I mean, atrocities during war or crimes against humanity have been documented for ages but the issue is victims affected wanting to achieve justice: especially those committing them are NOT parties of the ICC nor signatories of the Rome Statute hence why those nations feel entitled “getting away with murder” even though eyewitnesses saw them (boots on the ground) killing innocent people framed on mainstream media as “the enemy”.
The problem is that those types of countries have monopoly over the ICC or equivalent bodies, as in “don’t you dare mess with us and we’ll place sanctions or invade your homeland” type blackmail explaining why they often get pushed under the rug despite countless testimonies from witnesses and recorded recounts from those who saw it. A normal criminal lawyer can’t fight against this type of murder case in court since it’s the government.
The only “solution” for victims to really sue (via a UN like body) is to have their leader (president?) be their attorney condemning the invading nation as “your troops murdered my countrymen / women!” but issues from that exist too: those nations are permanent members of the security council meaning they have veto power rescinding any claims or “potential charges” & “accusations of wrongdoing” meaning they got away with murder.
Normal authorities can’t really touch those types of perpetrators (bureaucrats & politicians) but the “closest” thing to achieving justice is arresting the individuals (soldiers?) on the ground who partook in it via court martial. However even getting to that level is hard as hell for a civilian who’s victimized or lost their loved ones due to them being murdered by these people. However, if it’s a PMC who’s responsible: don’t get your hopes up.
Mercenaries by definition are hired to kill on behalf of a private firm for profit while soldiers are affiliated with an armed service on behalf of a nation who comply with orders, so there’s a difference between the two which influences the criteria the rules of war apply to (since they were written specifically for a standing army but excludes PMC’s) hence why often or not it’s mercenaries murdering people rather than those in uniform.
The dangerous part is getting eyewitnesses to speak up: since they can be assassinated for “snitching” as that does happen or eyewitnesses face threats from the perpetrators of either being imprisoned for treason or espionage hence why they scared on calling out their wrongdoings since the government is the perpetrator / murderer / abettor. But, is conducting a raid to commit atrocities (genocide?) the same as intentional murder?
The only “way” in a form or another to achieve a small sense of justice or awareness of these crimes on a societal level is to campaign against said conflict initiated by the government (i.e. partaking in anti war demonstrations) and there are historical examples of it: Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. Even though word of mouth alone carries barely any effect, you need collab with those who fought in it (veterans) to share the true horrors.
In most cases, like with anything political: there’s propaganda used to sell a controlled narrative or to influence people’s perception of what the government is doing by making an excuse (i.e. the invasion of Iraq was sold under “Hussein has WMD’s” but no proof was found, since the truth is that Bush wants to defend his own interests: OIL). So, you will need counter-media to de-brainwash people into believing the lies being told to them.