On February 16, 2026, a criminal complaint was filed before the 8th Guarantee Court of Santiago against Rom Kovtun, an Israeli-Ukrainian citizen, for his alleged participation in crimes committed during the 2024 military offensive in Gaza. The legal action, brought by the Hind Rajab Foundation through Chilean lawyer Pablo Andrés Araya Zacarías, invokes Law 20.357 and the principle of universal jurisdiction. The case not only opens a criminal investigation: it places Chile under a legal obligation to act if a person is present on its territory against whom there are grounds which, if proven, would constitute genocide, crimes against humanity, or war crimes.
The formal filing of the complaint took place on Monday, February 16, 2026, before the 8th Guarantee Court of Santiago, the court with criminal jurisdiction in the capital. According to the judicial submission circulated by national and international media that same day, the action requests that the complaint be admitted, that a criminal investigation be opened, that investigative measures be carried out through the Human Rights Crimes Investigation Brigade, and that precautionary measures be ordered to prevent the accused from leaving the country while proceedings are underway.
The accusation maintains that Kovtun served as a sniper in a unit of the Israel Defense Forces during operations in Gaza between March and April 2024, particularly in the context of the siege and destruction of the Al-Shifa hospital complex. The complaint describes participation in the encirclement of the facility, presence in firing positions around the hospital, and contribution to conditions that allegedly prevented safe evacuations and humanitarian access. On that basis, the acts are legally classified as crimes against humanity — for being part of a widespread or systematic attack against a civilian population — genocide — for the deliberate imposition of conditions of life aimed at the partial destruction of a national group — and war crimes — for attacks against civilians and protected medical facilities.
The central issue, however, is not the factual narrative, which must be proven or dismissed in court. The decisive point is the competence of the Chilean State to hear these facts. On that level, the legal framework is unequivocal.
Chile ratified the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and adapted its domestic legislation through Law 20.357, which expressly typifies genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. This was not a symbolic act: by incorporating these offenses into domestic law, the Chilean legislature assumed the authority — and the duty — to prosecute them when the enabling conditions are met.
One of those conditions is universal jurisdiction. This principle, consolidated in contemporary international law, allows States to exercise criminal jurisdiction over certain particularly serious crimes even if they were committed outside their territory and by foreign nationals, when the accused is physically present under their jurisdiction and there is no effective proceeding in another State that satisfies the requirement of genuine investigation. It is not a legal anomaly: it is a mechanism designed to prevent international mobility from becoming a refuge for impunity.
In this specific case, the complaint is grounded on the presence of the accused in Chilean territory. That circumstance activates the jurisdiction of national courts to, at a minimum, examine the admissibility of the action and assess whether sufficient grounds exist to open an investigation. If the court determines that the described facts, if proven, fall within existing criminal types and that the accused is effectively under Chilean jurisdiction, it may order investigative measures, take statements, and decree precautionary measures, including a travel ban.
The retention of the individual, in this context, is neither arbitrary nor political. It is a procedural tool provided by the Chilean criminal system to ensure the accused’s appearance and the effectiveness of the proceedings. When investigating crimes whose gravity places them at the apex of international criminal law, the standard for securing the process is no lower than in any ordinary case. The difference is that here the foundation lies not only in domestic law, but also in international commitments assumed by the State.
The principle of complementarity, enshrined in the Rome Statute, reinforces this logic. Primary responsibility for prosecution rests with States. Only when they are unwilling or unable genuinely to investigate does international jurisdiction intervene. If Chile has typified the crimes, if the accused is present in its territory, and if there is no evidence of an effective proceeding in another State for the same acts, the Chilean legal system is not facing a discretionary political choice, but a fully enabled jurisdiction.
This case does not anticipate guilt. The presumption of innocence fully applies and the burden of proof will be demanding. But jurisdiction does not depend on the final outcome of the trial; it depends on the existence of a legal basis and a sufficient jurisdictional connection. Both conditions, according to the information regarding the complaint filed on February 16, 2026 before the 8th Guarantee Court of Santiago, are present.
The real test for the Chilean judicial system is not whether it will convict, but whether it will investigate. If it admits the complaint and activates the mechanisms provided by its own legislation, Chile will act in accordance with its legal order and the international commitments it voluntarily assumed. If, on the contrary, it declines to intervene despite the presence of the accused and the domestic criminalization of these offenses, universal jurisdiction will be reduced to a formal declaration without practical effect.
Ultimately, the Kovtun case is not merely a criminal complaint. It is a test of coherence between written law and its application. Chile has a normative basis, territorial competence derived from the presence of the accused, and procedural tools to secure his appearance. From a legal standpoint, jurisdiction exists. What remains to be seen is whether it will be exercised with the same firmness with which it was proclaimed in the law.
