Protection of Civilians and their Freedom of Movement in the Donetsk and Luha...DonbassFullAccess
This document provides a summary of the Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine's findings regarding restrictions on freedom of movement in eastern Ukraine imposed by a Temporary Order requiring special permits. The SMM found that the permit system has severely limited civilians' ability to leave conflict areas or access assistance. Problems include complicated application requirements, inability to obtain documents in conflict areas, inconsistent enforcement, and inability to reach permit offices. These restrictions have prevented aid from reaching those in need and increased civilians' exposure to danger. The SMM observed serious concerns about the protection of civilians and made recommendations to address these issues.
The European Court of Human Rights will hold a hearing in February 2019 on Ukraine v. Russia regarding alleged violations of the European Convention on Human Rights by Russia in Crimea. Ukraine maintains that Russia has exercised control over Crimea since February 2014 and jurisdiction over situations resulting in Convention violations. Ukraine alleges violations of various rights such as the right to life and prohibition of torture. The Court had previously issued interim measures calling on Russia and Ukraine to refrain from actions endangering civilians.
An illegal referendum was held in Crimea on March 16th that resulted in the region's annexation by Russia. The referendum asked residents to choose between rejoining Russia or restoring Crimea's status within Ukraine from 1992. However, the referendum was deemed illegitimate by several international organizations and countries. While Russia recognized the results, international observers from organizations like the EU and OSCE did not participate or monitor the process. Reforms are continuing in Ukraine to combat corruption within the government.
17 USC § 107 Limitations on Exclusive Rights – FAIR USE
On 20 November, the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) finally published her request to open a formal investigation into war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in Afghanistan. This means that the Prosecutor agrees with the result of the preliminary examination showing that crimes meeting the ICC gravity threshold have been committed in Afghanistan since 2003 (the period for which the ICC has jurisdiction) and that the ICC considers that Afghanistan is either unwilling or unable to prosecute these crimes nationally. The Prosecutor also made an open request to the victims to send their statements to the Court by 31 January 2018. There is, then, a very important but short window of opportunity for victims to share their stories with the Court. On the occasion of the release of the Prosecutor’s request, AAN is publishing this question and answers dispatch focusing on the ICC and Afghanistan (1).
Иск Украины к России в международном суде ООНAndrew Vodianyi
Ukraine has instituted proceedings against Russia at the International Court of Justice and requested provisional measures. Ukraine alleges that Russia has violated international law by financing terrorism and acts of discrimination in Ukraine and Crimea. Specifically, Ukraine contends that Russia has supported armed groups in eastern Ukraine, illegally annexed Crimea, and engaged in cultural suppression of Ukrainians and Crimean Tatars. Ukraine is asking the court to order Russia to cease support for terrorist groups, end discrimination, and provide reparations.
This document is a court judgment regarding a request made under the Right to Information Act for details of corrupt police officers in Kerala. The State Information Commission ordered the disclosure of information regarding officers convicted of corruption or human rights violations, or against whom a final police report was submitted to court. However, details of officers under ongoing investigation were not to be disclosed. The petitioners challenged this order, arguing the State Crime Records Bureau is exempt from RTI requests. The court heard arguments from both sides and the judgment discusses the issues around applying exemptions for ongoing investigations versus ordering disclosure of certain established misconduct details.
Report on the human rights situation in Ukraine 16 May to 15 August 2018DonbassFullAccess
The UN report documents human rights issues in Ukraine from May to August 2018. It found over 160 violations affecting 282 victims, with a 30% increase in civilian casualties from the conflict. The government of Ukraine was responsible for 53 violations, armed groups for 10, and Russia for 22 as the occupying power in Crimea. Increased hostilities from mid-May to June worsened protection of civilians and restricted freedom of movement and access to services for over 600,000 people living near the contact line. Serious violations including arbitrary detention and torture continued to be attributed to all parties to the conflict.
Report on the human rights situation in Ukraine 15 May 2014DonbassFullAccess
The present report is based on the findings of the United Nations (UN) Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine (HRMMU)1 covering the period of 2 April - 6 May 2014. It follows the first report on the human rights situation in Ukraine released by the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) on 15 April 2014.
Protection of Civilians and their Freedom of Movement in the Donetsk and Luha...DonbassFullAccess
This document provides a summary of the Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine's findings regarding restrictions on freedom of movement in eastern Ukraine imposed by a Temporary Order requiring special permits. The SMM found that the permit system has severely limited civilians' ability to leave conflict areas or access assistance. Problems include complicated application requirements, inability to obtain documents in conflict areas, inconsistent enforcement, and inability to reach permit offices. These restrictions have prevented aid from reaching those in need and increased civilians' exposure to danger. The SMM observed serious concerns about the protection of civilians and made recommendations to address these issues.
The European Court of Human Rights will hold a hearing in February 2019 on Ukraine v. Russia regarding alleged violations of the European Convention on Human Rights by Russia in Crimea. Ukraine maintains that Russia has exercised control over Crimea since February 2014 and jurisdiction over situations resulting in Convention violations. Ukraine alleges violations of various rights such as the right to life and prohibition of torture. The Court had previously issued interim measures calling on Russia and Ukraine to refrain from actions endangering civilians.
An illegal referendum was held in Crimea on March 16th that resulted in the region's annexation by Russia. The referendum asked residents to choose between rejoining Russia or restoring Crimea's status within Ukraine from 1992. However, the referendum was deemed illegitimate by several international organizations and countries. While Russia recognized the results, international observers from organizations like the EU and OSCE did not participate or monitor the process. Reforms are continuing in Ukraine to combat corruption within the government.
