The International Court of Justice in The Hague announced an interim decision on Ukraine's claim against Russia.
Consideration of the case on its merits may drag on for several years. Bye we're talking about about temporary, so-called preventive measures, which official Kyiv insisted on taking. The court, having considered all the arguments, rejected most of the Ukrainian claims.
Ukraine was unable to convince the UN court that Russia violated one of the most important international conventions - on the financing of terrorism. Official Kyiv insisted that the court in The Hague introduce so-called interim measures against Moscow. He demanded, in particular, to tighten control on the border with Ukraine and to stop any assistance to the authorities of the self-proclaimed people's republics of Donetsk and Lugansk. Kyiv claims that Russia allegedly supplies them with weapons.
“The court concluded that the conditions necessary to determine additional measures under the Financing of Terrorism Convention are not adequate. Ukraine has not provided evidence that would sufficiently demonstrate that such allegations are plausible,”- said the President of the International Court of Justice Ronnie Abraham.
Chief Justice Ronnie Abraham chose his words very carefully. It was clear that he did not accept the overly politicized rhetoric of Ukrainian lawyers and diplomats. At the Peace Palace in The Hague they only studied documents about the crash of the Malaysia Airlines airliner. Members of the Russian delegation at the meetings recalled that the investigation into the MH-17 crash has not yet been completed.
The court only partially agreed with the arguments of the Ukrainian delegation. As Ronnie Abraham stated, the situation of Ukrainians and Crimean Tatars in Crimea is vulnerable. The judges did not explain what they meant.
"With regard to the situation in Crimea, the Russian Federation must, in accordance with its obligations under International Convention on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination, to refrain from maintaining or imposing restrictions on the ability of the Tatar community to maintain representative institutions, including the Mejlis, and to ensure the availability of education in the Ukrainian language",- said Judge Philippe Couvreur.
It is worth recalling that the Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar people was recognized by the Supreme Court of Russia as an extremist organization. Its leaders are in Kyiv. As for the Crimean Tatars, they are proportionally represented both in government bodies and in public organizations.
“As for the demands that forms of racial and national discrimination should stop in Crimea, I would simply like to receive evidence of this. Because such statements are absolutely unfounded, which are not only untrue, but also offensive,”- says political scientist Vladimir Dzharalla.
Even during the preliminary hearings, Russian diplomats told the judges that on the peninsula, Ukrainian, along with Russian and Tatar, is the state language. And no one can ban its teaching. The court may take all these circumstances into account in the future.
A final court decision should not be expected in the near future. Experts say: the process started by Ukraine may drag on for five years. It seems that what is important to the Kyiv authorities is not so much the court decision as another opportunity to present themselves as a victim and attract maximum attention to this process.
At some point, the head of the Ukrainian delegation, Elena Zerkal, spoke with the words of the hero of the epic film " star Wars": "We are confident of victory because we are on bright side!" But judges deal not with intergalactic treaties, but with international law.
Nenka did not catch up that the chairman of the court, Ronnie Abraham, did not leave Ukraine any hope of victory and did not even warm up.
Ukraine’s goal is clear: to poke into all the cracks rather than constantly put pressure on Russia, the offender. Five lawsuits seem to be lying in the European Court of Human Rights, awaiting their fate. In The Hague. In London.
But no, in London it’s us. But Ukraine perceives any international platform as a place where it can once again talk about aggression, hybrid wars, in which he considers himself an expert, and love for democracy and European values. In which, for some reason, he also considers himself an expert.
It’s clear that the public is at the level of the eloquent Speaker of the Verkhovna Rada, the head of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, who in Lately relaxed and stopped putting on a smart face, or even the president - perhaps the most intelligent representative of the modern Ukrainian elite, judging by the economic indicators of his chocolate empire, are not capable of building such intrigues. The hand of the master is visible here.
But now the master has no time - he is too lazy to call Brussels or Strasbourg in order to intimidate the obstinate judges. And they completely lost their belts.
"Having considered the provisional measures requested by Ukraine and the circumstances of this case, the court decides that the measures to be determined must not be identical to those requested by Ukraine,"- President of the UN Court Ronnie Abraham proclaimed today. It seems that the cleansing lustration did not touch him. In Ukraine, he would have been thrown into a trash can long ago for such speeches.
