login | registration | forgot the password
today 27.09.2016 01:28
(by Kyiv time)

navigation

Kharkiv Human Rights Group Social Networking



Situation in AR Crimea and Human Rights

[1]

Abbreviations

ARC — The Autonomous Republic of Crimea.

SC ARC — The Supreme Council of Crimea.

SCU — The Supreme Council of Ukraine.

DPSU — The State Border Guard Service of Ukraine.

ECHR — The European Convention on Human Rights.

EU — The European Union.

ECtHR — The European Court of Human Rights.

ICCPR — The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

NBU — The National Bank of Ukraine.

RNBO — The National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine.

RF — The Russian Federation.

FL — Federal Law.

FCL No. 6 — Federal Constitutional Law of the RF as of March 21, 2014 No. 6-FCL “On Crimea’s entrance into the Russian Federation and the formation of new entities in the country — the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol, city of federal significance.

Crimea: occupation — general overview

According to the Art. 133, 134 of the Constitution of Ukraine, Crimea and Sevastopol are an integral part of Ukraine. According to the Memorandum on Security Assurances in Connection with Ukraine’s Accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (signed by Ukraine, RF, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America), the states signatories have reaffirmed their commitment to refrain from the threat by means of force or its use against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine.

On February 23–28, 2014, was held the operation of the RF to seize airports and public authorities in Sevastopol and the ARC, blocking and capture of Ukrainian military units, as well as establishing checkpoints on land routes between Crimea and mainland Ukraine. In order to provide the visibility of the legitimacy of the occupancy of Crimea, the self-proclaimed authorities of the Crimean power with the support of the Russian military men conducted an illegal referendum. The self-proclaimed President of the Council of Ministers of the ARC has announced the temporary reassignment of the Peninsula uniformed services and military equipment of the “self-defense” troops. Such actions of the RF in accordance with international law, can be qualified as an act of aggression (United Nations General Assembly Resolution “Definition of Aggression”).

On March 17, 2014 the SC ARC adopts the Resolution on the independence of Crimea and declaration of an independent, sovereign state — the Republic of Crimea. On March 18, 2014 was signed the Treaty between the RF and the Republic of Crimea about adoption to the Russian Federation of the Republic of Crimea and formation of the new constituent entities.

Since March 2014, Russia begins active “integration” of Crimea: automatically recognizes all Crimean citizens as citizens of the RF, changes the computation of time, currency, introduces the validity of legislation of the Russian Federation, which is in comparison with Ukrainian oppressive and limiting human rights in different spheres of life. In addition, the occupation authorities have adopted a number of laws and other legal acts, which resulted in significant deterioration and violation of human rights and freedoms in Crimea. These include, for example:

— Resolution of the SC ARC “On approval of the People’s Militia of Crimea” as of 03.11.2014 , Law of the ARC “On the People’s Volunteer Corps — People’s Militia of Crimea” as of 06.11.2014. The paramilitary units that were involved in the seizure of the peninsula, seizure of property, involved in kidnappings and murders, dispersal of peaceful assemblies and obstruction of journalistic activities, were legalized.

— ARC Law No. 47-LRC “On the peculiarities of the repurchase of the property in the Republic of Crimea” as of 08.08.2014, which actually disguises raider seizures of private property.

— The decision of the SC ARC “On combating the spread of extremism in Crimea” from March 11, 2014, and Federal Law of the RF No. 91- FL “On the application of the provisions of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and the Criminal- Procedural Code of the Russian Federation on the territories of the Republic of Crimea and the city with federal status Sevastopol” as of May 5, 2014. According to it, the possibility of bringing to criminal responsibility for the acts committed in Crimea and the city of Sevastopol till March 18, 2014 was established. After that the mass arrests, criminal prosecution of the pro-Ukrainian activists and leaders of the Crimean Tatar community in Crimea were initiated.

On March 27, 2014 the UN General Assembly supported the resolution, the text of which the inviolability of territorial integrity of Ukraine is recognized, and the held referendum as so that can not be the basis for changing the status of the ARC or of Sevastopol. 100 UN member states voted in favour of the respectful resolution.

On April 15, 2014, the Lawof Ukraine “On securing the rights and freedoms of citizens and legal regime on the temporarily occupied territory of Ukraine” was adopted. The notion and mode of the temporarily occupied territories — the AR of Crimea and Sevastopol was determined. Under the law “... responsibility for the violations, determined by the Constitution and the laws of Ukraine rights and freedoms of a person and a citizen in the temporarily occupied territory remains with the Russian Federation as the occupier country in accordance with the norms and principles of the international law.”

Crimea: violation of the articles 5 and 7 of the ECHR on the occupied territory.
Question of the review of the legality of detention

According to Art. 7 of the ECHR, no one shall be recognized guilty of any criminal offense on the grounds of any act or omission to act, which, at the time it was committed, did not constitute a criminal offense under the national or international law. There can also be implied no heavier penalty than the one applicable at the time the criminal offense.

According to Articles 64–67 of the Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (Geneva, August 12, 1949), criminal laws of the occupied territory shall remain in force, except for the cases, when its effect is canceled or suspended by the occupation state if this legislation poses a threat to the security of the occupation state or the occupation is an obstacle to implementation of the Convention... The occupying state, however, may extend on the population of the occupied territory the validity of the provisions that are necessary for the fulfillment of the obligations imposed on it under this Convention, the maintenance of the effective territory management, provision of security of the occupation state, contingent and property of the occupation forces and administration, as well as sites and communication lines they use. The provisions on criminal liability, adopted by the occupying state, can take effect only after they are published and brought to the notice of the population in their native language. These regulations shall not be applied retroactively. The courts should act only in accordance with those statutory provisions that were in force prior to the date of the commission of the offence and which comply with the general principles of law, in particular the principle of the consistency of penalty and offense.

According to the FL “On the application of the provisions of the Criminal Code of the RF and the Criminal- Procedural Code of the RF on the territories of the Republic of Crimea and the city with federal status Sevastopol” as of 29.04.2014, criminality and punishment for acts committed on the territory of the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol before March 18, 2014, are determined on the basis of the criminal laws of the RF. Turn for the worse is at this not allowed.

According to Art. 12 of the Criminal Code of the RF, foreign citizens and stateless persons who do not live permanently in the RF and committed crimes outside the RF, shall be criminally liable under this Code in cases if the crime is directed against the interests of the RF or a citizen of the RF, or a stateless person permanently resident in RF, as well as in cases stipulated by the international treaty of the RF, if foreign citizens and stateless persons not residing permanently on the territory of the RF have not been convicted in a foreign country and charged with criminal offenses on the territory of the RF.

