained. However V. Putin issued a decree that made it quick and easy to adopt Ukrainian children, this is obviously not a secret. Also, Russian officials do not deny Ukrainian children are now in Russia (source, NPR). ICC concluded that "there are reasonable grounds" to suspect this is actually happening (source, the arrest warrant itself):

(...) responsible for the war crime of unlawful deportation of population (children) and that of unlawful transfer of population (children) from occupied areas of Ukraine to the Russian Federation (under articles 8(2)(a)(vii) and 8(2)(b)(viii) of the Rome Statute). The crimes were allegedly committed in Ukrainian occupied territory at least from 24 February 2022. There are reasonable grounds to believe that.

The United Nation’s prevention of genocide convention prohibits “forcibly transferring children of the group to another group”

Answer 3

Is the indictment public? (As opposed to the press release.) I couldn't find the former. That was not an uncommon strategy for ICTY as well (before apprehending the suspects), as I vaguely recall. Evidence can be destroyed, witnesses suppressed etc. One article notes that ICC itself has done this in the past, e.g. regarding some CAR suspects:

The sealed indictments were invented at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, the first contemporaneous international criminal court and thus the predecessor of the ICC, by Louise Arbour, who was chief prosecutor of the ICTY from 1996 till 1999. The ICTY was then in a situation similar to the ICC now: there were many outstanding arrest warrants, partly against high-level suspects, but there had not been arrests for quite some time. [...] So Arbour resorted to the sealed indictments to facilitate and encourage arrests. UN troops that were present in various parts of the former Yugoslavia, could use the element of surprise when executing the arrest warrants. This led to a new series of arrests soon.

and also in this case:

While the ICC has authorized the Registry to publicly disclose the existence of the arrest warrants, the actual text of the warrants remains confidential.

Anyhow, we have somewhat more information in this case than from totally sealed indictments, at least in the form of the press release:

Khan stated that 100s of the children taken from orphanages and children’s care homes in Ukraine have since been given for adoption in the Russian Federation. He added that the law was changed in the Russian Federation through Presidential decrees issued by President Putin to expedite the conferral of Russian citizenship, making it easier for them to be adopted by Russian families. The prosecutor also alleged that these acts demonstrate an intention to remove these children from their own country permanently.

I suspect, based on press coverage of the affair, that an indictment may in part rely on Putin's prior declarations that Ukraine is a fake/country nation in order to establish his intent in regard to those children.

You ask/say:

In particular, evacuating children from war-zones is something which I would assume happens, so what is the indication that children were moved where it is not allowed to move them, and with the intention of not returning them?

The NYT for example says:

Mr. Putin instituted a streamlined process in May allowing the swift nationalization of Ukrainian children. The first group became Russian citizens in July, officials announced.

“I did not recognize those kids with whom we traveled in April on the train to their new life,” Ksenia Mishonova, the children’s rights commissioner for the Moscow region, said in a statement. “Now they are our little fellow citizens!”

So it's probably more than simply/temporarily taking the children to Russia that's going to be used as evidence, possibly in an attempt to establish some kind of similarity with more odious precedents. But I'm just guessing, since the ICC has released very little details about their indictment, as far as I can tell.