International Court Rules against Russia – again

Despite sanctions and censures, cold-hearted Russia continues on its traditional destructive course of barreling through global security, international relations, innocent foreign populations, and its own domestic opponents in order to perpetuate its existence.

At the same time, the list of admonishments and condemnations continues to grow apace without causing a dent in Moscow’s behavior and hostile plans.

Beyond condemning the Kremlin for imprisoning Alexei Navalny, global judicial institutions last month have again sharply censured several instances of Russia’s criminality while the free world sadly shuns drastic punitive steps beyond repeating its sanctions.

As Western analysts have observed regarding the Navalny case – though their comments can be attributed to all of Moscow’s high crimes and transgressions – the Kremlin’s lawlessness may contribute to a tarnishing of relations with it but don’t expect Russian leaders to be taken behind the woodshed. Relations with Russia will continue to flourish without any disruptions.

Last month, Ukraine won a crucial victory in the European Court for Human Rights (ECHR) against Russia over Crimea. It was a ruling that would make any country stop and reconsider its policies.

The ECHR Grand Chamber on January 14 found Ukraine’s complaints against Russia over violations in Crimea partly admissible and essentially determined that Russia has occupied Crimea since February 27, 2014. This substantiated earlier United Nations resolutions, which also called Russia an occupying power of the Ukrainian peninsula. (Read my blogpost on December 9, 2020 https://thetorncurtain1991.blogspot.com/2020/12/another-un-resolutionon-crimea-russia.html)

The only reason the ruling was deemed partly, not wholly, admissible, was because ECHR considered that Ukraine had not provided sufficient proof to back a very small part of the huge number of complaints, explained the Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group. 

The Court pointed out that it did not need to decide “whether Crimea’s admission, under Russian law, into Russia had been lawful from the standpoint of international law.” However, by agreeing that Russia had wielded effective control since February 27, 2014 – the day when Russian soldiers without insignia – the now infamous green men – seized control of government buildings, etc. on Ukrainian territory – the court de facto pointed to Russia’s flagrant violation of international law. 

Russia’s outrageous excuse claims that “the Crimean people” decided to hold a referendum on March 16, 2014, that was enforced by Russian bayonets and lead to Russia’s official control dates beginning with March 18 of that year. 

The list of violations that Ukraine has asserted is extensive, and covers almost all the rights enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights. They include violations that are also part of Ukraine’s case against Russia before the UN’s International Court of Justice (over violations of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.)

“Although there is still a long way to go, this is a victory for Ukraine. Russia is now facing liability over its violations in occupied Crimea and Donbas in several international courts (ECHR; ICJ, the International Criminal Court and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea). Moscow’s sole argument when faced with Ukraine’s inter-state claims has been to deny that this or that judicial body has the jurisdiction to examine the case. It is a policy that is, thankfully, proving to be doomed,” observed the Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group.

The court found “sufficient prima facie evidence regarding both the “repetition of acts” and “official tolerance” of the following violations, listed by the Kharkiv group:

• enforced disappearances and the lack of an effective investigation into such a practice (under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights);

• ill-treatment and unlawful detention (Articles 3 and 5);

• the application of Russian law in Crimea with the result that as from February 27, 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 (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 (Article 9);

• suppression of non-Russian media (Article 10);

• prohibiting public gatherings and manifestations of support, as well as intimidation and arbitrary detention of organizers of demonstrations (Article 11);

• expropriation without compensation of property from civilians and private enterprises (Protocol No. 1 § 1);

• suppression of the Ukrainian language in schools and harassment of Ukrainian-speaking children at school (Protocol 1 § 2);

• 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) (Protocol No. 4 § 20;

• targeting Crimean Tatars (under Article 14, taken in conjunction with Articles 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Convention and with Protocol No. 4 § 2 to the Convention.)

The ECHR found that the above transgressions were consistent with the conclusions set out in a number of reports by intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations, notably a report of 2017 by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.

The court adopted the same positions as the UN General Assembly, the International Criminal Court and other international bodies and effectively found Russia to be an occupying state just as Nazi Germany was in Ukraine and across Europe eight decades ago. As such it is expressly prohibited by the Fourth Geneva Convention from applying its legislation on occupied territory. If the courts in Crimea cannot be considered to have been “established by law” within the meaning of Article 6, then all such politically motivated trials and horrific sentences are in grave violation of the right to a fair trial.