And the decision itself smacks of evil. The court will repeat, ordered Russia "refrain from imposing restrictions on the Crimean Tatars and their community, preserve their institutions, including the Majlis". And he demanded that the Russian Federation ensure the availability of education in the Ukrainian language on the territory of Crimea. That is, he actually recognized that the peninsula is under Russian jurisdiction.
But he did not want to admit Russia’s financing of terrorism in the Donbass republics. "On at this stage Ukraine has not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that these elements are plausible"- said Ronnie Abraham. And he added that he expects both sides to implement the Minsk agreements to resolve the crisis in Ukraine. Thus stepping on a sore spot for politicians who have long wanted to forget about this terrible document for them, which has the force of a UN resolution.
Of course, you and I understand: everything can change. Perhaps the State Department will soon receive an answer as to why the American taxpayer needs Ukraine, and things will go in the direction Kyiv needs. But today, when the arbitrators are not under US pressure, they can afford to judge fairly.
Dmitry Soshin, Pavel Shipilin
From the editors of Novo24. Here’s how the leader of the People’s Republic of Russia, Oleg Tsarev, assessed the results of the trial:
“On Wednesday, April 19, the International Court of Justice in The Hague refused to satisfy Ukraine’s request to establish provisional measures in a claim against Russia in connection with a violation of the convention for the suppression of the financing of terrorism.
Kyiv filed its claim with the International Court of Justice on January 16, 2017. Ukraine accused the Russian Federation of violating the conventions on the fight against the financing of terrorism and on the elimination of racial discrimination and demanded that “temporary measures” be introduced against Moscow until the final verdict of the court. Among Kyiv’s demands is to stop “supplying weapons to Ukraine, supporting militants,” as well as “discrimination” in Crimea.
"At this stage of the case, Ukraine has not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that these elements are plausible," the court's president, Judge Ronnie Abraham, said at a public hearing at the Peace Palace in The Hague on April 19.
It must be said right away that this is not the final decision of the court. Ukraine will (at least intends to) present some evidence of Russia’s financing of the militia of the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics, thereby providing the basis for its main accusation – Russia’s financing of terrorism. Proving Russia's financing of terrorism will be extremely difficult. If the solution is the same as the one we received now, then in any case this will be a plus for Russia. Plus - because with the Majlis, the Tatars, with Ukrainian language Somehow we can sort it out and come to an agreement. Here serious problems I do not see. But if it is not proven (and most likely it will not be proven, which we see from the preliminary position of the court) that Russia is financing terrorism, then it turns out that in Ukraine there is Civil War. And if there is a civil war, the army is involved in the killing of its own civilian population, airplanes are used, there are bombings and shelling - then this actually gives us the opportunity to appeal to legal authorities. Just not to the UN international court, but to the tribunal (which should then be created) for the criminal actions of the Ukrainian authorities. And Ukraine’s lawsuit will come back to her like a boomerang. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was a serious failure for the Russian Federation in the UN court - rather, it is still a victory. I am always careful with words, and today I see the situation that way. Another thing is that this local victory must be skillfully developed further.
The decision of the Kyiv authorities to go to court on charges of aiding terrorism was initially a losing one. Maybe somewhere in the world the Donetsk militias were called terrorists, there was some kind of recognition of the DPR and LPR as terrorist organizations? No. There were no such court decisions anywhere in the world and not even within Ukraine. Therefore, Ukraine stands on shaky ground. When you go to court, you recognize the jurisdiction of this court. In 2009, Ukraine already lost part of its territories (the shelf of Snake Island) in court, and they went to Romania. In this case, Ukraine itself was the initiator of this trial, but if a decision follows that there is no Russian financing of terrorism, then it will be a very serious loss for Ukraine. That is, Ukraine, by the very way it raised the issue of financing terrorism, predetermined the impossibility for sane lawyers to make a positive decision on this issue for Ukraine. From the point of view of simple legal literalism, this is impossible: if there are no terrorists, then what is the financing of terrorists? It is extremely difficult to prove the financing of terrorism and the very existence of terrorism. I have no idea what documents must be presented to the court or how these documents can be obtained in order to prove anything on this charge.
