Vadim Shishimarin

Trial Shishimarin was charged with premeditated murder and violating the laws and customs of war. Even though he is a prisoner of war, his trial took place in a civilian court because Ukraine had abolished its military justice system. Related articles were then added to its domestic criminal code. On 13 May 2022 Shishimarin appeared at a pretrial hearing and chose to be tried by a three-judge panel rather than by a single judge or by a jury.

quote = I'm truly and sincerely sorry. I didn't want that to happen, I didn't want to be there, but it happened. I would like to apologise once again. And I will accept all the measures of punishment that I will be offered. — Vadim Shysimarin, spoken statement in court

On 18 May, Shishimarin pleaded guilty to the killing. According to law professor Chris Jenks, Shishimarin appeared to have pled guilty only to the act of killing, but not to the actual criminal charges of murder or violating the laws of war.

The prosecution argued that Shishimarin was not obliged to comply with the order, which did not come from his immediate commander. The defence wanted to call Makeev and Kalinin as witnesses but found out that they had already returned to Russia as part of a prisoner exchange with Ukraine. Shishimarin stated to the court that he hadn't intended to kill Shelipov. The prosecution argued that Shishimarin could have fired fewer rounds or left the car to seize Shelipov's phone. Judge Serhiy Agafonov said Shishimarin had committed murder with intent and violated the laws and customs of war, carrying out a "criminal order" by a soldier of higher rank.

On 29 July 2022, a Court of Appeal in Kyiv reduced his sentence to 15 years in prison. After serving his sentence, Shishimarin will be deported to Russia and banned from entering Ukraine for 5 years.

Criticism Chris Jenks, Professor of Law at the Dedman School of Law in Dallas, Texas, stated that it appeared that key elements of the prosecution's case for a war crime were missing. One apparent flaw was that it did not appear to have been shown that Shishimarin was aware that he was carrying out an illegal order, an element "at the core of the case". Shishimarin's "age, rank, experience and circumstances" should have been considered in deciding whether he was aware of the illegality. Another apparent flaw, according to Jenks, was that the possibility of the Russian forces believing Shelipov to have been a justified military target had not been established to have been unreasonable.