Author: Andrzej Jakubowski
Committee: Eppo and cultural heritage crimes Committee
Date: 19/05/2026
On 18 March 2026, the Warsaw Regional Court determined the legal admissibility of the extradition of Russian archaeologist Alexander Butyagin, a prominent scholar, to Ukraine in connection with criminal charges arising from his archaeological work in Russian-occupied Crimea. The ruling has triggered strong reactions from Moscow and renewed debate about the limits of “scientific neutrality” in occupied territories. [1]
Mr. Butyagin, a senior researcher at the State Hermitage Museum, was detained in Warsaw in December 2025 at Ukraine’s request while travelling across Europe to deliver lectures. Ukrainian prosecutors accused him of conducting illegal excavations and causing damage to cultural heritage at the ancient Greek site of Myrmekion in Crimea following Russia’s 2014 annexation. He denies the charges. [2]
The Polish court authorized his extradition, meaning he could face trial in Ukraine and, if convicted, a term of imprisonment. The case provoked sharp criticism from Russian officials, including Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov and Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova, who described the proceedings as politically motivated. Some academics also defended Mr. Butyagin, arguing that his work in Crimea predated the annexation and should be seen as “neutral” scientific activity. [3]
However, international law takes a different view. Occupation does not create a legal vacuum: the occupying power does not acquire sovereignty but exercises only temporary authority constrained by international humanitarian law. Under the 1954 Hague Convention and its Protocols, archaeological excavations in occupied territories are generally prohibited unless strictly necessary and conducted with the consent of the legitimate authorities of the occupied territory.
Ukraine maintains that excavations carried out without its authorization—and the removal of artefacts—are illegal and amount to the destruction or appropriation of cultural heritage. According to Ukrainian investigators, Mr. Butyagin’s work on the occupied territory caused substantial damage, with artefacts allegedly transferred to museums in Kerch and later exhibited in Russia. [4]
The broader context is the systematic transformation of Crimea’s cultural landscape since 2014. Large-scale excavations linked to infrastructure projects, as well as interventions at sites such as Tauric Chersonese, have raised international concern. [5] The European Union (EU) has recently imposed sanctions on cultural institutions involved in such activities, marking an unprecedented step in response to the instrumentalization of heritage for political and military purposes.[6]
Mr. Butyagin is now free. On 28 April 2028, he was handed over to Belarus, a close ally of Russia, as part of a detainee exchange involving the intelligence services of seven countries and significant assistance from the US administration.[7] Importantly, for Poland, this exchange provided an opportunity to secure the release of Andrzej Poczobut, a Belarusian journalist of Polish ethnicity and a critic of the Belarusian government. His imprisonment in 2021 caused outrage in Poland and further strained the already tense relations between the two neighbouring countries.[8] Mr. Poczobut is regarded across the Polish political spectrum as a national hero, and upon his return he was awarded the country’s highest honours. This outcome has naturally met with official protests from the Ukrainian authorities, as Mr. Butyagin will most likely never face prosecution there.
Let us consider, however, what might have happened if the political exchange of detainees had not taken place.
A possible surrender to Ukraine would have been based on the 1993 Polish–Ukrainian Agreement on Legal Assistance, which permits extradition for offences punishable in both states by more than one year of imprisonment, while also providing grounds for refusal (for example, in political cases or where parallel proceedings are pending in Poland). Regardless of any extradition proceedings, Poland remains obliged to prosecute serious violations of international law. Under the principle of aut dedere aut judicare, if extradition is refused, Poland should bring the suspect before its own courts. Article 113 of the Polish Criminal Code allows for the prosecution of foreign nationals for such offences committed abroad, thereby providing a basis for universal jurisdiction. Article 125 of the Code criminalizes the destruction or seizure of cultural property in conflict zones in violation of international law, carrying a penalty of up to 20 years’ imprisonment. In practice, even if Mr. Butyagin had not been extradited, he could still have been prosecuted in Poland for acts committed in occupied Crimea.[3]
At the European level, however, the enforcement landscape remains fragmented. Although the EU has strengthened cooperation in combating the illicit trade in cultural goods, the criminal prosecution of cultural heritage crimes still largely falls within the competence of the Member States. Importantly, the mandate of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) is limited to offences affecting the EU’s financial interests and therefore does not extend to cultural heritage crimes in general, unless they are connected to fraud, corruption, or the misuse of EU funds.
This institutional gap is becoming increasingly apparent in cases with a strong transnational dimension, particularly those arising from armed conflict and occupation. It may prompt calls to reconsider EU competences under Article 83(1) TFEU by including serious cultural property crimes among the “Eurocrimes” or, alternatively, to extend the EPPO’s mandate to cover such offences where they affect common European interests.
Although the Butyagin case was not subject to judicial review, it remains significant. It demonstrates that archaeological activity conducted in occupied territory without the consent of the sovereign cannot be regarded as “neutral scholarship”, but may instead constitute part of a broader pattern of unlawful appropriation and destruction of cultural heritage.
More broadly, the case highlights a structural challenge for both national and European legal orders: ensuring effective accountability for cultural heritage crimes in complex geopolitical contexts. The decision whether to extradite or prosecute is not merely procedural—it reflects a commitment to upholding international law and preventing impunity. [9]
For the academic community, the message should be equally clear: scientific renown and research activities do not shield individuals from criminal responsibility when scholarly work is conducted in violation of international law in territories affected by armed conflict and occupation.
More information:
[2] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c86y65j26xno
[4] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c623rvzjjd2o
[7] https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/28/world/europe/belarus-poland-prisoner-swap-trump.html
[9] https://www.pap.pl/aktualnosci/kremlin-aid-russian-archaeologist-arrested-poland-reuters-reports