Borys Babin: International legal sources on the occupied Crimean Peninsula

13:35 26.08.2021
Crimea

Borys BABIN,
Doctor of Law, Professor, Expert of the Crimea Reintegration Association

 

International standards and acts applicable to the conflict in Ukraine, the temporary occupation of Crimea and the attempted annexation have different legal nature, sources, and binding force.

International treaties governing the regime of the temporarily occupied territories (TOT) of Ukraine in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (ARC) and Sevastopol, as well as in certain areas of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions (ORDLO), belong primarily to international humanitarian law.

These are, in particular:

  • the Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 1949
  • the Third Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of 1949
  • the Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions Concerning the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts of 8 June 1977
  • the Hague Convention (IV) Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, and its annex Regulations Concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land of 18 October 1907

In particular, the Geneva Conventions provide guarantees to the population of the TOT in terms of meeting its humanitarian needs, preservation of private property, legal regime, and judicial system of the country, sovereignty, and the prohibition of conscription of such population into the armed forces of the occupying power.

The Fourth Geneva Convention contains provisions to be applied both after the end of an active phase of a conflict and in the conditions of an (attempted) annexation of the respective territory.

The development of these treaties was reflected in

  • the Commentary of the International Red Cross Society to Art. 5 of the Third Geneva Convention of 1960
  • the San Remo Instruction on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflict at Sea of 1994
  • and the case law of the International Court of Justice: Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice A/ES-10/273 of 9 July 2004, No. 131, Legal consequences of the construction of a wall in the occupied Palestinian territory.

International procedures of a universal nature

 

The question of the application of other norms of international law in the context of interstate conflict, in particular the provisions of multilateral and bilateral treaties, should be determined in the light of:

  • the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969
  • and Articles on the Consequences of Armed Conflict for International Treaties (A/66/10) previously approved by the United Nations Commission on International Law in 2011.
  • The UN General Assembly Resolution 3314 (XXIX) Definition of aggression of 14 December 1974
  • the UN GA resolutions 66/99 of 9 December 2011 and 66/125 of 10 December 2014 must also be taken into consideration in this context.

At the same time, these provisions are doctrinal in nature and should be applied to each specific agreement with the participation of the Russian Federation and Ukraine, bilateral or collective, taking into account the specifics of the subject and the mechanisms of appropriate regulation.

Russia’s breach of its international obligations under universal agreements approved under the auspices of the United Nations is of key importance in

  • the case Ukraine v. Russia, No. 166, in the United Nations International Court of Justice (ICJ), where Russia is accused of violating the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination of 1965 and the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism of 2000.

The decision on the merits has not yet been made by the UN ICJ, but such mandatory provisions as the ICJ Order on Provisional Measures in

  • the case Ukraine v. Russia of 19 April 2017
  • and the ICJ Decision on the Admissibility of the case Ukraine v Russia, No. 166, of 8 November 2019 already make a difference.

In these decisions, the UN ICJ examined the nature of infringement of the language rights of the Ukrainians and Crimean Tatars, applied the category of racial discrimination to the realities of the TOT in Crimea, in particular in the assessment of the illegality of the Crimean Tatar Mejlis ban.

At the same time, in the case regarding the financing of terrorism, Ukraine filed an application with the UN ICJ concerning exclusively Russia’s support for its occupation forces in ORDLO, while the Crimean issue was not raised in this respect. Russia did not comply with the 2017 UN ICJ order to ensure the availability of education in the Ukrainian language in Crimea and lift the ban on the Mejlis.

In its 2019 decision, the UN ICJ almost unanimously ruled Ukraine’s application admissible, in particular on Russia’s violation in Crimea of the 1965 International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.

Within the extended by the UN ICJ period until 8 July 2021, the Russian Federation had to file an objection (counter-memorandum) on the merits of Ukraine’s requirements.

Not many individual applications to UN convention bodies – such as the UN Human Rights Committee, whose decisions are binding on the parties to the conflict – have been filed by individuals and legal entities, and the decisions on the merits of these applications have not yet been made by the committees.

Other binding decisions of these international convention bodies, which consider the issue of Crimea, include such acts of UN committees as

  • the Concluding Observations of the Human Rights Committee on the Seventh Periodic Report of the Russian Federation, CCPR/C/RUS/CO/7, of 28 April 2015
  • List of Issues in Relation to the Eighth Periodic Report of the Russian Federation, CCPR/C/RUS/Q/8, of 14 August 2020.

These acts of the convention bodies recognise the possibility of the aggressor state’s responsibility for human rights violations both in Crimea and ORDLO and structure the types of relevant violations.