I would like to more specifically examine the possibilities for implementing the temporary measures to which Russia was obliged. Let's start with something simpler - Ukrainian schools. I think that this is very simple to implement - we need to invite all parents who want this to write an application for their children to study in Ukrainian classes. And if a sufficient number of such applications are collected, then it is necessary to organize training in Ukrainian. There are no difficulties in organizing this. Another thing is that we are unlikely to find anyone willing - even in such major cities, like Simferopol or Sevastopol - at least for one class. You can, of course, create fictitious classes, such schools, and allocate salaries for teachers. But these classes will be empty. And then what – force the children there? No one will do this; there is no such procedure. The procedure can only be as I said – an initiative from below. This will demonstrate Russia's desire to comply with the court's demands. But I don’t think that such classes will be created - due to the fact that there will be no takers.
As for the Majlis, I think that all Tatars should just join there and elect normal leaders. There are candidates. For example, Ruslan Ismailovich Balbek, I have known him for many years from working in the Verkhovna Rada (he was an assistant to my colleague Dmitry Shevtsov). Now Balbec is a deputy of the State Duma of the Russian Federation. I have photos on Facebook (though the page has been deleted, but you can search for them on the Internet): the Tatars came and were very active in the Anti-Maidan. Therefore, the overwhelming majority of Tatars came to the Crimean referendum and voted to join Russia. Those who were against it left. But there are very few of them. Therefore, there are no obstacles to the creation of a normal Majlis.
There are some organizations that practice radical Islam. But this is literally a fraction of a percent of everything Tatar population. There are outrageous young people who drive cars quickly through Crimean cities, shout something, and a yellow-blue Tatar flag is stuck out the window. I think that we should not alienate young people - we should attract them. If they want to emphasize their individuality and preserve their identity, then the Russian Federation in this sense is a more convenient country than Ukraine. In general, with the transition to Russian jurisdiction Crimean Tatars received more rights than they had in Ukraine. Issues that had never been resolved began to be resolved. Issues with the allocation of land and the registration of enterprises were in favor a short time resolved. Perhaps there was such an installation of the supreme power in order to enlist the support of the Tatar population. But in any case, this practice, this installation worked. I drive around Crimea by car and hear Tatar broadcasts all the time. The fact that the Tatar media are actively working is fundamental.
Let's get back to the courts. Is Russia too late with its counterclaims? The question of those characters who blow up power poles and carry out various blockades of Crimea - representatives of the current so-called Majlis - could have long been raised at the world level. How to bring it to international discussion the question of recognizing that the Kyiv authorities are discriminating and committing genocide against Russians. I think this is a systemic problem for the Russian Federation. The problem is that, first of all, it is necessary to finance and nurture organizations that will protect the rights of Russians, of Russia. I came to the OSCE and saw how this is done. It is very bad that this work is not being carried out. A lot of money is allocated to organizations such as Rossotrudnichestvo. It would be better if instead Russian journalists abroad were organized and supported, Russians were supported human rights organizations. Human rights activities should be core. The rights of Russians are being infringed throughout the former Soviet Union: in Kazakhstan, and in Kyrgyzstan, and in Tajikistan... And claims should have been filed against the Baltic countries a long time ago. Ukraine filed a lawsuit in defense of the Tatars, who are not really oppressed in Crimea. But it is completely unclear why Russia does not file similar lawsuits against the Baltic countries in connection with such a phenomenon as “non-citizens” living in these countries - our compatriots?
At one time, within the framework of the parliament of Novorossiya, I carried out such activities when we prepared claims from injured people in international courts. But now this activity has been curtailed. It has its own problems related to the fact that in order to apply to international courts, you must first go through the entire vertical of Ukrainian courts. But the experience of South Ossetia has shown that in the event of military conflicts - and there is a military conflict in Ukraine - you can immediately turn to international courts, and they can make decisions. This is a common problem Russian Federation who does not defend herself. There are a lot of international, European mechanisms, we need to integrate into them, work on this and protect Russians, Russian-speaking people and our interests. After all, when they protect Russians in Ukraine or Tajikistan, this is not just helping them from a universal human standpoint, it is supporting the strongest lobby in these territories - the lobby of the Russian Federation. Such as the Ukrainian lobby in Canada. We see what a tough anti-Russian position Canada takes on the issue of Ukraine. Why? Because there is a powerful Ukrainian diaspora there. And Russia needs to carry out this work."
