Prisoner exchange during armed conflicts in Israel: experience for Ukraine

The article highlights the problem of Israel's experience in the exchange of prisoners during armed conflicts and the feasibility of using it to improve the procedure for the exchange of prisoners between Ukraine and the Russian Federation. Israel's state policy regarding the exchange of prisoners is to make every effort to free its citizens from captivity. This policy is based on the Jewish legal tradition («Halacha»), as well as on the public ideology of the concept of kinship between Israeli citizens and IDF soldiers. During the exchange of prisoners, the Israeli authorities do not focus on proportionality “one to one”, and the procedure of prisoner exchange is partially public. Given the new internal public demand caused by the captivity of our citizens, it is proposed to adopt a law in Ukraine on the principles of state policy in the field of returning from captivity of Ukrainian defenders who are in captivity of the aggressor state, civilians deprived of their personal freedom as a result of armed aggression. This legal act should, in particular, enshrine the right of Ukrainian state bodies not to be guided by the proportionality of the exchange “one for one”, regulate the legal framework for the activities of the only state body that ensures the process of searching for prisoners, carries out operations for their return, and also ensures strategic communication with society, making the subjective aspect of the exchange of prisoners and the return of Ukrainians public. Given the need to update international humanitarian law in view of the latest challenges to the international legal order, the author proposes to update it in terms of humane treatment of prisoners and determining the procedure for their exchange between the parties to an armed conflict. It is determined that the relevant international standards on the management/management of camps, the procedure for admission and conditions of detention of prisoners, taking into account modern rules of cohabitation, living conditions, development of technology, documentation of their detention, provision of medical care, appointment and operation of mixed medical commissions, exchange and release of prisoners, including convicts, acquisition and termination of prisoner status, etc. should be revised. Key words: captivity, prisoner of war, prisoner of war, defenders of Ukraine held captive by the aggressor state, civilians deprived of their personal liberty as a result of armed aggression, prisoner exchange, State of Israel, Israel Defense Forces, armed conflict, international humanitarian law, Geneva Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of August 12, 1949.