United Nations Headquarters, New York. Photo: glavcom.ua

Another problem is the application of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) to the situation of interstate conflict, since the aggressor state has not joined the Statute and Ukraine has not ratified it, recognising its validity only during a limited time period and only regarding the subject matter of the occupation of Crimea and ORDLO.

Resolution RC/Res.6 of 2010, which amended the Rome Statute of the ICC (Article 8 bis, “Crime of Aggression”) and entered into force in 2017, introducing the agreed-upon definition of aggression (in a sense similar to the definition of Resolution 3314 (XXIX)) for members to the Rome Statute, is of particular importance for Crimea.

In two parliamentary statements, Ukraine recognised the jurisdiction of the ICC over the events inside the country, in particular in Crimea, from 21 November 2013. In 2015, Ukraine began informing the ICC of Russia’s alleged violations of the Rome Statute in Crimea.

Based on a preliminary study of materials and preliminary communication, in 2019, the ICC Prosecutor’s Office recognised the existence of substantive jurisdiction over the events in Crimea (murder, torture, illegal imprisonment, conscription, confiscation of property, and deprivation of the right to court).

On 11 December 2020, the ICC Prosecutor’s Office concluded that these events were serious and that there was a procedural possibility to launch an investigation and completed the preliminary assessment of the materials. The ICC Prosecutor’s Office currently must apply to the ICC for permission to initiate an investigation.

Thus, the ICC Prosecutor’s Office stated that Ukrainian law enforcement agencies do not have the possibility to investigate these alleged crimes effectively at the national level, given their scale, severity, manner of commission, and their impact on victims. As part of a possible further investigation, individual applications to the ICC from the victims of violations of the Rome Statute requirements in Crimea, their relatives, representatives, and human rights organisations will be considered.

The cases initiated by Ukraine concerning Russia’s non-compliance with the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea in the waters around Crimea since 2014 also play an important role. These cases are currently pending in special ad hoc arbitral tribunals established by the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) as an intergovernmental organisation operating under the 1899 Hague Convention on the Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes.

In particular, Russia’s actions regarding the violation of the 1982 UN Convention in the maritime area around Crimea are considered by such an arbitral tribunal in case No. 2017-06, Dispute Concerning Coastal State Rights in the Black Sea, Sea of Azov, and Kerch Strait (Ukraine v. the Russian Federation).

There is no final decision in this case yet, but on 21 February 2020, the arbitral tribunal made an Award Concerning the Preliminary Objections of the Russian Federation on the admissibility of the case. It determined the situation of the dispute between Ukraine and Russia and explored the specifics of the possible status and legal regime of the areas of the Sea of Azov and the Kerch Strait controlled by the aggressor. Ukraine largely based its position on its rights to Crimea within the framework of the rights of a coastal state.

In the Award of 21 February 2020, the arbitral tribunal accepted Russia’s objection that it had no jurisdiction over Ukraine’s application, insofar as the arbitral award on the merits of Ukraine’s claims would require the arbitral tribunal to rule directly or implicitly on sovereignty over Crimea. The arbitral tribunal also decided to postpone consideration of the objection by which the Russian Federation raises the question of whether it has jurisdiction over the events in the Kerch Strait and the Sea of Azov until the stage of resolving the case on the merits. By 21 May 2021, Ukraine had to submit an amended position to the arbitral tribunal, taking into account the Award, and the decision in the case is expected no earlier than 2023.

Case No. 2019-28 regarding the 1982 Convention, Dispute Concerning the Detention of Ukrainian Naval Vessels and Servicemen (Ukraine v. the Russian Federation), is considered by a similar arbitral tribunal established by the PCA. A decision on the merits has not yet been made.

Earlier, due to these circumstances, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea in Case 26 Concerning the Detention of Three Ukrainian Naval Vessels issued a binding decision on the parties to take provisional measures of 25 May 2019, and the case was referred to the aforementioned arbitral tribunal. In this decision, the tribunal found the seizure and detention of the Ukrainian Naval Forces ships and their crews by the aggressor state, in particular on the TOT, illegal.

At the same time, after the case was referred to the arbitral tribunal, the Russian Federation filed an objection to the admissibility of the case, due to the alleged military nature of the incident that had become the subject of the dispute. As a result of a preliminary analysis of these objections, on 27 October 2020, the arbitral tribunal issued an order suspending the consideration of the case on the merits until the issue of jurisdiction in it was resolved. Ukraine had to file an objection within three months, after which, in 2021 or 2022 at the latest, the arbitral tribunal is expected to make a final decision on the admissibility of this case.

In addition to interstate disputes, the PCA arbitral tribunals are currently considering or have already considered disputes between individuals or legal entities and the Russian Federation regarding the protection of investments lost due to the occupation of Crimea and the subsequent de facto alienation of the property by the occupation authorities.

