European Court of Human Rights declared complaints brought by Ukraine against Russia concerning a pattern of human- rights violations in Crimea declared partly admissible

This was announced in the press release issued by the Registrar of the Court.

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 Crimea.

“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. In particular, it is alleged 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. 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 Ukrainian government maintained.

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 court “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. Without prejudging the merits, all but a few of the Ukrainian Government’s complaints the Court declared admissible “ – it was stated in the press release.

According to the statement, 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 the 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 organizers 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;

5

- 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.

Only the allegations of an administrative practice of killing and the shooting did not meet the required standard of proof and thus, were rejected as inadmissible.

Ukraine's Justice Minister Denis Malyuska called the court decision a "victory" and a "powerful legal blow to the mythology used by Russia in the hybrid war."