As a matter of practice, all criminal offenses, cases according to which were in the proceedings of the investigation authorities and the courts of Ukraine, located on the territory of the ARC and in Sevastopol, werereclassified in accordance with the legislation of the RF. Further consideration of these cases was continued in accordance with the laws of Russia. Accurate statisticsof such cases is absent. However, in practice they were recorded as the cases of cessation of criminal prosecution with reference to Art. 12 of the Criminal Code of the RF, as well as the adoption of judgments against the mentioned provisions of the law.

The mentioned circumstances give reasons to believe that the authorities of the RF have violated the guarantees of Art. 7 of the ECHR. Moreover, in this context arises the question about the justness of keeping a person in custody. According to Art. 5 of the Convention one of the grounds for holding a person in custody is a reasonable suspicion that the person have committed an offense. Besides, each person in custody has the right to check the legality of his detention and his release if such detention was unlawful.

Based on the provisions of Art. 5 of the ECHR in conjunction with the provisions of Art. 7 of the Convention, the authorities of the RF were required to immediately review the justness of the detention of persons, to whom such a preventive measure was chosen in accordance with the laws of Ukraine. However, for a long period after the announcement of Crimea as a part of the RF, no action to review the reasonableness of the detention was used. Prosecutors and judges were in confused state because of the sharp change of the legislation. In addition, there are cases of continued detention of persons for whom such measures expired, as defined by the legislation of Ukraine.

Crimea: the right to a fair trial

According to Art. 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing of his case ... by an independent and impartial court, established by law. By virtue of Art. 54 of the Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, occupation state is forbidden to change the status of public officials or judges in the occupied territories or use against them any coercive measures if they refrained from performing their duties for reasons of conscience.

According to Art. 9 of the FCL No. 6 “On adoption to the Russian Federation of the new subjects of the Republic of Crimea and the city of federal significance Sevastopol”, to administer justice in transition period were authorized the judges appointed to their positions prior to the occupation and who were working in Ukrainian courts in the occupied territory at the time of adoption of this law. Their status was defined as “citizens who substitute judges”. The condition of admission to the administration of justice was acquiring the citizenship of the RF, passing of the Ukraine’s citizen Passport to Russian authorities as well as submitting the Russian authorities the application for secession from the citizenship of Ukraine. Renunciation of the judges from the citizenship of Ukraine in accordance with the legislation of Ukraine did not occur.

Term of the administration of justice by the “citizens who replace judges” was determined “before creation on the respective territory of the RF courts”. This period, during which the justice on the territorium of the AR Crimea and in Sevastopol was performed by the “judges” in that status, continued from April 1 to December 26, 2014.

While the law guaranteed to the “citizens who replace the positions of judges” preferential right to fill the positions of judge in the courts of the RF, created in the occupied territory, but the procedure of formation of federal judges did not forsee any guarantees and, conversely, stimulated competition from the side of both — the existing federal judges, and other RF citizens.

According to the interview of M. Tymoshev, head of the High Qualification Collegium of Judges in Crimea and Sevastopol, the appointment of 462 judges is planned. At this, according to the results of the first stage of selection of judges,the vacancies were filled by 70%, “citizens who replace judges” in transition period constitute in this number a little more than half (~ 56%). In his interview M. Tymoshev also noted the high level of competition and informed about the selection criteria. In particular, he said that “much attention was paid to the analysis of professional relations and regular, first of all family relationships with others to identify potential conflict of interest...”. Practice shows that as compromising information was also classified the presence of family relationships with the citizens of Ukraine who live in mainland Ukraine.

During the mentioned period the judges were completely devoid of guarantees of independence. The courts delivered decisions in civil and criminal cases in the name of the RF, all judicial acts were verified by the seal of the courts of Ukraine and also other atributes of the courts of Ukraine were used.

Justice in accordance with the procedural law of the RF continued to perform also judicial proceedings, the existence of which is not provided by the legislation of the RF (for instance, such as economic and administrative courts). This led to the fact that, for example, the District Administrative Court of Sevastopol under the provisions of the Civil-Procedural Code of the RF made the decision in the name of the RF and verified it with the seal of the court of Ukraine.

There were cases of direct interference of the Russian authorities in the courts activitites. For example, the head of the Sevastopol commercial court of appeal V. M. Koval on the personal order of the Governor of Sevastopol S. Menyaylo was prohibited to enter the courthouse from May 2014, and the court management was entrusted to another person.

Since March 2014, the courts situated on the territory of the AR Crimea and city of Sevastopol stopped directing materials of the civil, criminal and administrative proceedings for judicial review of decisions to higher courts located in mainland Ukraine. This created barriers for review of the earlier adopted decisions by the courts of cassation, as well as for review of judicial decisions in connection with the decision by the ECHR.

As a result of such actions of the Russian authorities was undermined independence of the judicial independence of Crimea. In particular, the authorities of judges appointed in accordance with the laws of Ukraine were suddenly stopped, and the status of judges was undefined. Waiting for possible appointment for the position of the judge and non-transparency of the procedure pushed the applicants to demonstrate maximal loyalty to the authorities of the RF. And at this the actual forms of justice based on the mixture of jurisdictions, deprive the court of the signs of the “court established under the law”.

According to the Main principles relating to the independence of the judiciary authorities adopted by the seventh United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders (Milan, 1985), the term of office of judges, their independence, security, adequate remuneration, conditions of service, retirement age should be properly guaranteed by law; judges, appointed or elected, have a guaranteed term of office until compulsory retirement or end of term, where it is appointed; the judges may be temporarily suspended or removed from office only on the grounds of their inability to perform their duties or behavior that makes them unsuitable for the occupied position.

In view of the above mentioned, legal acts adopted in the indiated period in Crimea and Sevastopol, have dubius legal force, and the parties can not rely on the recognition of these legal judgements anywhere outside of the Crimean peninsula.

Crimea: violation of the right to respect for private and family life.
Violation of the regular lifestyle

As a result of occupation of the Crimean peninsula changes entered in all aspects of life — money turnover, legislation, recordkeeping, rules of providing health and social services, which in their scope led to confusion of the citizen and violations of their social relations and negatively affected the personal lives of the vast majority of them. Thus, due to the forced shutdown in August and September of 2014 of operation of the telephone operators on the Crimean peninsula were broken the contacts of the Crimean citizens as with each other, so their contacts with inhabitants of the mainland Ukraine.

On August 5, 2014, on the territorium of Crimea and Sevastopol providing of mobile services of the operator “MTS-Ukraine” was stopped because of the seizure by the representatives of the Crimean authorities of the company’s buildings and equipment. The frequencies that were previously used by the company “MTS-Ukraine” yet for the 6th of August were given to the Russian operator “K-Telecom” (brand “Win Mobile”). A few days later “K-Telecom” renewed for the subscribers of “MTS-Ukraine” (except for Sevastopol) the so-called “technical roaming”, but by this time most of the inhabitants of Crimea have transferred to the services of another Russian mobile operator, that is why most of the contacts were lost. In addition, prices for calls to mobile phones of other operators increased by approximately 4 times — from 65–75 kopecks/min. to 3 UAH/min., which in result made the use of “MTS-Ukraine” inappropriate. Similar processes have taken place with the operators “Kyivstar” (11.08.14.) and “Life” (19.09.14), which owned 42.7% and 14.7% of the market of mobile services respectively.

