The European Court accepted for consideration the complaint of Ukraine against Russia on Crimea

The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) declared partially admissible the complaint filed by Ukraine against Russia on systematic violations of human rights in Crimea. The court agreed with Kiev's version that the peninsula came under the de facto control of Russia on February 27, 2014. The dispute about political repression and persecution of opponents of the annexation of Crimea and Russia's responsibility for this will now be considered on the merits, writes Air force.

Photo: Shutterstock

This is the first in a series of interstate cases on Ukraine's complaints against Russia, which was accepted for consideration on the merits by the Grand Chamber of the ECHR. It concerns the so-called administrative practice of the Russian authorities in Crimea. Ukraine considers its result to be systematic repression and persecution against opponents of the annexation of Crimea and other vulnerable groups.

Since 2014, about 7 individual complaints against the Russian Federation related to the events in Crimea and Ukraine have been submitted to the ECHR.

The European Court will now consider the issue of Russia’s responsibility for violations of the European Convention in Crimea on its merits. It is unknown when this decision will be made. It is possible that this will take several years.

The Grand Chamber agreed with Kiev's version that on February 27 the peninsula came under de facto Russian control. This is evidenced by the strengthening of the Russian military presence in Crimea from January to March 2014 without the consent of the Ukrainian authorities or any evidence that there was a threat to the Russian troops officially stationed there, the decision says.

The court ruled that the Ukrainian government had provided sufficient evidence that the Russian troops were not passive observers, but took an active part in the events complained of by Ukraine. We are talking about the change of local government in Crimea after the storming of the parliament building and the Council of Ministers of Crimea on February 27. After that, the Russian military established control over the points of entry into and exit from Crimea by land, sea and air, as well as through sabotage operations.

What Ukraine complained about

The complaint refers to the killings of Ukrainian military personnel, law enforcement officers and civilians, ill-treatment of Crimean Tatars, illegal introduction of Russian citizenship, attacks, abductions, ill-treatment and persecution of journalists, harassment and intimidation of Ukrainian Orthodox priests and imams, seizure of property of Ukrainian legal entities.

The Ukrainian authorities accuse Russia of violating 12 articles of the Convention on the Protection of Human Rights:

• the right to life (art. 2);
• the prohibition of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment (art. 3);
• the right to liberty and security (art. 5);
• the right to a fair trial (art. 6);
• the right to respect for private life (art. 8);
• freedom of religion (article 9);
• freedom of expression (article 10);
• freedom of assembly and association (art. 11);
• the right to an effective remedy (art. 13);
• prohibition of discrimination (article 14);
• protection of property (Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention);
• freedom of movement (Article 2 of Protocol No. 4).

Russia argued that this was a “political case” that concerned not human rights violations, but the issue of the legality of the transition of Crimea to Russian jurisdiction, which is not within the jurisdiction of the ECHR.

On the subject: For the first time, the UN officially recognized Russia as the occupier of Crimea: the United States supported

What the court accepted and rejected

The Court will examine Russia's responsibility for 14 specific violations concerning all the Articles of the Convention referred to in the complaint:

• enforced disappearances and lack of effective investigation;
• unlawful detention and ill-treatment, consideration of cases by courts not established by law (due to the extension of Russian laws to Crimea);
• illegal automatic imposition of Russian citizenship;
• arbitrary searches of private homes;
• harassment and intimidation of religious leaders who do not profess the Russian Orthodox faith, arbitrary checks of places of worship and confiscation of religious property;
• suppression of non-Russian media;
• prohibition of public meetings and rallies, intimidation and detention of their organizers;
• expropriation of property without compensation from citizens and companies;
• suppression of the Ukrainian language and persecution of Ukrainian-speaking children in schools;
• restrictions on freedom of movement between Crimea and mainland Ukraine as a result of the establishment of the border,
  oppression of the Crimean Tatars.

The Grand Chamber dismissed Russia's objections to the lack of direct evidence and consideration of the relevant cases in Russian courts. The ECHR found the data from the reports of human rights organizations to be reliable and stressed that Russia created obstacles (including the introduction of visas) for direct access to Crimea for international monitoring missions.