Such disputes are based on the bilateral agreement between the Government of the Russian Federation and the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine on the Promotion and Mutual Protection of Investments of 27 November 1998 and are considered under the Arbitration Rules of the UN Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL).

In particular, the arbitral tribunals formed by the PCA considered the cases

  • PJSC Ukrnafta v. The Russian Federation, No. 2015-34;
  • Stabil LLC et al. v. The Russian Federation, No. 2015-35;
  • Everest Estate LLC et al. v. The Russian Federation, No. 2015-36.

All of them concerned the “expropriation of investments” of these entities in Crimea, primarily in the field of distribution and sale of petroleum products. Russia refused to participate in these proceedings, initiated in 2015, but this did not prevent the arbitral tribunal from making a positive decision on the recovery of the claimed funds from Russia (in case No. 2015-36, on 2 May 2018 and in cases Nos. 2015-34 and 2015-35, on 12 April 2019).

Two more cases initiated according to a similar procedure:

  • JSC CB PrivatBank v. The Russian Federation, No. 2015-21;
  • Aeroport Belbek LLC and Mr Igor Valerievich Kolomoisky v. The Russian Federation, No. 2015-07.

They are still pending arbitration at the PCA.

This can be explained by the fact that after losing cases Nos. 2015-34, 2015-35, and 2015-36 in absentia in May 2019, Russia decided to participate in cases Nos. 2015-21 and 2015-07 and stated its objections to admissibility and content of the claims.

For example, in case No. 2015-21, the hearing of which was scheduled for May 2021, the Russian Federation accused JSC CB PrivatBank of improper investments made allegedly through “corruption, fraud, and violence.” The arbitral tribunal rejected Russia’s request for separate consideration of the admissibility issues and in case 2015-07, refused to consider such an issue of jurisdiction altogether.

  • In addition, the case NJSC Naftogaz of Ukraine (Ukraine) et al. v. the Russian Federation, No. 2017-16, is pending in the PCA arbitral tribunal.

So far, there have been no available decisions in this case. Meanwhile, the decisions of the arbitral tribunals in all the above cases are unlikely to be made public, as well as the decision to appeal the positions of these tribunals to the Court of Appeal in The Hague, which Russia can do under the law of the Netherlands.

 

International processes within the European institutions

 

The application of the requirements of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 1950 with its protocols, developed in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), which introduces the category of effective control of a state over foreign territory and the responsibilities of both states for human rights on that territory, has certain peculiarities on the TOT.

The position of the ECtHR on this issue was formed in the rulings in the cases of Loizidou v. Turkey, No. 15318/89, of 1996; Ilașcu and Others v. The Republic of Moldova and Russia, No. 48787/99, of 2004; Catan and Others v. Moldova and Russia of 2012; Cyprus v. Turkey, No. 25781/94, of 2014; Sargsyan v. Azerbaijan, No. 40167/06, of 2015.

In these cases, the Grand Chamber of the ECtHR declares that the possibility of a state’s responsibility for human rights violations on a territory it does not control depends on the specific possible and reasonable measures taken by that state to regain its own territory and to promote the protection of a specific violated right of a person or a group of persons.

At the same time, the assessment of the expediency and sufficiency of Ukraine’s actions to protect the rights of the conflict victims will be determined by the ECtHR on a case-by-case basis according to individual applications against Ukraine, taking into account all relevant circumstances.

European Court of Human Rights, Strasbourg, France. Photo: lexinform.com.ua

Ukraine, Ukrainian individuals and legal entities have actively used the ECtHR to protect human rights during the occupation of Crimea.

  • The first interstate application – 20958/14 – was registered in the ECtHR as early as 13 March 2014. At that same time, in this case, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, the ECtHR obliged the parties to refrain from resolving the dispute by force (the order was in effect until December 2020). Ukraine lodged this application both in relation to Crimea and the events in the east of the country.
  • In 2014, Ukraine filed another case concerning Crimea against the Russian Federation regarding the restriction of the rights of Mustafa Dzhemilev’s son Kh. Dzhemilev (49537/14), but in September 2015, the ECtHR removed the case from the register due to a similar individual application against Russia.
  • On 27 August 2015, Ukraine filed interstate application 42410/15 against the Russian Federation regarding the events in Crimea and ORDLO. In 2016, the ECtHR decided to divide these cases of 2014 and 2015 into the Donbas and Crimean events, so case 8019/16 concerning the Donbas was separated from case 20958/14. Similarly, case 70856/16 related to the Donbas was separated from case 42410/15. After that, the ECtHR merged 20958/14 and 42410/15 into a single case concerning Crimea. The same was done with cases 8019/16 and 70856/16 regarding the Donbas. The cases were later referred to the Grand Chamber of the ECtHR.