On September 25, 2014, JSC “Ukrtelecom” stopped providing services of stationary phones in Sevastopol. Instead of this operator, the company “Sevastopol Telecom”started providing such services. However, this has also led to the increase in the cost of calls to the phones of Ukrainian mobile operators and stationary phones on the mainland because the calls are billed as international.

There are recorded violations by the RF authorities of the inviolability of homes on the territory of the ARC and Sevastopol. Thus, on November 7, 2014, the representatives of the Crimean authorities and the Ministry of Defense illegally seized two service apartments in Simferopol and two — in Sevastopol, which belonged to Ukrainian Navy officers, who were forced to leave the Crimean peninsula after the occupation in March 2014. The locks in the apartments were broken, the door opened and sealed. Following these the flats were occupied by the Russian military officers. Representatives of the Ministry of Defence of the RF told Ukrainian officers via neighbors that they must take all their belongings from the flats before 1st of December 2014. Such actions and requirements are substantiated by the fact that the Ministry of Defence made a decision to occupy the apartments of the Ukrainian officers by Russian military officers. In addition to the mentioned cases of requirements to free their homes, such requests have also become several Ukrainian army soldiers.

Restrictions of the freedom of expression of opinion
and freedom of peaceful assemblies

The occupation of the Crimean peninsula was accompanied by, firstly, full simultaneous full change of the legal framework for the legislation of the RF, which has brought deterioration and restrictions of freedom of speech, freedom of expression of opinion, freedom of peaceful assemblies and more. And secondly — by systematic repressions through criminal and administrative prosecution of activists and pro-Ukrainian population.

Since 2014, Russia has considerably complicated and worsened the legislation concerning the freedom of expression of views, migration which currently poses a danger for Crimean citizens. Thus, to the legislation of the RF was introduced the mandatory reporting by the citizens of the existence of their second citizenship[2], obligatory for Crimean citizens from January 1, 2016 under the threat of criminal liability[3]. After this all Crimeans, which were registered in Crimea for the period of occupation, will have to report the occupation authorities of the existence of Ukrainian citizenship. If citizens give notice on dual citizenship after the announced term or indicate incomplete or obviously inaccurate data, they will face administrative responsibility — a fine from 500 to 1,000 rubles.

Particular threat to the freedom of thought is poses by regulatory requirements concerning the counterwork towards extremist activities, which introduce the notion of extremist materials[4]. In Crimea began its work the Center for Combating Extremism, which actually deals with prosecution of citizens who express disagreement with the new government. Under the pretext of fighting extremism, the occupation authorities in Crimea prosecutes also pro-Ukrainian representatives of religious organizations.

On March 15, 2014, Greek Catholic priest Mykola Kvych was illegally arrested by the Crimean authorities directly in the Ukrainian Greek Catholic parish of the Dormition of the Mother of God in Sevastopol, and the arrest was accompanied by the deliberate violation of the religious shrines of the temple, illegal arrest with physical violence, wrongful search of the priest’s private accommodation, his illegal interrogation for 8 hours with elements of torture, discrimination on the grounds of religion and language (prohibition of use of the Ukrainian language) and false accusations of extremism with the prospect of sentencing to 15 years’ imprisonment[5]. For these reasons, in the evening of March 16, the priest Mykola Kvych was forced to leave Crimea because there was a real threat to his health and life because of his priestly activity and belonging to the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church. Through this kind of threat priests of the UGCC from Yalta, Yevpatoria, Kerch, Simferopol also had to take their families away to a safe place outside the Crimea during the first half of March 2014.

Crimean authorities decided to raise the rent for the premises on Sevastopolska street in the city of Simferopol, in which the Cathedral of St. Equal-to-the-Apostles Vladimir and Princess Olga of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Kiev Patriarchate). As a result, the main cathedral of Kiev Patriarchate in Crimea is under threat of closure due to excessive for believers rent, which, according to Archbishop Clement, has increased by 600 thousand times[6].

On the territorium of Crimea took place a series of searches in mosques, medreses and private homes of muslims, during which security forces searched for the so-called extremist literature, including using the fact that recently this literature was not extremist in Ukrainian Crimea.

On June 24, in the village Kolchugino, Simferopol region, armed masked men broke into the building of medrese under the Spiritual Administration of Muslims of Crimea (DUMK), who conducted search, seized several computers and arrested the deputy director of the medrese Ayder Osmanov. At the time of the raid in the religious educational establishment there were 13 students and two teachers. The press-secretary of the DUMK Aider Adzhymambetov reported that the armed people — were employees of the Russian Special Task Unit “Berkut”. He said the search was conducted by the Russian “Center for Combating Extremism” and during all the previous days in Crimea took place a fierce informational preparation for the search of “extremists”[7].

At the same time, the authorities practically do not react to the facts of the attacks of the unknown people on religious buildings of the Crimeans. Thus, on June 1, 2014 at 8:00 AM in the village Perevalne of Simferopol district a group of armed bandits in the form of Russian Cossacks broke the door and illegally entered the premises of the Church of the Protection of the Blessed Virgin of the UOC (KP) and destroyed Orthodox relics. On June 13, in the village Luhove of Simferopol region the unknown set afire the mosque “Chukurcha-Dzhami”. According to the Russian Interior Ministry, the arson occurred around 5:00 AM due to the hit of several “Molotov cocktails”. As a result the facade of the mosque was damaged. It is noted that close to the fence attackers painted nazi swastika and the dateof the arson[8].

A separate problem was the Russian occupying authority’s requirement for mandatory re-registration of all religious organizations in Crimea under the Russian law till January 1, 2015. In particular, the existing provisions of the Federal Law of the RF as of 05.05.2014, No. 124-FL that include the following discriminatory restrictions, violating the rights of believers to collective confession of faith:

1. Re-registration of religious organizations under Russian legislation is possible only under fulfillment of one of two conditions:

1)  entry into the existing in Russia centralized religious organization of the relevant religious confession; or

2)  passing of the state religious examination in the order prescribed by the order of the Ministry of Justice of Russia dated 18.02.2009 No. 53 “On State Religious Expertise”.

2. Religious organizations of Crimea must submit for registration a new edition of its statute, which must meet all the requirements of Russian legislation.

3. Besides, in accordance with the requirements of the Ministry of Justice of Russia, while re-registering of the local and centralized religious organizations must be provided the original document of the current statute of the religious organization registered in accordance with Ukrainian legislation, and a document confirming its registration as a legal entity (for review with the following return to the applicant). Such requirement is not foreseen by the legislation of Russia that gives grounds to see in this hidden risks for believers and religious communities.