17 USC § 107 Limitations on Exclusive Rights – FAIR USE
On 20 November, the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) finally published her request to open a formal investigation into war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in Afghanistan. This means that the Prosecutor agrees with the result of the preliminary examination showing that crimes meeting the ICC gravity threshold have been committed in Afghanistan since 2003 (the period for which the ICC has jurisdiction) and that the ICC considers that Afghanistan is either unwilling or unable to prosecute these crimes nationally. The Prosecutor also made an open request to the victims to send their statements to the Court by 31 January 2018. There is, then, a very important but short window of opportunity for victims to share their stories with the Court. On the occasion of the release of the Prosecutor’s request, AAN is publishing this question and answers dispatch focusing on the ICC and Afghanistan (1).
Иск Украины к России в международном суде ООНAndrew Vodianyi
Ukraine has instituted proceedings against Russia at the International Court of Justice and requested provisional measures. Ukraine alleges that Russia has violated international law by financing terrorism and acts of discrimination in Ukraine and Crimea. Specifically, Ukraine contends that Russia has supported armed groups in eastern Ukraine, illegally annexed Crimea, and engaged in cultural suppression of Ukrainians and Crimean Tatars. Ukraine is asking the court to order Russia to cease support for terrorist groups, end discrimination, and provide reparations.
This document is a court judgment regarding a request made under the Right to Information Act for details of corrupt police officers in Kerala. The State Information Commission ordered the disclosure of information regarding officers convicted of corruption or human rights violations, or against whom a final police report was submitted to court. However, details of officers under ongoing investigation were not to be disclosed. The petitioners challenged this order, arguing the State Crime Records Bureau is exempt from RTI requests. The court heard arguments from both sides and the judgment discusses the issues around applying exemptions for ongoing investigations versus ordering disclosure of certain established misconduct details.
Report on the human rights situation in Ukraine 16 May to 15 August 2018DonbassFullAccess
The UN report documents human rights issues in Ukraine from May to August 2018. It found over 160 violations affecting 282 victims, with a 30% increase in civilian casualties from the conflict. The government of Ukraine was responsible for 53 violations, armed groups for 10, and Russia for 22 as the occupying power in Crimea. Increased hostilities from mid-May to June worsened protection of civilians and restricted freedom of movement and access to services for over 600,000 people living near the contact line. Serious violations including arbitrary detention and torture continued to be attributed to all parties to the conflict.
Report on the human rights situation in Ukraine 15 May 2014DonbassFullAccess
The present report is based on the findings of the United Nations (UN) Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine (HRMMU)1 covering the period of 2 April - 6 May 2014. It follows the first report on the human rights situation in Ukraine released by the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) on 15 April 2014.
This 3 sentence summary provides the key details from the multi-page UN report on the human rights situation in Ukraine:
The report documents over 30,000 casualties in eastern Ukraine since April 2014 as a result of the conflict, including up to 2,000 civilians killed by indiscriminate shelling. Both sides have been responsible for human rights violations such as arbitrary detention, torture, and restrictions on fundamental freedoms. The human rights situation remains dire, especially in areas controlled by armed groups where over 2.7 million people live without protection of their basic rights.
Accountability for killings in Ukraine from January 2014 to May 2016DonbassFullAccess
Since its deployment on 14 March 2014, the United Nations Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine (HRMMU) has been gathering substantial information related to the arbitrary deprivation of life, one of the gravest human rights violations, notably during assemblies, in 2014 and 2015, as well as in the eastern areas affected by the ongoing conflict.
The report covers the period from January 2014 to May 2016, and applies to the whole territory of Ukraine, including the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol, as per United Nations General Assembly resolution 68/262 on the territorial integrity of Ukraine. Special attention is paid to the east of Ukraine where an armed conflict has been ongoing since mid-April 2014, causing the highest number of fatalities.
The report is based on information that HRMMU collected through: interviews with witnesses, relatives of victims and their lawyers; analysis of corroborating material confidentially shared with HRMMU; official records; open-source documents and video,
photo and audio materials (including some produced by alleged perpetrators); forensic reports; criminal investigation materials; court documents; and other relevant and reliable materials.
Digest is dedicated to the process of reform of law enforcement authorities in Ukraine, first of all of police,
prosecution authorities, State Bureau of Investigation and criminal justice legislation. It is published
with the aim to better inform the society, expert community and international institutions on the state of
reforming mentioned authorities and spheres of their activity.
The UN report documents human rights issues in Ukraine from May to August 2018. It found over 160 violations affecting 282 victims, with a 30% increase in civilian casualties from the conflict. The government of Ukraine was responsible for 53 violations, armed groups for 10, and Russia for 22 as the occupying power in Crimea. Hostilities continued disrupting civilian life and causing deaths and injuries. Increased fighting in May-June 2018 worsened human rights protections for those living near the contact line. Conflict-related detentions, torture and restrictions on freedom of movement remained problems.
This UN report summarizes the human rights situation in Ukraine from February to May 2015. It notes ongoing armed hostilities between Ukrainian forces and armed groups have negatively impacted over 5 million people. While a ceasefire was agreed to in February, attacks continued in some areas. The report also finds accountability for past human rights abuses is lacking, and conditions in Russian-occupied Crimea continue to deteriorate.
This document summarizes a Supreme Court of India judgment regarding an appeal challenging the dismissal of a petition seeking to quash a charge sheet and summoning order. The key details are:
1) The case involves a dispute over possession of land between the appellant and respondent, who belongs to a Scheduled Caste.
2) The respondent filed an FIR alleging the appellant abused and threatened her while preventing construction on the disputed land.
3) The appellant argued the charges did not disclose offenses under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act.
4) The Supreme Court analyzed the case and prior judgments, finding the alleged acts did not occur in public view as required by the law, and there
1) The document discusses rules around the use of foreign companies and offshore jurisdictions by Russian individuals and entities. It lists 40 offshore jurisdictions and notes recent changes in Russian law regarding controlled foreign companies and income received from foreign organizations.
2) It summarizes new Russian laws around controlled foreign companies (CFCs) and what constitutes control of a foreign entity. It also lists exceptions and permitted transactions involving foreign accounts.
