ECHR accepted the complaint of Ukraine against Russia about the Crimea. What does it mean

Now in Strasbourg is essentially learn whether Russia violates human rights to Crimea.

The European Court of Human Rights recognized as an acceptable complaint of Ukraine against Russia about the Crimea. Kiev makes Moscow claims for a massive violation of human rights on the peninsula. The court in Strasbourg so far only communicated the complaint and made intermediate conclusions: now it will continue to be considered and will only lead a decision.

ECHR refused to consider the legality of "annexation" of the Crimea, as the issue goes beyond the scope of the case. Both parties did not put the question of the legal status of the territory, so that the court did not discuss this topic either.

Although Russia believes that Ukraine's complaint is not related to human rights violations and dictated by political motives, the court rejected the court.

Ukraine filed a complaint against Russia back in March 2014. Its consideration since then repeatedly postponed. In 2020, the ECHR decided that all private claims would consider the Crimean events, taking into account the decision on this interstate complaint.

O "Jurisdiction of Russia over Crimea"

ECHR used the standard of proving "beyond reasonable doubt." He suggests that the circumstances are obviously clear, and there are doubts, but minor - at the level of a random coincidence. So the court established the actual jurisdiction of Russia over the Crimea, that is, the established legal power of the Russian Federation. At this stage of the proceedings, the court did not solve whether Russia bears responsibility for the actions appealed.

The court considered two periods separately: before and after March 18, 2014, when Russia, the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol signed a contract according to which Crimea and Sevastopol were recognized as subjects of the Russian Federation and were part of the Russian law zone.

Until March 18, 2014

The ECHR noted the fact that the number of Russian troops on the peninsula almost doubled from the end of January to mid-March 2014. Russia did not provide "convincing evidence" of what was necessary to increase the number of military in the Crimea, noted the ECHR. The Kremlin stated many times that the military on the peninsula was as much as an agreement resolved with Ukraine, but the court found it as an insignificant circumstance.

The court paid special attention to several statements by Vladimir Putin, the first of which Russia presents as the beginning of "joining". In the film "Crimea. The Path of Motherland "President said that on the night of February 23, 2014, he told the security forces:" The situation has turned around in Ukraine that we are forced to start work on the return of Crimea to Russia, because we cannot leave this territory and people, who live there, on the mercy of fate, under the rink of nationalists. "

In the same interview, Putin admitted that Russia disarmed military units of the Ukrainian army and organs. And on the "straight line" in April 2014, the president said: "In the back of the self-defense forces of the Crimea, of course, our servicemen stood up."

Among other evidence - the resolution of Putin from the Council of the Federation to use troops in Ukraine "before the normalization of the socio-political situation" and the statement of the Minister of Defense of Sergey Shoigu on the seizure of the Russian special forces of the Supreme Council building in Simferopol. Relying on them, the ECHR concluded that from February 27 to March 18, 2014 Russia "over Crimea". Objections of the Russian Federation, the court rejected.

From March 18, 2014

And Russia, and Ukraine agreed that Russia has established power in the Crimea after March 18, 2014, but countries dealt with that it was provided. Russia argued, and the ECHR agreed with the arguments that the court should not determine whether the contract was changed by the sovereign territory of both countries. As a result, the ECHR decided to proceed in his decision from the assumption that, and not the form or nature of territorial jurisdiction.

What said Ukraine

Ukraine initially refused to seek conclusions on each individual complaint. Kiev appealed to the court only in order to establish the fact of a massive violation of the rights under the Convention. The ECHR was supposed to answer the question whether sufficient evidence had enough evidence for this. The principle of the court is called "Prima Facie" or "at first glance." He assumes that even if the proof "convincing at first glance" is represented, it may be refuted during the investigation.

Russia objected: even if citizens consider their rights to the Crimea violated, they have "not exhausted" the possibility of protection in their own country. That is, the Russian Federation offered such people to seek justice in domestic courts. The ECHR rejected these arguments, as well as the statement of Russia that the complaint is considered acceptable only if the estimated victim confirmed it direct evidence.

The court found that it is difficult to obtain direct evidence of violations of rights in the current realities, and the persecution and alleged victims threatens the persecution in the Crimea. At the same time, in Strasbourg, carefully refer to evidence from Ukrainian officials or from the media, although they are permissible themselves.

What decisions made the ECHR

Court, complaints of Ukraine relating to:

• enforced disappearance and lack of effective investigation of such crimes;
• ill-treatment, illegal detention;
• dissemination of Russian laws on the Crimea and arising from this effect that from February 27, 2014 the courts in Crimea cannot be considered "established in accordance with the law";
• imposing Russian citizenship;
• arbitrary raids in private houses;
• persecution and intimidation of religious leaders who are not confessing Orthodoxy, raids to the departure of religious rites and confiscation of religious property;
• suppressing non-Russian media;
• prohibition of public assemblies and demonstrations, as well as arbitrary detention of their organizers;
• Expropriation of property without compensation in individuals and enterprises;
• suppressing the Ukrainian language in schools;
• restrictions on freedom of movement between the Crimea and the mainland of Ukraine as a result of the actual transformation of the administrative border to the state;
• Pursuit of the Crimean Tatars.

The court recognized the complaints of Ukraine relating to:

• Practices of murders, executions and lack of an effective investigation of such crimes;
• detentions, intimidation and seizure of materials from international journalists;
• nationalization of ownership of Ukrainian soldiers;

The ECHR complaint left without consideration. It concerns the movement of prisoners from the Crimea to Russia. The court will return to her later.

# Ukraine # Crimea # ECHRC # right # politics

A source