Subscribe to NOVO24
On Wednesday, the International Court of Justice announced the interim results of the process initiated by Ukraine. Nenka didn’t catch up. And she didn't even warm up.
Ukraine’s goal is clear: to poke into all the cracks rather than constantly put pressure on Russia, the offender. Five lawsuits seem to be lying in the European Court of Human Rights, awaiting their fate. In The Hague. In London.
But no, in London it’s us. But Ukraine perceives any international platform as a place where it can once again talk about aggression, hybrid wars, in which it considers itself an expert, and love for democracy and European values. In which, for some reason, he also considers himself an expert.
It’s clear that the public of the level of the eloquent speaker of the Verkhovna Rada, the head of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, who has recently relaxed and stopped putting on an intelligent face, or even the president - perhaps the most intelligent representative of the modern Ukrainian elite, judging by the economic indicators of his chocolate empire, are not capable of building such intrigues . The hand of the master is visible here.
But the master now has no time - he is too lazy to call Brussels or Strasbourg in order to intimidate the obstinate judges. And they completely lost their belts.
“Having considered the provisional measures requested by Ukraine and the circumstances of this case, the court decides that the measures to be ordered must not be identical to those requested by Ukraine,” UN Court President Ronnie Abraham declared today. It seems that the cleansing lustration did not touch him. In Ukraine, he would have been thrown into a trash can long ago for such speeches.
And the decision itself smacks of evil. The court ordered Russia to “refrain from imposing restrictions on the Crimean Tatars and their community, and preserve their institutions, including the Majlis.” And he demanded that the Russian Federation ensure the availability of education in the Ukrainian language on the territory of Crimea. That is, he actually recognized that the peninsula is under Russian jurisdiction.
But he didn’t want to admit “Russia’s financing of terrorism in the Donbass republics.” “At this stage of the case, Ukraine has not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that these elements are plausible,” Ronnie Abraham said. And he added that he expects both sides to implement the Minsk agreements to resolve the crisis in Ukraine. Thus stepping on a sore spot for politicians who have long wanted to forget about this terrible document for them, which has the force of a UN resolution.
Of course, you and I understand: everything can change. Perhaps the State Department will soon receive an answer as to why the American taxpayer needs Ukraine, and things will go in the direction Kyiv needs. But today, when the arbitrators are not under US pressure, they can afford to judge fairly.
and Donbass - Ukrainian
Today, the International Court of Justice announced the interim results of the process initiated by Ukraine. Nenka didn’t catch up. And she didn't even warm up.
The chairman of the court, Ronnie Abraham (second from right), left Ukraine no hope of victory. Photo by Peter Dejong (Associated Press).
C Ukraine’s goal is clear: to poke into all the cracks rather than constantly put pressure on Russia, the offender. Five lawsuits seem to be lying in the European Court of Human Rights, awaiting their fate. In The Hague. In London.
But no, in London it’s us. But Ukraine perceives any international platform as a place where it can once again talk about aggression, hybrid wars, in which it considers itself an expert, and love for democracy and European values. In which, for some reason, he also considers himself an expert.
It’s clear that the public of the level of the eloquent speaker of the Verkhovna Rada, the head of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, who has recently relaxed and stopped putting on an intelligent face, or even the president - perhaps the most intelligent representative of the modern Ukrainian elite, judging by the economic indicators of his chocolate empire, are not capable of building such intrigues . The hand of the master is visible here.
But the master now has no time - he is too lazy to call Brussels or Strasbourg in order to intimidate the obstinate judges. And they completely lost their belts.
“Having considered the provisional measures requested by Ukraine and the circumstances of this case, the court decides that the measures to be ordered must not be identical to those requested by Ukraine,” UN Court President Ronnie Abraham declared today. It seems that the cleansing lustration did not touch him. In Ukraine, he would have been thrown into a trash can long ago for such speeches.