4. According to the Federal Law as of 09.26.1997, No.125-FL, only citizens of Russia may establish a religious organization with legal status. Therefore, this requirement makes believing Crimean residents to take Russian citizenship, and in case of resignation — they are actually deprived of their right of association in a religious organization with legal person capacity.

5. There emerged a threat for the preservation of property rights and realization of property rights on cult places of worship and other property of religious communities that have not re-registered for the reasons of:

1)  not joining the existing in Russia centralized religious organization;

2)  not-passing the state religion expertise;

3)  non-compliance with the new version of the statute of the requirements of Russian legislation;

4)  refusal of the believers to acquire the nationality of the RF.

6. Contrary to the legislation of Ukraine, which does not impose any conditions for the activity of religious communities not being a legal entity, Federal Law of the RF as of 26.09.1997, No. 125-FL requires the founders to actually pass a full procedure of creation a religious community, even for activities without status of a legal entity. Obviously, this requirement is correlated with the restriction of state registration of independent religious groups that exist less than 15 years, making impossible the activity of the community without becoming a part of one of Russian religious centers.

Thus, application on the territory of the AR Crimea of the Russian legislation in the sphere of freedom of conscience and activity of religious organizations limits and restricts the content of the rights and freedoms of citizens of Ukraine in comparison with the laws of Ukraine. Therefore, we can expect that the problems in the coming years will be the subject for review in the European Court of Human Rights.

On July 21, 2014, was adopted No. 274-FL “On Amendments to Article 280.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation”, which established the responsibility for “public calls for the carrying out of actions directed at violation of the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation”. Under this provision, a person can be sentenced to up to four years in prison, and in case if the calls are distributed through the mass media or the Internet — up to five years. In other words, the RF intends to strictly punish all for any statements concerning tne belonging to one or another territory. For instance, to criminal responsibility can be brought journalists for materials, in which Crimea is seen as part of Ukraine, and — ordinary citizens for statements like “Crimea is Ukraine” or graphic expressions of such opinion published in social networks. Such position is contrary to the international law norms and limits the freedom of expression of the views of citizens, including on the situation of occupation and accession of Crimea by Russia.

Because of persecution and pressure of the occupation government was forced to leave Crimea a well-known pro-Ukrainian activist and blogger L. Bogutska. The latter has constantly expressed through the media and the network Facebook her position regarding the rejection of occupation of Crimea, describing the difficulties of the Crimeann peninsula residents ince the occupation by the RF, expressing her dissatisfaction with the actions of the Russian authorities and condemning the actions of the RF aimed at support of the terrorist organizations “DNR” and “LNR” in eastern Ukraine.

In September 2014, in the house of L.Bohutska was conducted search and was seized her personal property, including computers, phone and other information media. Then L.Bohutska was taken to the “Center for Combating Extremism”, where she was shown statements in which people complained that she was fueling ethnic hatred, and her actions have the signs of extremism. In this period she was unser psychological pressure, in particular, the law enforcement officials informed her that on the basis of her public statements she can be suspected of extremist activities and inciting ethnic hatred.

A number of amendments to the Russian legislation were introduced and several regulations in Crimea concerniong the significant restriction of the freedom of assembly adopted, which can not be interpreted as appropriate in a democratic society. Si, on 21.07.14, in the RF was passed a law No. 258-FL “On Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of the RF in Terms of Improving the Legislation on Public Events”, which established criminal responsibility for repeated violations of the order or conducting of public events. On October 4, 2014, was passed the law No. 292-FL “On Amendments to Art. 9 of the Federal Law ”On Meetings, Rallies, Demonstrations, Marches and Pickets”, according to which a public event now can not begin before 07.00 AM and end later than 22.00 of the current day, local time, except for public events devoted to memorable dates of Russia etc.

There was adopted the law of the ARC No. 56-LRC “On Ensuring of the Conditions for Realization of the Right of Russian Citizens to Hold Meetings, Rallies, Demonstrations and Pickets in the Republic of Crimea” from 08.21.14, which sustantially restricts the freedom of assembly in Crimea, namely obliges to provide notice in writing directly to the local authority within a period not earlier than 15 and no later than 10 days before the public event.

On November 12, 2014, was issued the Order of the Council of Ministers of Crimea No. 452 “On the Approval of the List of Places for Public Events in the Republic of Crimea”, which defines the places for peaceful gatherings. For example, in Simferopol it is allowed to conduct peaceful assemblies only in four places. Besides, there are no grounds for banning the conduting of peaceful assemblies in other parts of the city.

Systematic and mass character bear the restrictions and prohibitions for conduct of peaceful gatherings. For example, on May 16, 2014, the self-proclaimed head of Crimea issued a decree that prohibited peaceful gatherings in Crimea until June 6, which was used on May 18 concerning the conducting of the mourning ceremonies to mark the 70th anniversary of the deportation of the Crimean Tatars. On August 25, 2014, the police officers in Sevastopol banned the organization “Defend Sevastopol” to hold the anti-corruption demonstration on Nakhimov Square. On December 2, 2014, the occupation authorities refused the Central Election Commissionof Kurultai in conduct of the Crimean Tatar meeting dedicated to the International Human Rights Day. Prosecution Service of Crimea deputy issued to the deputy head of the Crimean Tatar Mejlis A. Chyyhozu (07.12.14) and the head of the CF “Fund “Crimea“ R. Shevkiyev (10.12.14) warning about the inadmissibility of unauthorized meetings and on liability in case of violation of the warning.

On May 3, 2014, in Crimea there was massive peaceful gathering in support of the leader of the Crimean Tatar people, MP of Ukraine M. Dzhemilev, who was banned by the authorities of the RF to enter Crimea. Despite the peaceful nature of the event, mor ethan 100 protesters were brought to administrative responsibility and fined for the amount of 10 to 40 thousand rubles, including — for disobeying police (19.3 of the Administrative Offences Code of the RF). These measures, taken after a public event, were the interference with the right to freedom of assemblies, which was not necessary in a democratic society. Since autumn of 2014 began the criminal prosecution of the participants ofthis peaceful assembly (R. Abdurakhmanov, T. Smedlyayev, E. Ebulisov and other).

On August 24, 2014 employees of State Inspection of Traffic detained Victor Nehanov, a pro-Ukrainian meeting organizer in Sevastopol city. The real reason for the stop, search of his vehicle, seizure of personal property, and drawing up protocol on administrative offense (under the article 20.2 of the Code on the Administrative Offenses of the RF) was that on the Independence Day of Ukraine, carrying the national flag of Ukraine and wearing scarf in the colors of the national flag of Ukraine, he laid flowers to pedestal where once had stood a monument to Hetman Sagaydachny. As a result of threats of criminal prosecution V. Nehanov was forced to leave Crimea.

