Most of what I have seen in the "media" landscape are those that are arguing he should not be prosecuted.. for no other reason than.. just because.
Through his lost defamation cases, the judges effectively found that on the balance of probability (not beyond reasonable doubt), he DID commit war crimes. The defence used justification - which is more likely true than not. Now, if a judge found the defence of justification valid because after all the evidence provided under strict rules and, as BRS was funded quite handsomely, probably the best barristers around to test that evidence, I would suggest that those people abjectly saying he shouldn't be further investigated to determine if he in fact did commit war crimes beyond reasonable doubt and, if so, should be held accountable, are indeed themselves dangerous to our society of freedom, democracy, and fairness.
The prosecution, on analysing the evidence may decide there is not enough proof to bring it to court. That is OK.. that would, IMHO, as long as the prosecution acted in good faith, also be an acceptance it can't be proved and therefore, it is justified to stop any further action (unless something turns up).