On 10 August 2018, Ukraine lodged another application with the ECtHR against the Russian Federation – 38334/18 – concerning the imprisonment of Ukrainian citizens in Crimea and the Russian Federation on political grounds. On 29 November 2018, Ukraine lodged interstate application 55855/18 regarding the seizure of three ships of the Ukrainian Navy and their crews.  

Although the case law of the ECtHR on the TOT in Ukraine is still being formed and decisions on the merits in the interstate cases Ukraine v. Russia and individual cases have not yet been made, the ECtHR’s decision on the admissibility of applications 20958/14 (events from February 2014 to August 2015) and 38334/18 (political imprisonment), issued in December 2020 and announced on 14 January 2021, is of crucial importance.

In this decision, the ECtHR recognised both the responsibility of the Russian Federation for the events in Crimea from 27 February 2014 and the existence of systemic violations of the rights of the Crimeans to a fair trial, the unacceptability of torture, freedom of assembly, association, speech and conscience.

Due to the fact that the ECtHR established the events of 2014 in this decision, in the future, the Court will not have to examine this issue in individual cases regarding Crimea, which currently number up to two thousand. Among them, the ECtHR press release specifically mentioned the case of Sentsov v. Russia, No. 48881/14.

In individual applications against the Russian Federation regarding the events in Crimea, the ECtHR has not yet made the decisions on the merits.

At the same time, with regard to the events in eastern Ukraine, the Court has ruled on the inadmissibility of certain cases due to lack of evidence or breach of procedure by the applicants or their defenders (Lisny and Others v. Ukraine and Russia, No. 5355/15, of 2016 et seq.). The Court has also found certain human rights violations by Ukraine due to the impossibility of completing criminal proceedings, the materials of which remained on the occupied territories (Kurochenko and Zolotukhin v. Ukraine, Nos. 20936/16 and 53257/16).

The ECtHR has also issued two decisions regarding the events in eastern Ukraine on applications lodged against Ukraine: on the impossibility of receiving social benefits in Donetsk and on the impossibility of making a court decision due to leaving the case materials in Luhansk.

In these cases – Khliebik against Ukraine, No. 2945/16, of 2017, and Tsezar and others against Ukraine, No. 73590/14, of 2018, – the ECtHR did not find a violation by Ukraine of the obligations set out in the Convention, and the applicants did not challenge the actions of the aggressor state.

The issue of accusing Russia of financing terrorism in Ukraine and the corresponding activities of pro-Russian groups are also mentioned in the ECtHR decision on the case Grubnyk v. Ukraine, No. 58444/15, of 17 September 2020.

These decisions are important for assessing the reasonable limits of the necessary measures to protect human rights on the TOT, in particular in the field of social benefits and justice. The position of the ECtHR in these cases can also be taken into account in similar situations with regard to Crimea.

The ECtHR has not yet ruled on applications from persons displaced from Crimea, in particular regarding lost property.

The ECtHR’s assessment of the occupation of Crimea may be influenced by the consideration of an interstate case concerning the events in ORDLO, in which in 2021, the ECtHR merged aforementioned applications Nos. 8019/16, 70856/16, interstate application No. 43800/14 concerning the organised relocation of children from ORDLO to Russia, and the interstate application Netherlands v. Russia, No. 28525/20, related to the MH17 downing.

In addition to the decisions of the ECtHR, the decisions of other intergovernmental bodies of the Council of Europe should be mentioned in the assessment of Russia’s violation of the Convention requirements of the Council of Europe in Crimea. In particular, these are the positions of

  • the Advisory Committee on the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, namely the Fourth Position on Ukraine of 10 March 2017, CM (2017) 85;
  • the Fourth position on the Russian Federation of 20 February 2018, CM (2019) 24.
  • The Third Report of the Committee of Experts of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages on Ukraine of 27 September 2017, approved at its 1295th meeting, also deserves attention.
Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe,Strasbourg, France.
Photo: Deutsche Welle

International resolutions on Crimea

 

All the aforementioned current and pending decisions of international courts, convention bodies, and arbitral tribunals are binding on both Russia and Ukraine. At the same time, a number of advisory decisions regarding occupied Crimea have also been issued by the assemblies of such international organisations as the UN, the OSCE, the Council of Europe, and the European Union.

These acts must be taken into account in the framework of law-making and law enforcement procedures, as they reflect international standards.