Establishment of repressive legislation, criminal responsibility for “calls” to separatism”, systematic violations of the right to peaceful assembly and targeted harassment of pro-Ukrainian activists by the police and so-called “Crimean self-defense” are not only a gross violation of international law, but also a public pressure against dissentients in Crimea, attempts to destroy civil society and intimidate people who do not agree with the occupation of the peninsula.

Crimea: the prohibition of discrimination

Resolution of the Council of National Bank of Ukraine No. 699 of November 3, 2014 “On the application of certain norms of currency legislation during the regime of temporary occupation of the territory of the free economic zone “Crimea” provides for that persons registered/permanently residing on the territory of the free economic zone “Crimea” are treated as non-residents (for investment purposes such persons are treated as foreign investors).

Resolution as of 16.12.2014 No. 810 amended the noted provision, under which the natural person who is internally displaced person and who received a certificate as required by the legislation of Ukraine confirming their residence in mainland Ukraine, is a resident of Ukraine. According to the legislation of Ukraine obtaining this certificate does not require proof of any circumstances, but its validity is 6 months.

The use of the term “non-resident” in itself led to stigmatization of respective group of population and development of a negative attitude to such persons. In particular, the citizens J.P. and M.M., both of whom have registered residence on the territory of Crimea, and work in the city of Kyiv in a commercial bank and an archival institution respectively, complained that their superiors were considering the issue of their dismissal because, according to their superiors, their subsequent employment required a work permit. This situation is a prime example of stigmatization.

Due to the isolation of the group of citizens as “subjects of Crimea” and giving them a non-resident status these persons faced a number of real limitations in access to banking services.

For example, PJSC “BM Bank” in November 2014 returned payer money that was to be deposited to the account belonging to the so-called “subject of Crimea”. Later bank released this blocked account. But after the publication of the NBU Resolution No.810 of 16.12.14 bank blocked again another account of the same person. PJSC “UkrSibbank” also blocked a bank account of a citizen, on which she kept all her savings and who had registered residence in Crimea. The blocked account was released only after the submission of a certificate of her registration as a person who had moved from the temporarily occupied territory of Ukraine. In December 2014 PJSC Raiffeisen Bank “Aval” refused to open an account for a “subject of Crimea”as a resident, but offered to open a current account with a non-resident account statust.

When considering complaints of the citizens on the mentioned limitations of their rights by commercial banks, the NBU didn’t find in the actions of commercial banks law violations.

Banking institutions differently execute regulations of the NBU Resolution in the part relating to accounts opened before its publication. Thus, for example, PJSC Raiffeisen Bank “Aval” in case of submission of the certificate of registration of a person who has moved from the temporarily occupied territory of Ukraine, changes status of a current account without closing it. However PJSC BM Bank interprets the resolution as one that requires a bank to close previously opened bank accounts even in case of a submission by a citizen of the certificate of registration of a person who has moved from the temporarily occupied territory of Ukraine, and in the latter case for continuation of provision of services demands signing a new contract and opening a new account.

According to the NBU Resolution (with amendments) among the “subjects of Crimea” five groups of persons are distinguished to who established limitations are applied differently or are not applied at all:

— Citizens of Ukraine that are registered and permanently reside in Crimea and do not have an IDP certificate — they are practically denied the opportunity to use banking services, but they in fact do not require them;

— Citizens of Ukraine whose residence is registered in Crimea, but who left temporarily occupied territory after March 16, 2014 — these persons have the opportunity to get an IDP certificate, and thus to restore resident status for the next 6 months;

— Citizens of Ukraine whose residence is registered in Crimea, but who have been living for a long time in mainland Ukraine, and who left temporarily occupied territory before 16 March 2014 — these persons are deprived of opportunity to get an IDP certificate, and generally cannot restore resident status for the next 6 months;

— Citizens of Ukraine whose residence is registered in Crimea, but who occasionally travel to mainland Ukraine without an intention to leave temporarily occupied territory (i. e., who are not IDPs) — they are denied access to banking services;

— Citizens of Ukraine whose residence is registered in mainland Ukraine, but who have been living for a long time in Crimea and do not intend to leave temporarily occupied territory. The number of such citizens who proved in court that they had been living for a long time in Crimea without a registration of residence, according to various sources, is more than 15 thousand people (including the city of Sevastopol).

Citizens registered in Crimea and LLC “Audit Firm “Lex-Service, Ltd” with the support of the Strategic Litigations Fund of UHHRU challenged the noted NBU Resolution, since setting for the””subjects of Crimea” limitations on access to banking services that are not envisaged for citizens of Ukraine who have registered residence in other regions of Ukraine is a discrimination on the basis of residence. This standpoint was supported by the Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights who in December 2014 opened the proceedings and decided on the presence of a representative during consideration of this case. According to the information available in the Unified State Register of Court Decisions about 6 similar claims were filed, which are being considered by the court now.

Crimea: the protection of property rights

According to Art. 1 of Protocol 1 of the Convention, any natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. No one shall be deprived of their possessions except in the public interest and on the conditions provided for by the legislation and general principles of international law. According to Art. 46 of the Convention on the Laws and Customs of War on Land (IV Hague Convention), family honor and rights, the lives of persons, and private property, as well as religious convictions and practice, must be respected. Private property cannot be confiscated. According to Art. 56 of IV Hague Convention, the property of municipalities, that of institutions dedicated to religion, charity and education, the arts and sciences, even when State property, shall be treated as private property. All seizure of, destruction or willful damage done to institutions of this character, historic monuments, works of art and science, is forbidden, and should be made the subject of legal proceedings.

In violation of these norms actions of Russian occupants led to massive violations of property rights on the peninsula. Since the beginning of the occupation under the disguise of so-called “nationalization” the state property of Ukraine was seized on the peninsula, decisions on the “nationalization” of businesses, property, land, educational institutions, monuments, etc. were made. This occurred without the consent of the Ukrainian authorities and compensation for damages.

Private property also falls within the “nationalization” on massive scale. The Law of the Republic of Crimea “On specifics of buy-out of property in the Republic of Crimea” and amendments to it were adopted, under which the government of Crimea would be able to buy out historic monuments and cultural heritage sites that were privately owned; objects that were declared socially meaningful to Crimea. The law provides for the property owner to be informed of an approved decision on buy-out through the media. Law does not provide for the possibility of appeal of such decision to authority. Representatives of the occupation authorities announced that the law would allow them to use its provisions to former state or municipal buildings that had earlier gone into private ownership. In most cases, seizure of property is held with the participation of legalized paramilitary formations of “Crimean self-defense”. According to the “New York Times”, in 10 months after the occupation of Crimea, according to estimations of owners and lawyers, owners were deprived of real estate and other assets worth over 1 billion US dollars.

Among the examples of “nationalization” of private property are the property of CJSC “Yalta Film Studio”; property of PJSC “Krymgaz”; granaries with harvest of LLC “Agrotrade” and of the organization of veterans and disabled “Dobrobut”; property of PJSC ”Krymhlib”; property of private health care institutions; sanatorium “Aivazovsky”; ship repair facility “Sevastopol Marine Plant” and others.