3) The document provides an overview of currency control rules for Russian residents relating to foreign accounts and transactions, including notification requirements and penalties for non-compliance. It clarifies what constitutes an illegal currency transaction under Russian law.
Articles which subjected to luthfi hasan ishaksalsa moyara
Lutfi Hasan Ishaq is an Indonesian politician who was president of the Justice Party (PKS) from 2010-2013. He resigned after being implicated in a corruption case involving cattle import bribery. He faces potential charges of money laundering and corruption based on Indonesian laws against money laundering, corruption, and participation in criminal acts. If convicted, he could face imprisonment and substantial fines.
Report on the human rights situation in Ukraine 16 August to 15 November 2015DonbassFullAccess
This is the twelfth report of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) on the situation of human rights in Ukraine, based on the work of the United Nations Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine (HRMMU). It covers the period from 16 August to 15 November 2015.
This document provides an alternative report on torture and ill-treatment in Serbia to the UN Committee against Torture. It summarizes issues related to the criminalization of torture, treatment of asylum seekers and irregular migrants, torture and ill-treatment in detention, investigation and prosecution of such cases, reparation and rehabilitation for victims, human trafficking, and treatment of vulnerable groups. Several NGOs contributed sections on their areas of expertise. The report finds that Serbian law does not properly define and criminalize torture in line with the UN Convention and recommends amendments to address this. It also notes issues with statutes of limitations and calls for reopening past cases.
The monthly information bulletin of the Centre of Policy and Legal Reform (CPLR) is dedicated to the analysis of state reforms,
in particular in the areas of parliamentarianism and elections, constitutional and judicial reforms, civil service, anticorruption,
etc. The goal of the publication is to increase the level of expert awareness among the citizens and to strengthen their
capacity to influence the government authorities in order to expedite democratic reforms and to establish good governance
in Ukraine.
Russia annexed Crimea in 2014 after pro-Russian forces seized government buildings and held a referendum. International law regarding territorial integrity and self-determination applies. The paper will evaluate arguments from Russia and the West regarding the annexation's legality. It will determine if the annexation was legal or illegal and why.
Inter state case brought by russia against ukraine (2)Юлія Соколова
The Russian government has lodged an inter-state application against Ukraine with the European Court of Human Rights. Russia alleges violations of various articles of the European Convention on Human Rights by Ukraine, including killings, abductions, restrictions on the Russian language and interference with voting rights. Russia also complains about Ukraine cutting off the water supply to Crimea and failing to close its airspace, which Russia says resulted in the downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17. The Court rejected Russia's request for interim measures, finding it did not involve a serious risk of irreparable harm. The case is pending further consideration by the Court.
Report on the human rights situation in Ukraine 16 February to 15 May 2015DonbassFullAccess
This UN report summarizes the human rights situation in Ukraine from February to May 2015. It notes ongoing armed hostilities between Ukrainian forces and armed groups have negatively impacted over 5 million people. While a ceasefire was agreed to in February, attacks continued in some areas. The report also finds accountability for past human rights abuses is lacking, and conditions in Russian-occupied Crimea continue to deteriorate.
Digest by Ukrainian Helsinki Human rights Union, April 2019DonbassFullAccess
The document summarizes the activities of the USAID Human Rights in Action Program implemented by the Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union in April 2019. It discusses the program's work on human rights monitoring, advocacy, strategic litigation, free legal aid provision, and human rights education. Key events covered include Russia simplifying citizenship for eastern Ukrainians, and the PACE keeping sanctions on Russia in place.
The General Court upheld the Council's decision to freeze the funds of the Russian company Almaz-Antey, which manufactures anti-aircraft weapons. The Court found that by supplying weapons to Russia, which then provided them to separatists in Ukraine, Almaz-Antey materially supported actions undermining Ukraine's territorial integrity. The Court also determined that the Council did not need definitive evidence the exact weapons supplied were used in Ukraine, given the difficulty of obtaining such evidence in an active conflict. The freezing of Almaz-Antey's funds was a proportional measure to pressure parties contributing to the conflict and promote a peaceful resolution.
This 3 sentence summary provides the key details from the multi-page UN report on the human rights situation in Ukraine:
The report documents over 30,000 casualties in eastern Ukraine since April 2014 as a result of the conflict, including up to 2,000 civilians killed by indiscriminate shelling. Both sides have been responsible for human rights violations such as arbitrary detention, torture, and restrictions on fundamental freedoms. The human rights situation remains dire, especially in areas controlled by armed groups where over 2.7 million people live without protection of their basic rights.
Accountability for killings in Ukraine from January 2014 to May 2016DonbassFullAccess
Since its deployment on 14 March 2014, the United Nations Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine (HRMMU) has been gathering substantial information related to the arbitrary deprivation of life, one of the gravest human rights violations, notably during assemblies, in 2014 and 2015, as well as in the eastern areas affected by the ongoing conflict.
The report covers the period from January 2014 to May 2016, and applies to the whole territory of Ukraine, including the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol, as per United Nations General Assembly resolution 68/262 on the territorial integrity of Ukraine. Special attention is paid to the east of Ukraine where an armed conflict has been ongoing since mid-April 2014, causing the highest number of fatalities.
The report is based on information that HRMMU collected through: interviews with witnesses, relatives of victims and their lawyers; analysis of corroborating material confidentially shared with HRMMU; official records; open-source documents and video,
photo and audio materials (including some produced by alleged perpetrators); forensic reports; criminal investigation materials; court documents; and other relevant and reliable materials.
Digest is dedicated to the process of reform of law enforcement authorities in Ukraine, first of all of police,
prosecution authorities, State Bureau of Investigation and criminal justice legislation. It is published
with the aim to better inform the society, expert community and international institutions on the state of
reforming mentioned authorities and spheres of their activity.