First of all, these are the UN General Assembly resolutions on the TOT in Crimea, which are mandatory for all UN bodies, officials and organisations under its auspices, namely

  • Territorial Integrity of Ukraine, 68/262, of 27 March 2014;
  • a series of annual resolutions Situation of Human Rights in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the City of Sevastopol (Ukraine): 71/205 of 19 December 2016, 72/190 of 19 December 2017, 73/263 of 22 December 2018, 74/168 of 18 December 2019, 75/192 of 16 December 2020;
  • a series of annual resolutions Problem of the Militarization of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the City of Sevastopol, Ukraine, as Well as Parts of the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov: 73/194 of 17 December 2018, 74/17 of 9 December 2019, and 75/29 of 7 December 2020.

These resolutions confirm the state of interstate conflict, the territorial integrity of Ukraine, and the temporary occupation of its land and sea areas.

The annual resolutions of

  • the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly (OSCE PA) on the TOT in Ukraine are also worth mentioning: Resolution on Clear, Gross and Uncorrected Violations of Helsinki Principles by the Russian Federation adopted at the 23rd session in Baku in 2014;
  • Resolution on the Continuation of Clear, Gross and Uncorrected Violations of OSCE Commitments and International Norms by the Russian Federation passed at its 24th session in Helsinki in 2015;
  • Resolution on Violations of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the City of Sevastopol − at the 25th session in Tbilisi in 2016;
  • Resolution on Restoration of the Sovereignty and Territorial Integrity of Ukraine − at the 26th session in Minsk in 2017;
  • Resolution on Ongoing Violations of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the City of Sevastopol (Ukraine) − at the 27th session in Berlin in 2018;
  • Resolution on the Militarization by the Russian Federation of the Temporarily Occupied Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the City of Sevastopol, Ukraine, the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov − at the 28th session in Luxembourg in 2019.

In 2020, the annual session of the OSCE PA was not held due to quarantine restrictions. The above-mentioned resolutions have a human rights dimension. At the same time, they indicate violations of the principles of security and cooperation on the occupied territories, reflected in the OSCE practice.

It is also necessary to mention the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) resolutions on Crimea:

  • 1988 (2014), Recent developments in Ukraine: Threats to the functioning of democratic institutions of 9 April 2014;
  • 2028 (2015), The humanitarian situation of Ukrainian refugees and displaced persons of 27 January 2015;
  • 2067 (2015), Missing persons during the conflict in Ukraine of 25 June 2015;
  • 2112 (2016), The humanitarian concerns with regard to people captured during the war in Ukraine of 21 April 2016 (with additional recommendation 2090 (2016));
  • 2132 (2016), Political consequences of the Russian aggression in Ukraine of 12 October 2016;
  • 2133 (2016), Legal remedies for human rights violations on the Ukrainian territories outside the control of the Ukrainian authorities of 12 October 2016;
  • 2145 (2017), The functioning of democratic institutions in Ukraine of 25 January 2017;
  • 2198 (2018), Humanitarian consequences of the war in Ukraine of 23 January 2018;
  • 2231 (2018), Ukrainian citizens detained as political prisoners by the Russian Federation of 28 June 2018.

In addition to these resolutions, the PACE mentioned the seizure of Crimea in numerous other thematic resolutions and returned to the assessment of the situation on the peninsula in resolutions related to the limitation of the powers of the Russian delegation to the PACE. In particular, these are resolutions

  • 1990 (2014) of 10 April 2014;
  • 2034 (2015) of 28 January 2015;
  • 2063 (2015) of 24 June 2015;
  • 2292 (2019) of 26 June 2019;
  • 2320 (2020) of 29 January 2020;
  • 2363 (2021) of 28 January 2021.

The following resolutions of the European Parliament are also noteworthy:

  • 2014/2841(RSP), On the situation in Ukraine and the state of play of EU-Russia relations of 18 September 2014;
  • 2014/2965(RSP), On the situation in Ukraine of 15 January 2015;
  • 2016/2556(RSP), On the human rights situation in Crimea, in particular of the Crimean Tatars of 4 February 2016;
  • 2016/2692(RSP), On the Crimean Tatars of 12 May 2016;
  • 2017/2596(RSP), On the Ukrainian prisoners in Russia and the situation in Crimea of 16 March 2017;
  • 2017/2869(RSP), On the cases of Crimean Tatar leaders Akhtem Chiygoz, Ilmi Umerov and the journalist Mykola Semena of 5 October 2017;
  • 2018/2754(RSP), On Russia, notably the case of Ukrainian political prisoner Oleg Sentsov of 14 June 2018;
  • 2018/2870(RSP), On the Situation in the Sea of Azov of 24 October 2018;
  • 2019/2734(RSP), On Russia, notably the situation of environmental activists and Ukrainian political prisoners of 18 July 2019.