When seizing property of one of the private clinics, self-proclaimed Chairman of the Council of Ministers of Crimea Aksyonov “expressed confidence that all clinic’s equipment was purchased, and some equipment was received within the charitable help”, from which we can conclude that the government of the peninsula will evade equivalent compensation of the value of the property, which is forcibly removed from the owners. In the case of CJSC “Yalta Film Studio” property, Crimean authorities announced that they would pay 100 thousand dollars to former owners. The owner of the studio filed a suit, seeking to invalidate the decision of the Crimean government on forced nationalization of his property, and claims that he invested in the film studio’s development tens of millions of dollars.

Seizure of property takes place also under the disguise of debt collection. The RF court bailiffs in Crimea make lists of arrested property for debt collection of entities in favor of PJSC CB “Privatbank” Without the consent of the latter and the debtors, the property is actually sold to the occupying state. There are also cases of seizure and confiscation of property owned by citizens, at the suit of the State Tax Inspection (of Ukraine). However it is possible to say with certainty about the absence in the Federal Service of Court Bailiffs of Crimea of applications to its address for an enforcement of a court decision from a plaintiff (a government body of Ukraine). On the other hand, acute questions arise on the non-compliance with the court decisions held by the courts before the occupation (for example, in which debtors are state authorities of Ukraine on the Crimean peninsula).

Many problems in the sector of property rights are caused by the actual dual jurisdiction in matters of registration of property rights. It is confirmed by the following examples and facts.

According to the Law of Ukraine “On the ensuring of rights and freedoms and legal regime on the temporarily occupied territory of Ukraine” acquisition and termination of ownership right to immovable property located in Crimea is carried out in accordance with the laws of Ukraine in mainland Ukraine. Thus, all contracts on property, which are made in Crimea during the occupation, are recognized invalid in Ukraine.

In Sevastopol there was conducted a reregistration of small-sized vessels belonging to residents of Sevastopol in the register of the RF. At the demand of the occupation authorities owner should submit an application for exclusion of a vessel from the Register of Ships of Ukraine to the body that conducted a state registration of small- sized vessel or to the higher-ranking organization of the RF. In case of absence of permit issued by the competent authorities of Ukraine or refusal of expulsion from the Register of Ships of Ukraine, vessel’s certificate (another document) issued in Ukraine is removed and transferred to the Office of the Safety of People on Water Bodies of the MES of Russia. Thus, the owners are actually deprived of rights and entitling documents.

State Council of the Republic of Crimea adopted the Law “On settlement of debt (overpayment) established by taxpayers registered on the territory of the Republic of Crimea” from December 24, 2014. According to the provisions of the law, the Revenue Service of the Republic of Crimea until 31.12.14 forms the accounting information about taxpayers that were not reregistered in accordance with the legislation of Russian Federation and did not apply for reregistration as of December 29, 2014, are in arrears on payments to the budget, formed in the transition period.

In case of application of this law in practice many people who were registered as entrepreneurs in Crimea can become victims of violations. Throughout the period after 16.03.14 there has been no possibility in Crimea to cancel the registration as an entrepreneur for those who were registered as entrepreneurs under the laws of Ukraine. In addition, many entrepreneurs have moved to mainland Ukraine. However, according to this law, all of them can be additionally charged arrears in respect of taxes and levies. Procedure and body for charging are established. In fact, the law is retroactive, letting to charge and collect arrears that had been made before adoption of this law by entrepreneurs who as well might not conduct business and were not registered as entrepreneurs under the laws of the RF.

Violation of property rights by the occupation authorities is often politically motivated and “punitive” in nature. Thus, systematic pressure has been put on charity organization “Fund “Crimea”. The Fund’s activities have been connected with the Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People for many years. In September 2014 there was made an assault on the building of the Fund (it was if not the last building in Crimea, where the flag of Ukraine was placed) by unidentified armed persons wearing masks with the purpose of removing the flag. Despite an appeal to the police on this fact, investigation of the fact of damage of the Fund’s property is not conducted.

On September 16, 2014, the Fund’s premises was searched, whereby literature, computers, documents, USB drives, hard drives, money were seized. Owners were returned nothing but money. As a part of the court case initiated by Prosecutor General’s Office of Crimea there were also seized assets and accounts of the Fund and the Fund itself and its chairman were inflicted administrative punishment in the form of fines (about 400 thousand and 4 million rubles). In addition, the State Committee for Cultural Heritage of Republic of Crimea appealed to the Economic Court of Crimea with claims to remove from ownership of the CO “Fund “Crimea” premises in the city of Simferopol on 2 Schmidt Str. (building, where the Mejlis is situated) with subsequent sale at public auction. Thus the Fund’s activity was completely blocked. It was forcibly evicted from the building owned by the Fund and deprived of the right to use the premises.

Crimea: freedom of movement

According to the provisions of Art.49 of Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12.08.1949, individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive. The occupation of the Crimean peninsula led to serious systematic violations of these norms of international law.

Since May 2014 the occupation authorities adopted several decisions to ban entry into the territory of the RF for a period of five years (practically a ban on entry into Crimea) for the citizens of Ukraine Crimean Tatars that resided permanently with families in Crimea, had dwelling there, property, conducted professional and public activities:

— April 22, 2014, Mustafa Dzhemilev, People’s Deputy of Ukraine — the ban according to paragraph 1 of Art. 27 of the FL “On the procedure for exit from the Russian Federation and entry into the Russian Federation for a period of 5 (five) years up to April 19, 2019”.

— July 5, 2014, Refat Chubarov, Chairman of the Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People — notification of the ban contained a reference to the FL “On the procedure for exit from the Russian Federation and entry into the Russian Federation” No. 114 from 18.07.96. R. Chubarov was not handed a reasoned decision on the entry ban.

— August 10, 2014, Ismet Yuksel, general coordinator of information agency “Crimean news” QHA, Advisor to the Chairman of Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People — was informed of the ban in Russian, which I. Yuksel cannot speak. The decision on the ban was made by the FSB of the RF according to subparagraph 1 of paragraph 1 of Art. 27 of the FL from 15.08.96 No. 114-FL “On the Procedure for Exit from the Russian Federation and Entry into the Russian Federation”. Text of a reasoned decision on the entry ban was not provided.

Thus, the main leaders of the Crimean Tatars were banned entry to the territory of Crimea. Occupation authorities, practically using departure of specified persons from Crimea, performed their actual exile (deportation) from the peninsula. The deportation of the specified persons was not implemented in accordance with the law, did not pursue a legitimate aim in the democratic society, and exceeded the bounds necessary to achieve this goal. Actions taken by the occupying authorities in its severity and the gravity of its consequences are obviously a disproportionate measure of government intervention in private and family life of individuals. Public social position, open resistance to the occupation of Crimea and national status of M. Dzhemilev, R. Chubarov and I. Yuksel indicate a politically motivated decision. Ban on entry of specified citizens into Crimea causes impossibility to reunite and live with their families, is interference in private life, leads to violations of labor rights, right to freedom of expression, freedom of residence and movement. The cases of violation of rights of R. Chubarov and I. Yuksel are supported by the Strategic Litigations Fund of UHHRU.