The UN report documents human rights issues in Ukraine from May to August 2018. It found over 160 violations affecting 282 victims, with a 30% increase in civilian casualties from the conflict. The government of Ukraine was responsible for 53 violations, armed groups for 10, and Russia for 22 as the occupying power in Crimea. Hostilities continued disrupting civilian life and causing deaths and injuries. Increased fighting in May-June 2018 worsened human rights protections for those living near the contact line. Conflict-related detentions, torture and restrictions on freedom of movement remained problems.
This UN report summarizes the human rights situation in Ukraine from February to May 2015. It notes ongoing armed hostilities between Ukrainian forces and armed groups have negatively impacted over 5 million people. While a ceasefire was agreed to in February, attacks continued in some areas. The report also finds accountability for past human rights abuses is lacking, and conditions in Russian-occupied Crimea continue to deteriorate.
This document summarizes a Supreme Court of India judgment regarding an appeal challenging the dismissal of a petition seeking to quash a charge sheet and summoning order. The key details are:
1) The case involves a dispute over possession of land between the appellant and respondent, who belongs to a Scheduled Caste.
2) The respondent filed an FIR alleging the appellant abused and threatened her while preventing construction on the disputed land.
3) The appellant argued the charges did not disclose offenses under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act.
4) The Supreme Court analyzed the case and prior judgments, finding the alleged acts did not occur in public view as required by the law, and there
1) The document discusses rules around the use of foreign companies and offshore jurisdictions by Russian individuals and entities. It lists 40 offshore jurisdictions and notes recent changes in Russian law regarding controlled foreign companies and income received from foreign organizations.
2) It summarizes new Russian laws around controlled foreign companies (CFCs) and what constitutes control of a foreign entity. It also lists exceptions and permitted transactions involving foreign accounts.
3) The document provides an overview of currency control rules for Russian residents relating to foreign accounts and transactions, including notification requirements and penalties for non-compliance. It clarifies what constitutes an illegal currency transaction under Russian law.
Articles which subjected to luthfi hasan ishaksalsa moyara
Lutfi Hasan Ishaq is an Indonesian politician who was president of the Justice Party (PKS) from 2010-2013. He resigned after being implicated in a corruption case involving cattle import bribery. He faces potential charges of money laundering and corruption based on Indonesian laws against money laundering, corruption, and participation in criminal acts. If convicted, he could face imprisonment and substantial fines.
Report on the human rights situation in Ukraine 16 August to 15 November 2015DonbassFullAccess
This is the twelfth report of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) on the situation of human rights in Ukraine, based on the work of the United Nations Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine (HRMMU). It covers the period from 16 August to 15 November 2015.
This document provides an alternative report on torture and ill-treatment in Serbia to the UN Committee against Torture. It summarizes issues related to the criminalization of torture, treatment of asylum seekers and irregular migrants, torture and ill-treatment in detention, investigation and prosecution of such cases, reparation and rehabilitation for victims, human trafficking, and treatment of vulnerable groups. Several NGOs contributed sections on their areas of expertise. The report finds that Serbian law does not properly define and criminalize torture in line with the UN Convention and recommends amendments to address this. It also notes issues with statutes of limitations and calls for reopening past cases.
The monthly information bulletin of the Centre of Policy and Legal Reform (CPLR) is dedicated to the analysis of state reforms,
in particular in the areas of parliamentarianism and elections, constitutional and judicial reforms, civil service, anticorruption,
etc. The goal of the publication is to increase the level of expert awareness among the citizens and to strengthen their
capacity to influence the government authorities in order to expedite democratic reforms and to establish good governance
in Ukraine.
Russia annexed Crimea in 2014 after pro-Russian forces seized government buildings and held a referendum. International law regarding territorial integrity and self-determination applies. The paper will evaluate arguments from Russia and the West regarding the annexation's legality. It will determine if the annexation was legal or illegal and why.
Inter state case brought by russia against ukraine (2)Юлія Соколова
The Russian government has lodged an inter-state application against Ukraine with the European Court of Human Rights. Russia alleges violations of various articles of the European Convention on Human Rights by Ukraine, including killings, abductions, restrictions on the Russian language and interference with voting rights. Russia also complains about Ukraine cutting off the water supply to Crimea and failing to close its airspace, which Russia says resulted in the downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17. The Court rejected Russia's request for interim measures, finding it did not involve a serious risk of irreparable harm. The case is pending further consideration by the Court.
Report on the human rights situation in Ukraine 16 February to 15 May 2015DonbassFullAccess
This UN report summarizes the human rights situation in Ukraine from February to May 2015. It notes ongoing armed hostilities between Ukrainian forces and armed groups have negatively impacted over 5 million people. While a ceasefire was agreed to in February, attacks continued in some areas. The report also finds accountability for past human rights abuses is lacking, and conditions in Russian-occupied Crimea continue to deteriorate.
Digest by Ukrainian Helsinki Human rights Union, April 2019DonbassFullAccess
The document summarizes the activities of the USAID Human Rights in Action Program implemented by the Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union in April 2019. It discusses the program's work on human rights monitoring, advocacy, strategic litigation, free legal aid provision, and human rights education. Key events covered include Russia simplifying citizenship for eastern Ukrainians, and the PACE keeping sanctions on Russia in place.
The General Court upheld the Council's decision to freeze the funds of the Russian company Almaz-Antey, which manufactures anti-aircraft weapons. The Court found that by supplying weapons to Russia, which then provided them to separatists in Ukraine, Almaz-Antey materially supported actions undermining Ukraine's territorial integrity. The Court also determined that the Council did not need definitive evidence the exact weapons supplied were used in Ukraine, given the difficulty of obtaining such evidence in an active conflict. The freezing of Almaz-Antey's funds was a proportional measure to pressure parties contributing to the conflict and promote a peaceful resolution.
Report on the human rights situation in Ukraine 16 May to 15 August 2015DonbassFullAccess
This is the eleventh report of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) on the situation of human rights in Ukraine, based on the work of the United Nations Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine (HRMMU). It covers the period from 16 May to 15 August 2015.