Crimean issues were also raised in Resolution of European Parliament 2019/2202(INI), On the implementation of the EU Association Agreement with Ukraine of 11 February 2021.

The resolutions of the PACE and the European Parliament are important primarily in the context of the protection of human rights on the TOT, in particular, freedom of speech and assembly, anti-discrimination, and the rights of political prisoners.

It should be added that the status of internally displaced persons (IDPs) is not defined by special international agreements in which Ukraine participates. At the same time, the provisions of universal and regional human rights agreements apply to the protection of IDPs’ rights.

In particular, the provisions of the 1950 Convention in this regard are interpreted through judgements of the ECtHR in the cases of

  • Timishev v. Russia (applications Nos. 55762/00 and 55974/00) of 2005,
  • Tatishvili v. Russia (1509/02 of 2007),
  • Budayeva and Others v. Russia (15339/02 of 2008).

A number of the UN General Assembly resolutions on the protection of IDPs’ rights were adopted such as

  • 62/153, Protection of and assistance to internally displaced persons of 2007;
  • 62/249 of 2008;
  • 63/307 of 2009;
  • 64/162 of 2009, as well as the UN Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement E /CN.4/1998/53/Add.2 of 1998.

At the Council of Europe level, this issue was raised in

  • the Recommendation Rec(2006)6 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on internally displaced persons of 2006;
  • the PACE Recommendations: Recommendation 1631 (2003), Internal displacement in Europe,
  • and 1877 (2009), Europe’s forgotten people: Protecting the human rights of long-term displaced persons.


Regarding the situation with IDPs in Ukraine, the PACE adopted its aforementioned resolution 2028 (2015). At the same time, given the advisory nature of these acts, international standards in this area are expected to be specified after pending ECtHR judgements on individual applications from Crimean IDPs have been passed.

 

Sources:

UN Security Council

  • Resolution 2202 (2015) Adopted by the Security Council at its 7384th meeting 17.02.2015 [on implementation of the “Package of Measures for the Implementation of the Minsk Agreements”]. https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/s_res_2202.pdf

UN General Assembly

  • Resolution 68/262 adopted by the UN General Assembly. Territorial Integrity of Ukraine. 27.03.2014. https://undocs.org/A/RES/68/262
  • Resolution 71/205 adopted by the UN General Assembly. Situation of Human Rights in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the City of Sevastopol (Ukraine). 19.12.2016. https://undocs.org/A/RES/71/205
  • Resolution 72/190 adopted by the UN General Assembly. Situation of Human Rights in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the City of Sevastopol (Ukraine). 19.12.2017. https://undocs.org/en/A/RES/72/190
  • Resolution 73/194 adopted by the UN General Assembly. Problem of the Militarization of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the City of Sevastopol, Ukraine, as Well as Parts of the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov. 17.12.2018. https://undocs.org/en/A/RES/73/194
  • Resolution 73/263 adopted by the UN General Assembly. Situation of Human Rights in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the City of Sevastopol (Ukraine). 22.12.2018. https://undocs.org/en/A/RES/73/263
  • Resolution 74/17 adopted by the UN General Assembly. Problem of the Militarization of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the City of Sevastopol, Ukraine, as Well as Parts of the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov. 9.12.2019. https://undocs.org/en/A/RES/74/17
  • Resolution 74/168 adopted by the UN General Assembly. Situation of Human Rights in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the City of Sevastopol (Ukraine). 18.12.2019. https://undocs.org/en/A/RES/74/168
  • Resolution 75/29 adopted by the UN General Assembly. Problem of the Militarization of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the City of Sevastopol, Ukraine, as Well as Parts of the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov. 7.12.2020. https://undocs.org/en/A/RES/75/29
  • Resolution 75/192 adopted by the UN General Assembly. Situation of Human Rights in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the City of Sevastopol (Ukraine). 16.12.2020. https://undocs.org/en/A/RES/75/192

UN Conventional Bodies

  • UN Human Rights Committee. List of Issues in Relation to the Eighth Periodic Report of the Russian Federation. CCPR/C/RUS/Q/8. 14.08.2020.
    https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CCPR%2FC%2FRUS%2FQ%2F8&Lang=en
  • UN Human Rights Committee. Concluding Observations on the Seventh Periodic Report of the Russian Federation. CCPR/C/RUS/CO/7. 28.04.2015. https://undocs.org/en/CCPR/C/RUS/CO/7

International Court of Justice

  • International Court of Justice, Order on Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures. 19.04.2017. General List No. 166. Application of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Ukraine v. Russian Federation). https://www.icj-cij.org/public/files/case-related/166/166-20170419-ORD-01-00-EN.pdf
  • International Court of Justice, Judgment on Preliminary Objections. 8.11.2019. General List No. 166. Application of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Ukraine v. Russian Federation). https://www.icj-cij.org/public/files/case-related/166/166-20191108-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf

International Criminal Court

  • Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court. Report on Preliminary Examination Activities (2020).14.12.2020. https://www.icc-cpi.int/itemsDocuments/2020-PE/2020-pe-report-eng.pdf

European Court on Human Rights

  • Ukraine v. Russia (Re Crimea). (Applications nos. 20958/14 and 38334/18). ECtHR Grand Chamber Decision. 16.12.2020. http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-207622

International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea

  • Case Concerning the Detention of Three Ukrainian Naval Vessels (Ukraine v. Russian Federation), Provisional Measures. International Tribunal fro the Law of the Sea. List of Cases: No. 26. Order 25.05.2019. https://www.itlos.org/en/main/cases/list-of-cases/case-concerning-the-detention-of-three-ukrainian-naval-vessels-ukraine-v-russian-federation-provisional-measures/

Arbitrary proceedings in the Permanent Court of Justice (interstate claims)

  • Award Concerning the Preliminary Objections of the Russian Federation, 21.02.2020. PCA Case No. 2017-06. Dispute Concerning Coastal State Rights in the Black Sea, Sea of Azov, and Kerch Strait (Ukraine v. the Russian Federation). https://pcacases.com/web/sendAttach/9272
  • Dispute Concerning the Detention of Ukrainian Naval Vessels and Servicemen (Ukraine v. the Russian Federation) PCA Case No. 2019-28. (no available decisions except procedural). https://pca-cpa.org/en/cases/229/

Arbitrary proceedings in the Permanent Court of Justice (private claims)

  • Aeroport Belbek LLC and Mr. Igor Valerievich Kolomoisky v. The Russian Federation No. 2015-07 (no available decisions).https://pca-cpa.org/en/cases/123/
  • JSC CB PrivatBank v. The Russian Federation No. 2015-21 (no available decisions). https://pca-cpa.org/en/cases/130/
  • LLC Lugzor, LLC Libset, LLC Ukrinterinvest, PJSC DniproAzot, LLC Aberon Ltd v. The Russian Federation No. 2015-29 (no available decisions). https://pca-cpa.org/en/cases/124/
  • PJSC Ukrnafta v. The Russian Federation No. 2015-34 (no available decisions). https://pca-cpa.org/en/cases/121/
  • Stabil LLC, Rubenor LLC, Rustel LLC, Novel-Estate LLC, PII Kirovograd-Nafta LLC, Crimea-Petrol LLC, Pirsan LLC, Trade-Trust LLC, Elefteria LLC, VKF Satek LLC, Stemv Group LLC v. The Russian Federation No. 2015-35 (no available decisions). https://pca-cpa.org/en/cases/122/
  • Everest Estate LLC et al. v. The Russian Federation No. 2015-36 (no available decisions). https://pca-cpa.org/en/cases/133/
  • NJSC Naftogaz of Ukraine (Ukraine) et al. v. the Russian Federation No. 2017-16 (no available decisions). https://pca-cpa.org/en/cases/151/

OSCE Parliamentary Assembly

  • Resolution on Clear, Gross and Uncorrected Violations of Helsinki Principles by the Russian Federation. Parliamentary Assembly of OSCE, 23rd Annual Session 2.07.2014. https://www.oscepa.org/documents/annual-sessions/2014-baku/declaration-2/2540-2014-baku-declaration-eng/file
  • Resolution on the Continuation of Clear, Gross and Uncorrected Violations of OSCE Commitments and International Norms by the Russian Federation. Parliamentary Assembly of OSCE, 24th Annual Session 5-9.07.2015. https://www.oscepa.org/documents/annual-sessions/2015-helsinki/declaration-3/2977-2015-helsinki-declaration-eng/file
  • Resolution on Violations of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the City of Sevastopol. Parliamentary Assembly of OSCE, 25th Annual Session 1-5.07.2016. https://www.oscepa.org/documents/annual-sessions/2016-tbilisi/declaration-24/3371-tbilisi-declaration-eng/file
  • Resolution on Restoration of the Sovereignty and Territorial Integrity of Ukraine. Parliamentary Assembly of OSCE, 26th Annual Session 5-9.07.2017. https://www.oscepa.org/documents/annual-sessions/2017-minsk/declaration-25/3555-declaration-minsk-eng/file
  • Resolution on Ongoing Violations of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the City of Sevastopol (Ukraine). Parliamentary Assembly of OSCE, 28th Annual Session 7-11.07.2018. https://www.oscepa.org/documents/annual-sessions/2018-berlin/declaration-26/3742-berlin-declaration-eng/file
  • Resolution on the Militarization by the Russian Federation of the Temporarily Occupied Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the City of Sevastopol, Ukraine, the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov. Parliamentary Assembly of OSCE, 28th Annual Session 4-8.07.2019. https://www.oscepa.org/documents/annual-sessions/2019-luxembourg/3882-luxembourg-declaration-eng/file