At the same time, the Grand Chamber refused to consider complaints about murders in Crimea and the lack of their effective investigation, detention, intimidation and confiscation of equipment from foreign journalists, nationalization of the property of the Ukrainian military. The court considered that Ukraine had not proved the recurrence and consistency of these three types of events.

How was the hearing in Strasbourg

The hearings in the case took place on September 11, 2019. Russia and Ukraine, along with the deputy ministers of justice of both states, authorized by the ECHR, were represented by British barristers and royal advisers attracted by the parties. On the side of Russia was lawyer Michael Swainston, who had previously represented Russia in disputes with Georgia and with Yukos shareholders.

The annual contract of the Russian Ministry of Justice for the services of Swainston and lawyers from the Russian bureau “Ivanyan and Partners” in the “Crimean case” in 2016 amounted to almost half a billion rubles ($6,8 million), further conditions in connection with changes in the law on the contract system of the Russian authorities were classified .

Ben Emerson, who previously represented the interests of the family of Alexander Litvinenko, ex-employee of the Russian FSB, who was poisoned in London, spoke on behalf of Ukraine in Strasbourg.

As a result, the hearings in Strasbourg actually turned into a duel of British lawyers.

You may be interested in: top New York news, stories of our immigrants and helpful tips about life in the Big Apple - read it all on ForumDaily New York

The Ukrainian side insisted that on February 27 a military coup took place in Crimea, the Russian side insisted that the events in Crimea were the result of an “anti-constitutional coup” in Kyiv.

According to Russia, Ukraine has not provided direct evidence of violations, and until the “official annexation of Crimea following the results of the referendum on March 18, 2014,” the Ukrainian authorities should bear responsibility for the events on the peninsula.

Ukraine tried to convince the court that there was enough evidence of a massive violation of the rights of opponents of the transfer of Crimea to Russian jurisdiction, and the Russian authorities did not investigate them and prevented international monitoring missions from accessing the peninsula.

What other complaints has Ukraine filed against Russia in the ECHR?

The Grand Chamber also contains a case on the events in the east of the country, in which three interstate complaints, including those concerning the downed passenger plane (the applicants are Ukraine and the Netherlands), are combined.

One case concerned the detention and prosecution of Ukrainian citizens in Russia on various criminal charges, and another related to the maritime incident in the Kerch Strait in November 2018, when three Ukrainian naval vessels and their crews were arrested.

In addition, Strasbourg received over 7000 individual complaints related to these cases.

On the subject: 'Welcome to Hell': Ukrainian teacher talks about torture in captivity 'DNR'

How the ECHR considered interstate cases

Since the entry into force of the European Convention in 1953, 27 interstate cases have been initiated. Nine of them were against Russia (the applicants were Georgia, Ukraine and the Netherlands).

Hearings in Strasbourg were held earlier on the complaint of Cyprus against Turkey (due to Turkish military operations in 1974 and the division of the territory of Cyprus) and on two complaints of Georgia against Russia (on the mass deportation of Georgians, on the violation of human rights in Abkhazia and South Ossetia during the armed conflict of 2008). To compensate the victims, Cyprus was awarded compensation of 90 million euros (109 million dollars), Georgia - 10 million euros (12,1 million dollars).

A compromise was achieved only in one of the interstate cases: in 2000, an amicable agreement was reached on a complaint by Denmark against Turkey over the alleged ill-treatment of a Dane detained there. The Turkish government expressed regret and voluntarily paid the victim the amount specified in the agreement.

11 interstate cases await consideration by the ECHR, including the complaints of Georgia and Ukraine against Russia, as well as Armenia against Azerbaijan and Armenia against Turkey - over the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh.

Read also on ForumDaily:

Ukraine and Russia continue the war over borsch: Michelin was dragged into the scandal

UN General Assembly has once again called on Russia to end the occupation of Crimea

'Russia is in decline, but still dangerous': NATO has identified enemies for the next 10 years

Jen Psaki will become Biden's press secretary: why she is hated in Russia

Do you want more important and interesting news about life in the USA and immigration to America? — support us donate! Also subscribe to our page Facebook. Select the “Priority in display” option and read us first. Also, don't forget to subscribe to our РєР ° РЅР ° Р »РІ Telegram  and Instagram- there is a lot of interesting things there. And join thousands of readers ForumDaily New York — there you will find a lot of interesting and positive information about life in the metropolis.