In May-June 2014 the “Maidan of Foreign Affairs” Foundation was the first in Ukraine to formulate the basic principles of the Crimea Regain Strategy (1,2,3,4,5). Those principles have been publicized many times and commented on in Ukrainian and foreign media and social networks. In November-December 2014 they were published and presented in the book A Strategy for Regaining Crimea.
Some conclusions concerning the initial period of the Crimea occupation, from February to December 2014, were published in a report presented in Washington on March 6, 2015 .
The first version of “The Strategy for Regaining the Crimea” (henceforth referred to as 'Strategy') was formulated on the assumption that it would be used by top-level agencies in the national government of Ukraine; however, these expectations were not fulfilled, or else they were only partially realized and to a very small degree.
- Armed Russian troops seized government buildings in Crimea and raised Russian flags, calling themselves "self-defense forces". This comes amid increased Russian military activity in Crimea and near the Ukrainian border.
- The Ukrainian government described this as an "armed invasion and occupation", fearing Russia may attempt to annex Crimea as it did with parts of Georgia in 2008.
- International organizations like NATO and the EU called on Russia not to interfere in Ukraine and violate its territorial integrity. However, Russia claims to not be interfering and that the situation is an internal Ukrainian matter. Tensions continue to escalate over control of Crimea.
This document discusses the secession of Crimea from Ukraine and annexation by Russia in 2014. It provides background on Crimea's history and status within Ukraine and the Soviet Union. The document then examines whether Crimea had a just cause for secession based on the conditions and theories of political philosophers Brian Orend and Christopher Wellman. While most of the international community rejected Crimea's referendum to secede, the document aims to analyze if Crimea legitimately met the criteria for secession under just war theory and self-determination principles.
The General Court of the European Union annulled restrictive measures taken by the Council of the European Union against seven former members of Ukraine's ruling class, including former President Viktor Yanukovych. The Court found that the Council failed to verify that the rights of the defense and right to effective judicial protection were complied with in Ukraine before extending the freezing of the individuals' funds. Specifically, the Court determined that none of the information provided to the Council established that it verified Ukraine properly complied with these rights before imposing and extending the restrictive measures over multiple time periods. As a result, the Court annulled the Council's acts extending the measures.
The General Court of the European Union annulled restrictive measures taken by the Council of the European Union against seven former members of Ukraine's ruling class, including former President Viktor Yanukovych. The Court found that the Council failed to verify that the rights of the defense and right to effective judicial protection were complied with in Ukraine before extending the freezing of the individuals' funds. Specifically, the Court determined that none of the information provided to the Council established that it verified Ukraine properly complied with these rights before imposing and extending the restrictive measures over multiple time periods. As a result, the Court annulled the Council's acts extending the measures.
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia firmly supports Ukraine's territorial integrity and does not recognize Russia's annexation of Crimea. It recognizes diplomatic relations between Saudi Arabia and Ukraine established in 1993. Saudi Arabia proposes four actions: 1) Demand Russia withdraw military forces from Ukraine and impose sanctions for violations of Ukrainian sovereignty 2) Recognize the invalidity of Crimea's referendum 3) Establish a trade agreement between Russia, Ukraine and EU to reduce tensions 4) Request international organizations protect Ukraine's territorial integrity and human rights.
Human Rights Practices for 2015 UkraineАндрій Пізнюк
1) Separatists in eastern Ukraine committed widespread human rights abuses such as abductions, torture, unlawful detention and restricted humanitarian aid. The conflict has resulted in over 9,000 deaths and more than two million people have fled the region.
2) In Crimea, Russian occupation authorities committed human rights abuses targeting Crimean Tatars and others opposing the occupation. More than 20,000 Crimeans have been displaced.
3) Ukraine suffers from corruption, deficiencies in justice, and a climate of impunity as authorities generally fail to prosecute officials who commit abuses. Investigations into human rights crimes remain incomplete.
Report on the human rights situation in Ukraine 16 February to 15 May 2018DonbassFullAccess
This UN report summarizes the human rights situation in Ukraine from February to May 2018. Key points include:
1) The conflict continued to cause civilian casualties and damage infrastructure, with 81 civilian casualties recorded during the period.
2) 201 cases of human rights violations and abuses were documented, affecting 252 victims. The government of Ukraine was responsible for 68 violations.
3) Detention conditions in armed group-controlled areas could not be monitored, raising concerns about torture and ill-treatment of detainees. Access to justice continued to be hindered.
Freedom house violations of the rights crimeaFree Crimea
Under Russian occupation, Crimea has seen increasing human rights abuses including:
1) Discriminatory policies targeting ethnic Tatars, journalists, activists and those holding Ukrainian passports through intimidation, exile, and restricting basic rights and services.
2) Replacing local officials and professionals with Russians to establish new pro-Russian bureaucracy and quash political dissent.
3) Creating an "information ghetto" through media crackdowns to control information and prevent reporting on abuses.
The “green men” who fanned out across Crimea in early 2014, establishing control over key infrastructure and clearing the way for once-marginal political actors to seize the reins of power, were the vanguard of a forced political change that has led to grave human rights abuses across the Crimean peninsula.
Similar to Grand chamber decision ukraine v. russia (re crimea) complaints concerning pattern of human-rights violations partly admissible (19)
La Unión Europea ha acordado un paquete de sanciones contra Rusia por su invasión de Ucrania. Las sanciones incluyen restricciones a las transacciones con bancos rusos clave y la prohibición de la venta de aviones y equipos a Rusia. Los líderes de la UE esperan que las sanciones aumenten la presión económica sobre Rusia y la disuadan de continuar su agresión contra Ucrania.
Essential Tools for Modern PR Business .pptxPragencyuk
Discover the essential tools and strategies for modern PR business success. Learn how to craft compelling news releases, leverage press release sites and news wires, stay updated with PR news, and integrate effective PR practices to enhance your brand's visibility and credibility. Elevate your PR efforts with our comprehensive guide.