Parliamentary Assembly of Council of Europe

  • Resolution of Parliamentary Assembly of CoE 1988 (2014). Recent developments in Ukraine: threats to the functioning of democratic institutions. 9.04.2014. https://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-en.asp?fileid=20873&lang=en
  • Resolution of Parliamentary Assembly of CoE 2028 (2015). The humanitarian situation of Ukrainian refugees and displaced persons. 27.01.2015. http://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/xref/xref-xml2html-en.asp?fileid=21480&lang=en
  • Resolution of Parliamentary Assembly of CoE 2067 (2015). Missing persons during the conflict in Ukraine. 25.06.2015. http://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/xref/xref-xml2html-en.asp?fileid=21970&lang=en
  • Resolution of Parliamentary Assembly of CoE 2112 (2016). The humanitarian concerns with regard to people captured during the war in Ukraine. 21.04.2016. https://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-en.asp?fileid=22750&lang=en
  • Resolution of Parliamentary Assembly of CoE 2132 (2016). Political consequences of the Russian aggression in Ukraine. 12.10.2016. https://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-en.asp?fileid=23166&lang=en
  • Resolution of Parliamentary Assembly of CoE 2133 (2016). Legal remedies for human rights violations on the Ukrainian territories outside the control of the Ukrainian authorities. 12.10.2016. http://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-en.asp?fileid=23167
  • Resolution of Parliamentary Assembly of CoE 2145 (2017). The functioning of democratic institutions in Ukraine. 25.01.2017. https://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-en.asp?fileid=23453&lang=en
  • Resolution of Parliamentary Assembly of CoE 2198 (2018). Humanitarian Consequences of the War in Ukraine. 23.01.2018. https://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-en.asp?fileid=24432&lang=en
  • Resolution of Parliamentary Assembly of CoE 2231 (2018). Ukrainian citizens detained as political prisoners by the Russian Federation. 28.06.2018. http://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-EN.asp?fileid=24994&lang=en


European Parliament

  • Resolution of European Parliament 2014/2841(RSP). On the situation in Ukraine and the state of play of EU-Russia relations. 18.09.2014. https://oeil.secure.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?lang=en&reference=2014/2841(RSP)
  • Resolution of European Parliament 2014/2965(RSP). On the situation in Ukraine. 15.01.2015. https://oeil.secure.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?lang=en&reference=2014/2965(RSP)
  • Resolution of European Parliament 2016/2556(RSP). On the human rights situation in Crimea, in particular of the Crimean Tatars. 4.02.2016. https://oeil.secure.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?lang=en&reference=2016/2556(RSP)
  • Resolution of European Parliament 2016/2692(RSP). On the Crimean Tatars. 12.05.2016. https://oeil.secure.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?lang=en&reference=2016/2692(RSP)
  • Resolution of European Parliament 2017/2596(RSP) On the Ukrainian prisoners in Russia and the situation in Crimea. 16.03.2017. https://oeil.secure.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?lang=en&reference=2017/2596(RSP)
  • Resolution of European Parliament 2017/2869(RSP). On the cases of Crimean Tatar leaders Akhtem Chiygoz, Ilmi Umerov and the journalist Mykola Semena. 5.10.2017. https://oeil.secure.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?lang=en&reference=2017/2869(RSP)
  • Resolution of European Parliament 2018/2754(RSP). On Russia, notably the case of Ukrainian political prisoner Oleg Sentsov. 14.06.2018. https://oeil.secure.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?lang=en&reference=2018/2754(RSP)
  • Resolution of European Parliament (2018/2870(RSP)) On the Situation in the Sea of Azov. 24.10.2018. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/RC-8-2018-0493_EN.html?redirect
  • Resolution of European Parliament 2019/2734(RSP) On Russia, notably the situation of environmental activists and Ukrainian political prisoners. 18.07.2019. https://oeil.secure.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?lang=en&reference=2019/2734(RSP)
  • Resolution of European Parliament 2019/2202(INI). On the implementation of the EU Association Agreement with Ukraine. 11.02.2021. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2021-0050_EN.html

* * *


The Crimean Library section on the blackseanews.net website has been created with the support of the European Program of the International Renaissance Foundation. The views of the authors do not necessarily reflect the position of the International Renaissance Foundation

 

Теми: