Amnesty International condemns the transfer of anti-personnel mines to Ukraine? The office in Kyiv reacted.

The Director of Amnesty International in Ukraine, Veronika Velch, reacted to the statement from the American office of the organization, which called the decision of the current US President Joe Biden's administration to transfer anti-personnel mines to Ukraine 'reckless'. Velch wrote about it on her Facebook page.

Just had a conversation with representatives of Amnesty USA. Their position is quite simple: the Biden administration is constantly lowering the threshold in the area of international humanitarian law. But this only concerns US obligations and is not related to Ukraine's actions. No claims against Ukraine regarding the use of anti-personnel mines for defense are being made'

At the same Time, she expressed her position on the use of such means in the context of Russia's war against Ukraine. Velch emphasized that 'besides working at Amnesty, she is a citizen, a mother, and a person with common sense'.

The Director of Amnesty in Ukraine noted that anti-personnel mines 'are extremely dangerous and will remain a threat for many years after the war ends, especially for civilians and children'.

'But if choosing between the long-term consequences of mines and the immediate consequences of occupation, I am convinced that everything that helps protect Ukrainian citizens from aggression, torture, and physical destruction has the right to exist. We are grateful for such assistance,' emphasized the Director of Amnesty International in Ukraine.

Recall that the international human rights organization Amnesty International criticized the decision of US President Joe Biden to transfer anti-personnel mines to Ukraine to counter the Russian army in the East. This is stated in the organization's statement.

As human rights defenders stated, Biden, who is leaving office in two months, revoked his own decision to limit the use of such land mines.

This move has provoked sharp criticism from human rights defenders, who fear threats to civilians even after the war ends. They warned that this weapon poses a special and long-term danger.