Youngest c m in India- Pema Khandu BiographyVoterMood
Pema Khandu, born on August 21, 1979, is an Indian politician and the Chief Minister of Arunachal Pradesh. He is the son of former Chief Minister of Arunachal Pradesh, Dorjee Khandu. Pema Khandu assumed office as the Chief Minister in July 2016, making him one of the youngest Chief Ministers in India at that time.
Here is Gabe Whitley's response to my defamation lawsuit for him calling me a rapist and perjurer in court documents.
You have to read it to believe it, but after you read it, you won't believe it. And I included eight examples of defamatory statements/
13062024_First India Newspaper Jaipur.pdfFIRST INDIA
Find Latest India News and Breaking News these days from India on Politics, Business, Entertainment, Technology, Sports, Lifestyle and Coronavirus News in India and the world over that you can't miss. For real time update Visit our social media handle. Read First India NewsPaper in your morning replace. Visit First India.
CLICK:- https://firstindia.co.in/
#First_India_NewsPaper
Grand chamber decision ukraine v. russia (re crimea) complaints concerning pattern of human-rights violations partly admissible
1. issued by the Registrar of the Court
ECHR 010 (2021)
14.01.2021
Complaints brought by Ukraine against Russia concerning a pattern of human-
rights violations in Crimea declared partly admissible
In its decision in the case of Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea) (application nos. 20958/14 and 38334/18)
the European Court of Human Rights has, by a majority, declared the application partly admissible.
The decision will be followed by a judgment at a later date.
The case concerns Ukraine’s allegations of a pattern (“administrative practice”) of violations of the
European Convention on Human Rights by the Russian Federation in Crimea1.
Firstly, the Court identified the scope of the issue before it and held that what was to be decided was
whether the alleged pattern of human-rights violations by Russia in Crimea during the relevant period,
namely between 27 February 2014 and 26 August 2015, was admissible. The Court held that it was
not called upon in the case to decide whether Crimea’s admission, under Russian law, into Russia had
been lawful from the standpoint of international law.
Before considering the allegations of an administrative practice, it had to consider whether Russia had
“jurisdiction”, within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention, over Crimea as from 27 February
2014 and therefore whether it had competence to examine the application. It found that the facts
complained of by the Ukrainian Government did fall within the “jurisdiction” of Russia on the basis of
effective control that it exercised over Crimea as of that date. When coming to that decision it took
into account in particular the size and strength of the increased Russian military presence in Crimea
from January to March 2014, without the Ukrainian authorities’ consent or any evidence to prove that
there was a threat to Russian troops stationed there under the relevant Bilateral Agreements between
them, valid at the time. It also found the Ukrainian Government’s account coherent and consistent
throughout the proceedings before it; they had provided detailed and specific information, backed up
by sufficient evidence, to prove that the Russian troops had not been passive bystanders, but had
been actively involved in the alleged events.
That conclusion is without prejudice to the question of Russia’s responsibility under the Convention
for the acts complained of, which belongs to the merits phase of the Court’s procedure.
The Court went on to identify and apply the applicable evidential threshold and its approach to the
standard and burden of proof and declared admissible, without prejudging the merits, all but a few of
the Ukrainian Government’s complaints of an administrative practice of human-rights violations by
Russia.
Lastly, it decided to give notice to the Russian Government of the complaint, not raised until 2018,
concerning the alleged transfer of Ukrainian “convicts” to the territory of Russia, and, given the
overlap, in this respect, with another inter-State application, Ukraine v. Russia (no. 38334/18), decided
to join the latter application to the present case and examine the admissibility and merits of that
complaint and the latter application at the same time as the merits stage of the proceedings.
Aside from this case, there are now two other inter-State cases and over 7,000 individual applications
pending before the Court concerning the events in Crimea, Eastern Ukraine and the Sea of Azov. For
further information, see the Q & A on Inter-State Cases.
1 “Crimea” refers to both the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (ARC) and the City of Sevastopol.
2. 2
Principal facts
The Ukrainian Government maintains that Russia has from 27 February 2014 exercised effective
control over the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (the ARC) and the City of Sevastopol, integral parts
of Ukraine, owing to its military presence in Crimea and its support of both the local government and
paramilitary forces. They allege that since that time Russia has exercised extraterritorial jurisdiction
over a situation which has resulted in an administrative practice of human-rights violations.
In particular they allege that, on 27 February 2014, over 100 heavily armed men stormed the buildings
of the Supreme Council and the Council of Ministers of the ARC. On the same day, Russia allegedly
also dramatically increased its direct military presence in Crimea, without notifying the relevant
Ukrainian authorities or receiving authorisation from them. By nightfall, the legitimate civilian
authorities in Crimea had been removed by force and replaced with Russian agents. Russian troops
and paramilitaries prevented the Ukrainian military forces from leaving their barracks and other
Ukrainian units from being transferred from the mainland to the peninsula.
In the following days Russia deployed ever-increasing numbers of troops and prevented Ukraine from
sending military reinforcement by establishing control over the entry and exit points into and from
Crimea by land, sea and air and by sabotage operations. Up until 16 March Russia consolidated this
control over Crimea by blocking all Ukrainian service personnel in their barracks, depriving them of
communication with the outside world. This led to the transfer of power to the new local authorities,
which then declared the independence of Crimea after a “referendum” held on 16 March 2014. On 18
March 2014 Russia, the “Republic of Crimea” and the City of Sevastopol signed the “Treaty of
Unification”.
The Russian Government argue, on the other hand, that they only exercised jurisdiction in Crimea and
Sevastopol after 18 March 2014, when those territories became part of Russia under the “Treaty of
Unification”, and not before. The “referendum” and the “reunification” were the result of a series of
protests in Ukraine, known as “Euromaidan” or “Maidan”, which had taken place between November
2013 and February 2014, leading to the ousting of the President of Ukraine and a series of political
and constitutional changes. The Russian Government maintain that they were not responsible for
those events or for any resultant disorder.
They argue, moreover, that Russian armed forces had always been present in Crimea, and their
presence was provided for under bilateral agreements between Russia and Ukraine. They submit that,
between 1 March and 17 March 2014, those armed forces stood ready to “assist the Crimean people
in resisting attack by the Ukrainian armed forces”, to “ensure that the Crimean population could make
a democratic choice safely without fear of reprisal from radicals”, to “ensure the normal expression
of the will of those living in Crimea” and/or “to ensure the protection of Russian military forces and
objects”. This did not mean, however, that Russia had effective control over Crimea in that period.
Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court
The Ukrainian Government complain that Russia was responsible for an administrative practice of
human-rights violations. As illustrations of the alleged practice they essentially rely on individual
incidents, and on the effects of general measures adopted in respect of Crimea, during the period
from 27 February 2014, the date from when they allege that Russia exercised extraterritorial
jurisdiction over Crimea, until 26 August 2015, the date of introduction of their second application.
They further state that the purpose of their application is not to seek individual findings of violations
and just satisfaction but rather to establish that there was a pattern of violations, to put an end to
them and to prevent their recurrence.
3. 3
The Ukrainian Government relies on several Articles of the Convention, in particular Article 2 (right to
life), Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman treatment and torture), Article 5 (right to liberty and security),
Article 6 (right to a fair trial), Article 8 (right to respect for private life), Article 9 (freedom of religion),
Article 10 (freedom of expression) and Article 11 (freedom of assembly). They also complain under
Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination), Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), Article 2
of Protocol No. 1 (right to education) and Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 (freedom of movement).
The case originates in two applications (nos. 20958/14 and 42410/15) against Russia lodged with the
Court by Ukraine on 13 March 2014 and 26 August 2015, respectively. Both applications concern
events in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. On 11 June 2018 the two applications were joined and given
the new name Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea) under application no. 20958/14. Complaints relating to
events in Eastern Ukraine were placed under application no. 8019/16.
The Court applied Rule 39 of the Rules of Court (interim measures) to the case. It called upon Russia
and Ukraine to refrain from measures, in particular military action, which might bring about violations
of the civilian population’s Convention rights, notably under Articles 2 (right to life) and 3 (prohibition
of inhuman or degrading treatment).
On 7 May 2018 the Chamber dealing with these inter-State cases relinquished jurisdiction in favour of
the Grand Chamber2.
The McGill Centre for Human Rights and Legal Pluralism at McGill University, Canada, was granted
leave to intervene in the written proceedings as a third party.
A Grand Chamber hearing was held in Strasbourg on 11 September 2019.
The decision was given by the Grand Chamber of 17 judges, composed as follows:
Robert Spano (Iceland), President,
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (Greece),
Jon Fridrik Kjølbro (Denmark),
Ksenija Turković (Croatia),
Angelika Nußberger (Germany),
Síofra O’Leary (Ireland),
Vincent A. De Gaetano (Malta),
Ganna Yudkivska (Ukraine),
Aleš Pejchal (the Czech Republic),
Krzysztof Wojtyczek (Poland),
Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström (Monaco),
Pere Pastor Vilanova (Andorra),
Tim Eicke (the United Kingdom),
Latif Hüseynov (Azerbaijan),
Jovan Ilievski (North Macedonia),
Gilberto Felici (San Marino),
Bakhtiyar Tuzmukhamedov (the Russian Federation), ad hoc Judge,
and also Søren Prebensen, Deputy Grand Chamber Registrar.
2. Under Article 30 of the European Convention on Human Rights, "Where a case pending before a Chamber raises a serious question
affecting the interpretation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, or where the resolution of a question before the Chamber might
have a result inconsistent with a judgment previously delivered by the Court, the Chamber may, at any time before it has rendered its
judgment, relinquish jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber, unless one of the parties to the case objects".
4. 4
Decision of the Court
Scope of the case
Firstly, the Court pointed out that what was to be decided in the case was whether the alleged pattern
of human-rights violations by Russia in Crimea between 27 February 2014 and 26 August 2015 was
admissible. The events relating to the Maidan protests in Kyiv and the issue of the legality, as a matter
of international law, of Crimea’s purported integration into the Russian Federation following the
“referendum” held in Crimea in March 2014 were not relevant for the Court’s examination of the case.
Nor indeed had those matters actually been referred to the Court and they were therefore outside
the scope of the case.
Given that definition of the scope of the case, the Court decided to lift the interim measure applied in
March 2014.
Jurisdiction
From 27 February to 18 March 2014
The Court found that there was sufficient evidence for it to conclude that Russia had exercised
effective control over Crimea in the period in dispute between the parties, namely from 27 February
to 18 March 2014.
In particular, although Russian troops on the peninsula had not exceeded the limit of 25,000 set out
in the relevant bilateral agreements, the figures demonstrated that they had nearly doubled within a
short space of time, increasing from some 10,000 in late January 2014 to around 20,000 in mid-March
2014. In the Court’s view, the increased military presence of Russia in Crimea during that period was,
at the very least, significant.
It also noted that the Russian Government had not contested the assertion that the Russian military
forces stationed in Crimea had been superior to the Ukrainian troops in technical, tactical, military and
qualitative terms.
The Russian Government had not justified such an increase in the Russian military presence by any
concrete evidence showing that there had been a threat to the troops stationed in Crimea at the time.
Furthermore, the increase had taken place without the consent or cooperation of the Ukrainian
authorities, as evidenced by diplomatic communiqués objecting to the deployments and movements
in question.
Moreover, contrary to the Russian Government’s arguments that their soldiers deployed in Crimea at
the time had been passive bystanders, the Ukrainian Government had provided highly detailed,
chronological and specific information, as well as sufficient evidence, showing active participation of
Russian service personnel in the immobilisation of Ukrainian forces.