And the decision itself smacks of evil. The court ordered Russia to “refrain from imposing restrictions on the Crimean Tatars and their community, and preserve their institutions, including the Majlis.” And he demanded that the Russian Federation ensure the availability of education in the Ukrainian language on the territory of Crimea. That is, he actually recognized that the peninsula is under Russian jurisdiction.
But he did not want to admit Russia’s financing of terrorism in the Donbass republics. “At this stage of the case, Ukraine has not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that these elements are plausible,” Ronnie Abraham said. And he added that he expects both sides to implement the Minsk agreements to resolve the crisis in Ukraine. Thus stepping on a sore spot for politicians who have long wanted to forget about this terrible document for them, which has the force of a UN resolution.
Of course, you and I understand: everything can change. Perhaps the State Department will soon receive an answer as to why the American taxpayer needs Ukraine, and things will go in the direction Kyiv needs. But today, when the arbitrators are not under US pressure, they can afford to judge fairly.
Russia is not involved in the financing of terrorism. This conclusion was reached by the International Court of Justice in The Hague, which refused to introduce temporary measures against Russia. Ukraine did not provide the necessary evidence to make such a decision, said the chairman of the court, Ronnie Abraham, who read the verdict.
The court granted another request from Ukraine, which concerns the protection of the Crimean Tatars. For example, the plaintiff demanded to restore the work of the Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar people and to stop ethnic discrimination against the population of Crimea.
At the same time, the Russian Foreign Ministry considers it important that the International Court of Justice, when considering Ukraine’s claim, did not support Kyiv’s statements on the status of Crimea. “It is important that the court took a principled position and did not support Ukraine’s statements about the alleged “aggression”, “occupation” or the status of Crimea as irrelevant to the essence of the proceedings,” says a commentary by the Department of Information and Press of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on the social network Facebook.
Chairman of the Commission international law Russian Association for the United Nations for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, professor of RUDN University and MGIMO Aslan Abashidze, in an interview with RT, notes that the court’s decision on Crimea does not have much significance for Russia, since the country already fulfills all these orders.
“In particular, Russia must provide access to education in the Ukrainian language. But Russia resolved this issue long ago. In this subject, according to the law, there are already three official language- Russian, Ukrainian and Tatar. As for the discrimination of institutions that Russia should abstain from, it can be noted that they have never done so much for the Crimean Tatars as after the annexation of Crimea. For example, a simplified procedure for obtaining Russian citizenship has been introduced for repressed Tatars,” Abashidze recalled.
- Reuters
“Everyone remembers the blowing up of power lines in Crimea. If representatives of the Majlis now commit such hostile actions on the territory of Crimea, this will violate the ruling of the Hague Court,” Abashidze explained.
The expert also drew attention to the fact that the decision of the judges, which the Ukrainian delegation was delighted with, was not unanimous. “Judges from China and Slovakia did not support him - there is no total support from the West. Russia is already gaining supporters,” Abashidze concluded.
As for the Crimean issue, according to former UN Deputy Secretary-General Sergei Ordzhonikidze, “of course, Ukraine will satisfy this part of the claim as big victory, but this is far from the case. After all, what is important here is that the Ukrainian side failed to achieve full satisfaction of the demands, although it really wanted it.”
Both experts agree that the UN court's refusal to impose temporary measures against Russia for alleged violations of the terrorist financing convention was predictable.
“It couldn’t have been any other way - everyone understands perfectly well that an internal armed conflict between the DPR and LPR and the Ukrainian authorities. The Normandy Four did not find any evidence that terrorist organizations are operating in Donbass. The court proceeded from this,” Ordzhonikidze explained to RT.
- Reuters
Lots of arguments
Ukraine filed a lawsuit against Russia at the International Court of Justice in early January. The plaintiff asked for temporary measures to be taken until Themis considers the case on its merits. Only in May, as Ukrainian Deputy Foreign Minister Elena Zerkal predicts, will the International Court of Justice set a date for considering the claim against Russia on the merits. The final decision, as court practice shows, can be made in a few years.