Actual border demarcation between the Crimean peninsula and mainland Ukraine, controlled by the RF is a serious obstacle to the realization of freedom of movement for citizens of Ukraine who live in Crimea and the rest of Ukraine. The citizens of Ukraine and foreigners in Crimea have no consular protection. Systematic problems and difficulties regarding freedom of movement arise for the following categories of persons:

— Citizens of Ukraine who live in Crimea and are unable to renew photos in Ukrainian passports after reaching 25 and 45 years due to absence of Ukrainian authorities on the Crimean peninsula. Russian border guards recognize such passports as invalid and improper documents for exit.

— Citizens of Ukraine who have lost/damaged Ukrainian passport in Crimea and due to absence of Ukrainian authorities on the peninsula cannot renew it. Without obtaining Russian passport they cannot leave Crimea.

— Children aged 14 to 16, who do not have possibility to obtain Ukrainian passport before reaching16 years (according to Ukrainian law), are at risk to become “travel banned”. Russian legislation provides for a person to obtain a passport upon reaching 14 years.

— Citizens of Ukraine, who had no permanent residence registration (“propyska”) in Crimea, but permanently lived there before the occupation. Specified persons actually got status of foreigners, are limited in period of stay on the peninsula by Russian authorities, and cannot exercise a number of rights. When leaving Crimea they can be held administratively liable for violations of the stay in Russia and exiled. There are reported mass appeals of such citizens to the courts in Crimea to establish the fact of their permanent residence in the Crimea before the occupation and the right to permanent residence there in the future. Not all such reasonable appeals to the court were satisfied.

The facts of denial of entry to the territory of Crimea by the workers of DPS of the RF are systematic. Citizens are often being got off the train, held without explanation in the building of railway station, further “preventive talks” are being conducted or passports of citizens are being held for a long time for a special verification.

Control points of entry and exit to/from the occupied territory were established on the border with the Crimean peninsula after the occupation of Crimea, which are controlled by DPSU. For the crossing of these points of entry and exit to/from Crimea Ukrainian citizens need to have documents confirming the identity and citizenship of Ukraine (Law of Ukraine “On guaranteeing the rights and freedoms of citizens and on the legal regime on the temporarily occupied territory of Ukraine”). Any certificates, invitations or other written confirmation of the purpose of travel are not provided for by law. However, numerous complaints of citizens against the workers of DPSU are reported, namely:

1)  highly thorough search of personal belongings;

2)  extortion of money for crossing the administrative border with Crimea;

3)  getting off the train and sending back to Crimea without passing a written decision and without the possibility of its appeal;

4)  demanding documents confirming the purpose of travel or other documents;

5)  search and destruction of invalid Russian passports, issued in Crimea.

At the end of December 2014 RNBO of Ukraine decided upon a prohibition of passenger travels to the temporarily occupied territory. Following this decision bus and railway services were indefinitely terminated. Although such decision didn’t provide for a complete ban on crossing checkpoints with the occupied territory and did not lead to the state interference in freedom of movement, the decision itself was not published and brought to the public.

Crimea: forced citizenship. Legal facts and documents issued
for their confirmation on the occupied territories

Forced citizenship

According to the State Statistics Service of Ukraine, about 2 million 350 thousand people lived in the ARC and Sevastopol city as of January 1, 2013. According to the FCL No. 6 all citizens of Ukraine who permanently resided and were registered in Crimea were automatically recognized citizens of Russia. This led to the actual establishment of dual citizenship for residents of Crimea from the perspective of the occupying state. At the same time legislation of the RF provides for the possibility of criminal prosecution for the hiding of the fact of possessing second citizenship.

The occupying state did not provide for that the decisions upon gaining Russian citizenship by Crimeans could be reviewed in administrative or judicial proceedings in accordance with domestic law and were voluntary. One could avoid “automatic citizenship” by personally submitting an application for volition to retain Ukrainian citizenship up to April 18, 2014 in 4 locations throughout Crimea, standing out in common queues with those willing to obtain Russian passport. Since mid-April 2014 a few more locations for renunciation from Russian citizenship were opened in Crimea (whereupon according to the FMS of the RF there were about 250 locations for acceptance of documents for obtaining Russian passport). Deadline for submitting such applications actually lasted for about two weeks. According to the Head of Regional Administration of FMS of the RF in Crimea, 3,500 people in total used this opportunity. Cases are reported when those willing to submit such application failed to make it in time. In addition, persons who were out of the country, the sick, the aged, etc. could not do it. Following the submission of the renunciation application citizens of Ukraine actually got the status of foreigners in the Crimea for the RF, which might result in limitation of the duration of their stay in Crimea, exile and ban on entry.

Having Russian passport is an obligatory condition for enjoyment of a significant number of rights by residents of Crimea — obtaining all kinds of social benefits, obtaining driver’s license, vehicle registration, employment in certain positions (civil service, public institutions), obtaining land, right to obtain free of charge ownership of squatted land plot, free health care, complicated reregistration of property and others. Thus, a system is created that forces Crimeans to recognize themselves as Russian citizens.

4228 orphaned children and children under guardianship or trusteeship of government found themselves in a particularly vulnerable position (as of 01.08.14). Since the administration of all institutions of Crimea collaborated with the authorities of the RF, children were actually deprived of the right to choose citizenship.

Persons who permanently resided in Crimea, but did not have registration (“propyska”) there present a separate category. Such persons became foreigners in Crimea who have to establish to satisfaction of court the fact of their permanent residence in Crimea in order to obtain residence permit or Russian passport. However appeals to the courts involving financial costs and necessity of proving do not guarantee obtaining Russian citizenship or residence permit.

The government of the RF uses the fact of “automatic citizenship” for the criminal prosecution of pro-Ukrainian activists. The most famous examples are cases of Oleg Sentsov and Olexander Kolchenko, who were arrested and taken out to Moscow, where they are held in pretrial detention facility. Both are citizens of Ukraine, at the time of occupation living in Crimea. They did not take any actions to obtain Russian citizenship and do not admit the fact of gaining this citizenship. However, the prosecution against them is conducted as against Russian citizens; Ukrainian consul is not allowed to visit them.