The Ukrainian Government’s account had remained coherent throughout the proceedings before the
Court, with consistent information regarding the manner, place and time of the alleged events leading
to the transfer of power to the new local authorities, which had then organised the “referendum”,
declared the independence of Crimea and taken active steps towards its integration into Russia.
Lastly, the Court had particular regard to two uncontested statements by President Putin. The first
had been made in a meeting with heads of security agencies during the night of 22 to 23 February
2014, saying that he had taken the decision to “start working on the return of Crimea to the Russian
Federation”, while in the second, during a television interview given on 17 April 2014, he had expressly
acknowledged that Russia had “disarm[ed] military units of the Ukrainian army and law-enforcement
agencies” and that “Russian servicemen [had] back[ed] the Crimean self-defence forces”.
From 18 March 2014
5. 5
The Court noted that it was common ground between the parties that Russia had exercised jurisdiction
over Crimea after 18 March 2014. However, their positions differed as to the legal basis of that
jurisdiction. Unlike the Ukrainian Government, who asserted that that jurisdiction was based on
“effective control”, the Russian Government considered that it “would be inappropriate” to determine
that issue because it “would take the Court into questions concerning sovereignty between States that
[were] outside its jurisdiction”.
For the purposes of this admissibility decision, the Court decided to proceed on the basis of the
assumption that the jurisdiction of Russia over Crimea was in the form or nature of “effective control
over an area” – rather than of territorial jurisdiction. The Court reiterated in this connection that it
was not called upon to decide whether Crimea’s admission, as a matter of Russian law, into Russia had
been lawful from the standpoint of international law.
Conclusion
The Court considered that the alleged victims of the administrative practice complained of by the
Ukrainian Government fell within the “jurisdiction” of Russia and that the Court therefore had
competence to examine the application. That conclusion was without prejudice to the question of
whether Russia was responsible under the Convention for the acts which formed the basis of the
Ukrainian Government’s complaints, which belonged to the merits phase of the Court’s procedure.
Admissibility
Firstly, the Court found that the rule of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies was not applicable in
the circumstances of the present case, which involved allegations of an administrative practice. It
therefore dismissed the Russian Government’s objection on that point.
The Court then went on to assess the evidence available to it in order to determine whether or not
the Ukrainian Government’s allegations could be said to meet the evidentiary threshold (prima facie)
required at the admissibility stage of the proceedings for allegations of an administrative practice.
The Court considered that, on the whole, there was sufficient prima facie evidence regarding both the
“repetition of acts” and “official tolerance”, component elements of an alleged administrative practice
of:
enforced disappearances and the lack of an effective investigation into such a practice under
Article 2;
ill-treatment and unlawful detention under Articles 3 and 5;
extending application of Russian law to Crimea with the result that as from 27 February 2014
the courts in Crimea could not be considered to have been “established by law” within the
meaning of Article 6;
automatic imposition of Russian citizenship and raids of private dwellings under Article 8;
harassment and intimidation of religious leaders not conforming to the Russian Orthodox
faith, arbitrary raids of places of worship and confiscation of religious property under Article
9;
suppression of non-Russian media under Article 10;
prohibiting public gatherings and manifestations of support, as well as intimidation and
arbitrary detention of organisers of demonstrations under Article 11;
expropriation without compensation of property from civilians and private enterprises under
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1;
suppression of the Ukrainian language in schools and harassment of Ukrainian-speaking
children at school under Article 2 of Protocol No. 1;
6. 6
restricting freedom of movement between Crimea and mainland Ukraine, resulting from the
de facto transformation (by Russia) of the administrative delimitation into a border (between
Russia and Ukraine) under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4;
and, targeting Crimean Tatars under Article 14, taken in conjunction with Articles 8, 9, 10 and
11 of the Convention and with Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention.
The Court found in particular that the above allegations were consistent with the conclusions set out
in a number of reports by intergovernmental and non-governmental organisations, notably a report
of 2017 by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights3.
Moreover, as concerned certain allegations, the regulatory nature and the content of the measures
complained of provided in themselves sufficient prima facie evidence.
However, as to the allegations of an administrative practice of killing and shooting, the Court found
that the incidents referred to had not amounted to a pattern of violations. Concerning the short-term
detention of foreign journalists and the seizure of their equipment in the first half of March 2014, it
found that the limited number of allegations did not point to an administrative practice either.
Furthermore, the Ukrainian Government had submitted no evidence as concerned the alleged practice
of nationalising the property of Ukrainian soldiers. Accordingly, the required standard of proof had
not been met and those complaints were rejected as inadmissible.
Lastly, the Court decided to give notice to the Russian Government of the complaint regarding
“transfer of convicts” from Crimea to correctional institutions on the territory of Russia. That issue
had been raised for the first time in the Ukrainian Government’s submissions before the Grand
Chamber in December 2018 and the Court could thus not, on the basis of the case file, determine the
admissibility of the complaint at the current stage.
Moreover, it considered it appropriate to examine both the admissibility and the merits of the
“transfer of convicts” complaint and another inter-State application, Ukraine v. Russia (no. 38334/18)
in which that complaint was also raised, at the same time as the merits stage of these proceedings. In
consequence, it joined application no. 38334/18 to the present case.
The decision is available in English and French.
This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Decisions,
judgments and further information about the Court can be found on www.echr.coe.int. To receive the
Court’s press releases, please subscribe here: www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en or follow us on Twitter
@ECHR_CEDH.
Press contacts
During the current public-health crisis, journalists can continue to contact the Press Unit via
echrpress@echr.coe.int.
Tracey Turner-Tretz
Denis Lambert
Inci Ertekin
Neil Connolly
3 Report on the situation of human rights in the temporarily occupied Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol (Ukraine),
dated 25 September 2017, covering the period from 22 February 2014 to 12 September 2017 (“the OHCHR 2017 Report”) Error!
Bookmark not defined.
7. 7
The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member
States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.