Hearings on the claim took place during four days— from March 6 to March 9, 2017. Each side was given two days to express its position. Ukraine was represented by lawyers from the American company Covington & Burling LLP Marnie Cheek and Jonathan Gimblett, as well as guest specialist Harold Khondji Ko.
The lawyers representing Ukraine paid maximum attention to the events in the southeast of the country, as well as the delivery of the BM-21 Grad system to the region. Allegedly, this equipment was delivered from Russian territory. Much less emphasis in the speech of the Ukrainian side was placed on discrimination against the Crimean Tatars. According to Ukraine, the peninsula over the last two years small year About 19 thousand people left.
“By filing a lawsuit, Ukraine deliberately wants to combine different situations that are governed by different legal instruments and draw the court into bilateral interstate relations. They are clearly not within the jurisdiction of this case,” Roman Kolodkin, director of the legal department of the Russian Foreign Ministry, said during the court hearing. Russia presented its objections in a 600-page report. It dealt, in particular, with the use of prohibited phosphorus bombs. Also among the evidence were photographs of people hiding in a school on the outskirts of Gorlovka.
- RIA News
“The main source of weapons that the rebels had were Soviet-era stockpiles that were on the territory of Ukraine. Some of these reserves were left in the mines of Donbass and ended up with the rebels. But most of it was left behind by the fleeing Ukrainian army,” Ilya Rogachev, director of the Russian Foreign Ministry’s department for new challenges and threats, responded to Ukrainian accusations of arms supplies.
Free interpretation
Ukrainian officials are full of optimism. “Today in The Hague we received a promising decision, because in both lawsuits the court recognized the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice,” noted President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko.
“We are confident that today we are the right way, and we hope for the successful consideration of these claims,” Poroshenko added.
According to an RT source in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine, the most important thing is the fact that Russia was actually recognized as a party to the conflict in Donbass. RT’s interlocutor continues his thought, and Ukrainian diplomats intend to focus on this circumstance during negotiations with their foreign colleagues.
It should be noted that this is a very unique interpretation of the decision of the Hague Court. Obviously, the words of the chairman of the court, Ronnie Abraham, about the need for the “parties” to implement the Minsk agreements were taken by the Ukrainian delegation and a number of media outlets as recognition of Russia as a participant in the conflict in Donbass.
What did the International Court of Justice actually rule?
Paragraph 104, which is included in the section entitled “Conclusion and measures to be taken,” states: “The Court expects that the parties, through individual and joint efforts, will endeavor to fully implement this package of measures (the Minsk Implementation Package.” .— RT) to achieve a peaceful resolution of the conflict in the eastern regions of Ukraine." It is important to note that the International Court of Justice refers to the guarantors of the implementation of the Minsk agreements as “parties”.
“This statement is just the wish of the court,” explained RT a leading researcher at the Institute of Problems international security RAS Alexey Fenenko. “But Ukraine, of course, will use it.”
The first fight between Ukraine and Russia at the International Court of Justice essentially ended in a draw. The judges satisfied Kyiv’s demand to introduce interim measures against Moscow under the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, obliging Russian authorities respect the rights of the Crimean Tatars and guarantee education in the Ukrainian language in Crimea. At the same time, the court denied Ukraine interim measures against Russia under the Convention on the Prohibition of the Financing of Terrorism, without imposing any obligations on Moscow regarding the Donbass. Now the parties face many years of litigation on the merits.
Yesterday, the International Court of Justice in The Hague announced the first important decision on Ukraine's claim against Russia. As a reminder, filed in January statement of claim Kyiv accused Moscow of violating two treaties: the 1999 International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism (ratified by Russia in 2002) and the 1965 International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ratified by the USSR in 1969). As follows from documents filed by the Ukrainian side in court, Russia allegedly violated the first convention by “supplying heavy weapons, money and human resources to illegal armed groups, including the so-called Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) and Lugansk People’s Republic (LPR).” “Russia knew that these groups were carrying out terrorist acts directed against civilians,” the statement of claim says. The terrorist attacks for which, according to the applicants, are the responsibility of the DPR and LPR authorities include, in particular, an attack on the Malaysian Boeing MH17, a bus explosion near Volnovakha, shelling of residential areas of Mariupol and Kramatorsk, and an explosion at a rally in Kharkov. Russia, according to the Ukrainian side, violated the second convention by “infringing on the rights of Crimean Tatars and ethnic Ukrainians in Crimea.”