European Convention on Citizenship of 06.11.1997, ratified by the RF and Ukraine, defines “citizenship” as a legal bond between the individual and the State without specifying the ethnic origin of the individual. Whereupon according to the position of the International Court of Justice of UN in one of the judgments (in the Nottebohm case), citizenship is considered as a legal bond between the State and the citizen, based on a social fact of real ties, interests and feelings, along with the presence of reciprocal rights and obligations. Therefore the “automatic” obtainment of Russian citizenship by citizens of Ukraine in Crimea cannot be recognized legitimate, since the domestic procedures of the RF for its obtainment are inconsistent with the applicable international conventions, international customary law and principles of the right to citizenship, which are generally recognized.

Legal facts and documents issued for their confirmation on the occupied territories

According to Art. 9 of Law of Ukraine “On guaranteeing the rights and freedoms of citizens and on the legal regime on the temporarily occupied territory of Ukraine”, any act (decision, document) issued by the authorities and/or persons of the second paragraph of this Article is invalid and does not create legal consequences. The specified provision is the result of the unlawfulness of actions and non-recognition of authorities and officials acting on behalf of the occupying state in the ARC and city of Sevastopol. Thus, citizens of Ukraine in Crimea are deprived of possibility to register marriages, births, deaths and obtain other documents of Ukrainian sample. And documents issued by the occupying state are invalid for Ukraine. Therefore citizens face difficulties in exercising their rights in mainland Ukraine. Specified problem will “gain momentum” over time.

Solution of the specified issue must be found with account of international practice. Thus, for example, in the conclusions made by the International Court of Justice of UN in the advisory opinion of June 21, 1971 on Namibia it is stated:”125. In general, non-recognition of territory by the Government of South Africa should not result in depriving the people of Namibia of any advantages derived from international cooperation. In particular, while official acts performed by the Government of South Africa on behalf of or concerning Namibia after the termination of the Mandate are illegal and invalid, this invalidity cannot be extended to such acts as, for example, the registration of births, deaths and marriages. However, such acts may be invalidated if the consequences of their performance may cause harm to persons residing on the territory”.

Ukraine legally recognized fact of the temporary occupation (and therefore effective control) of Crimean peninsula by Russia and responsibility of the RF for violations of the rights and freedoms of a man and citizen on the temporarily occupied territory provided for by the Constitution and Laws of Ukraine. Thus, the question of registration and establishment of legal facts (births, deaths, powers of attorney, marriages) on the occupied territories must be settled by Ukraine taking into account necessity to prevent possible harming and violation of rights of residents of Crimea. That is, non-recognition by Ukraine of such documents or legal facts that they establish could result in serious violations of rights of its citizens who are staying on the occupied territory.

Recommendations

1. For the President of Ukraine, Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights to send constitutional recommendation to the Constitutional Court of Ukraine on the constitutionality of certain provisions of Ukraine and the Law of Ukraine in general "On the creation of the free economic zone “Crimea” and on the peculiarities of conducting economic activity on temporarily occupied territory of Ukraine”. To amend accordingly the Law of Ukraine of 12 August 2014 No.1636-VII "On the creation of the free economic zone “Crimea” and on the peculiarities of conducting economic activity on temporarily occupied territory of Ukraine”.

2. For the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine and the State Border Guard Service of Ukraine to settle the question of crossing administrative border with the temporary occupied territory of the peninsula of Crimea by citizens of Ukraine and foreigners (approval of the Procedure for entry into the temporary occupied territory and exit from it). As well as the Procedure for taking and form of a decision and Procedure for filing an appeal against a denial of crossing the administrative border with the temporarily occupied territory of Crimea.

3. For the Supreme Council of Ukraine to define the status of persons (Law of Ukraine "On the rights and freedoms of internally displaced persons") — citizens of Ukraine who resided for a long time on the territory of Crimea as of the date of March 18, 2014, but did not have registration on the peninsula, as such that is equivalent to the status of "internally displaced person".

4. To repeal the Resolution of the National Bank of Ukraine as of November 3, 2014 No. 699 “On the application of certain norms of currency legislation during the regime of temporary occupation of the territory of the free economic zone “Crimea”.

5. For the Ministry of Justice to draft and make respective amendments to the legislative and regulatory acts of Ukraine to settle the issue of recognition of the facts that occur on the occupied territory (marriages, births, deaths, etc.) and are certified by documents issued by the authorities on the occupied territories of the Crimean peninsula.

6. For the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, Presidential Administration of Ukraine and the relevant ministries, with public participation, to develop and consistently implement a national strategy of actions for protection and restoration of the rights and freedoms of citizens of Ukraine who permanently reside on the temporarily occupied territory or temporarily involuntary moved from it.

7. For the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to take the necessary steps for creating and arranging of continuous work of official international mission for monitoring of observance of human rights on the temporarily occupied territory of the Crimean peninsula.

8. For the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine to ensure development and implementation of mechanisms of support by national communities of Ukraine of respective national minorities on the occupied peninsula that are exposed to harassment by the occupation authorities of the Crimean peninsula.

9. For the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine to assign the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine together with the Ministry of Culture of Ukraine to develop a strategy for the protection and restoration of violated rights to freedom of conscience and religion on the temporarily occupied territory of Crimea. The strategy should include practical measures and recommendations for the citizens and religious organizations on the methodology for documenting violations and inflicted damage, preparation of applications to international institutions and monitoring missions, preparation of claims to the European Court of Human Rights.

[1] The Chapter was prepared by D. Svyrydova, a UHHRU lawyer, S. Zayets, an attorney, CO “Regional Centre for Human Rights” expert, M. Vasin, executive director of The Institute for Religious Freedom. The authors express their gratitude in preparation of this chapter to such experts: Dmytro Vovk, Vitalii Gren, Olexander Zaets, Yurii Reshetnikov, Olexandr Sagan, as well as to the The Institute for Religious Freedom and to the H. S. Skovoroda Institute of Philosophy of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine.

[2] FL of the RF as of 04.06.2014 No. 142 “On Introduction of Amendments the Art. 6 and 30 of the Federal Law “On Citizenship of the Russian Federation and separate legistalive acts of the Russian Federation”.

[3] Art. 330.2 of the CC of the RF — punishment in the form of the penalty up to 200 rubles or in the amount of the annual income of the sentenced, or up to 400 hours of compulsory labour.

[4] FL of the RF as of 25.07.2002 No. 114- “On Combating Extremist Activity”.

[5] Priest Mykola Kvych: “I was accused in sponsoring the Naval Forces of Ukraine”:

news.ugcc.ua

[6] This is mentioned in the address of the archbishop of Simferopol and Crimea Klyment (secular name Kushch Pavlo Mykolayovytch), published on the official website of the Kyiv Patriarchate: www.cerkva.info

[7] In Crimea armed people seized medrese: http://atn.ua/proisshestviya/v-krymu-vooruzhennye-lyudi-zahvatili-medrese.

[8] Video of the raid on the church UOC (KP) in village Perevalne: inforesist.org; Report by the agency QHA “Crimean News” and evidences of the imam of the mosque “Chukurcha-Dzhami” Muhammed Islamov: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mr4ta0HociY