In accordance with the charges brought, Ukraine put forward a list of more than three dozen demands, which, in the opinion of the Ukrainian side, the court should have addressed to Moscow as part of interim measures introduced during the trial. The list mentions the “complete and unconditional cessation” of any support for illegal armed groups in eastern Ukraine, the restoration of control over the Russian-Ukrainian border along its entire length, ensuring the right to assembly of the Mejlis of the Crimean Tatars (its activities are prohibited by a decision of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation) and in general rights of national minorities “in occupied Crimea”, as well as payment of reparations to victims of shelling and bombing.
At the debate between the parties, which took place in early March, representatives of Russia convinced the judges that Moscow cannot be considered a party to the conflict in Donbass, and that everything is in order with human rights in Crimea (see Kommersant of March 10). The court eventually listened to some of the Russian arguments, refusing to hold Russia accountable for “supporting terrorism” and not imposing any obligations on it in the Donbass. “This suits us,” a source in the Russian delegation in The Hague told Kommersant.
The situation in eastern Ukraine is described in the judicial opinion in fairly streamlined terms. In fact, the judges only reminded of the need to implement the Minsk agreements, without blaming either Moscow or Kyiv for their failure to comply. "The Court expects that the Parties (meaning Russia and Ukraine.— "Ъ") through individual and joint efforts will work towards the full implementation of the Package of Measures to achieve a peaceful resolution of the conflict in the eastern regions of Ukraine,” the document says.
At the same time, the judges ordered Moscow, within the framework of compliance with the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, to refrain from infringing on the rights of the Crimean Tatars, to allow the activities of the Mejlis and to ensure the availability of education in the Ukrainian language in Crimea. The court noted that the Crimean Tatar and Ukrainian communities in Crimea are “in a vulnerable position.”
Chairman of the Crimean Tatar public organization"Milli Firka" Vasvi Abduraimov considers the decision of the UN court regarding the activities of the Mejlis to be interference in the internal affairs of Russia. “If a particular community has any problems on the territory of any state, then it is appropriate to raise the question of guarantees for the protection of the rights of this community. But to declare the protection of any specific organizations is interference in the internal affairs of the state. There is a certain procedure for creating, activities and closure of organizations, this is an internal matter of the state, and not an issue that should be considered at the level of the UN court,” he explained in a commentary to Kommersant.
The co-chairman of the organization "Crimean Tatars - Crimea - Russia" Shevket Mametov also opposes the restoration of the activities of the Mejlis on the territory of Russia. "They (the leaders of the Majlis.— "Ъ") initiated this lawsuit in order to receive grants from the West,” he told Kommersant. “In Crimea, the rights of the Crimean Tatars are fully ensured: a decree on the rehabilitation of the people, which we have been waiting for 70 years, has finally been adopted, schools are being opened, mosques are being built, including The cathedral mosque, roads are being built and communications are being installed in microdistricts densely populated by Crimean Tatars. We are moving forward, we are developing." According to Shevket Mametov, the Mejlis during its activities in Crimea "due to ordinary people he inflamed the situation on the peninsula, pitting the Crimean Tatars against the Slavs, supporting terrorist organizations like Hizb-ut-Tahrir." "We, the Crimean Tatars, are against these bloodsuckers who were sitting on our necks,” summed up Kommersant's interlocutor.
Despite controversial decision court, both sides insisted yesterday that the decision meant they had won. Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko called the court's decision "promising." The head of the Ukrainian delegation, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine Elena Zerkal also said yesterday that she was satisfied with the decision. The Kremlin and the Russian Foreign Ministry did not comment on the verdict, but the head of the Federation Council Committee on international affairs Konstantin Kosachev said that Kyiv “missed” by wanting to hold Russia accountable for “supporting terrorism.”
Now the parties face many years of litigation on the merits.
Galina Dudina, Elena Chernenko; Nikita Vadimov, Simferopol