Then, one week later, on January 21, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) also concluded that Ukrainian authorities, during the Euro-Maidan uprising in late 2013 and early 2014 – when Viktor Yanukovych served as Moscow’s gauleiter – committed a series of human rights violations that resulted in the killing of more than 100 peaceful protesters. It should be noted that the Ukrainian authorities that the court referred to was visibly following Moscow’s orders, which enraged the Ukrainian population.

In a ruling on five lawsuits filed by 33 Ukrainian nationals, the ECHR said during the protests there were multiple violations of the articles of the European Convention on Human Rights. The violations dealt with the prohibition of torture and inhuman and degrading treatment, the right to liberty and security, freedom of assembly and association, the right to life, and the right to respect private and family life.

“The court observed that it had found multiple violations of several articles as a result of how the authorities had conducted themselves during the Maidan protests and the absence to date of an independent and effective mechanism within Ukraine for the investigation of crimes committed by law-enforcement officers and non-State agents,” the court said in its ruling, adding that “Ukraine was to pay some of the applicants the awards in respect of pecuniary and nonpecuniary damage and costs and expenses set out in the relevant judgments.”

The Maidan protests, which became known as the Revolution of Dignity, began in November 2013 when protesters gathered on the Maidan, the central square in Kyiv, after Yanukovych announced he was postponing plans to sign an Association Agreement with the European Union and would seek closer economic ties with Russia. Russian security forces opened fire at unarmed protesters throughout the 90-day demonstration that had swelled to nearly 2 million participants. Ukrainian prosecutors said 104 people were killed and 2,500 injured in the protests.

Shunning a deal backed by the West and Russia to end the standoff, Yanukovych abandoned power and fled Kyiv on February 21, 2014. He was flown to Russia in secret and remains there, denying ordering police to use their weapons on protesters and claiming the violence was a “planned operation” to overthrow his government.

Moscow responded to his downfall by seizing control of Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula in February 2014 and fomenting separatism in the Donbas region of Ukraine that sparked the Russo-Ukraine War of 2014-2021 that has killed more than 13,200 people in eastern Ukraine.

And finally, also on January 21, Georgia has won its 2008 war case against Russia in the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). The court released its judgement which said that Russia violated several articles of the European Convention on Human rights during the conflict and carried out ethnic cleansing of Georgians. 

The court said Russia violated the following articles: 

• The right to life (Article 2).

• Prohibition of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (Article 3).

• The right to liberty and security (Article 5).

• The right to protection of private and family life (Article 8).

• Protection of property (Article 1 of Additional Protocol 1);

• Freedom of movement (Article 2 of Protocol No. 4).

The verdict said Russia had to pay Georgia 10,000,000 euros for non-pecuniary damage suffered by a group of at least 1,500 Georgian nationals. However, Russia has not paid the compensation so far. 

These are the consequences of Russian aggression in 2008 in Georgia include:

• Human losses: 412 killed on the Georgian side – including 170 military servicemen, 14 policemen and 228 civilians

• 1,747 wounded on the Georgian side – including 973 military servicemen, 227 policemen and 547 civilians

• Three journalists killed, six journalists wounded

• 130,000 Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) – out of which 26,000 are still denied the right of return. [Overall, the number of IDPs from both occupied regions is now close to half a million]

• 35,000 houses burned, ruined and destroyed

• 125 more villages have been occupied since the August 2008 war

Referring to the decision of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) regarding Russia’s crimes in Ukraine’s Crimean peninsula, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba cheered this victory for Ukraine, saying “This is an important step toward bringing Russia to legal responsibility for aggression against Ukraine. And with each step the price of this responsibility will grow,” according to Interfax-Ukraine.

Kuleba said Ukraine’s legal set of actions confirm the truth that Kyiv reported and refute the disinformation of Russia.

“I am absolutely convinced that the legal set of actions of Ukraine, and this is not only the European Court of Human Rights, these are the processes that are taking place at the International Maritime Tribunal, the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court – they will confirm that truth step by step that Ukraine has reported to the world since 2014, when the Russian aggression started, and they will refute all the propaganda and disinformation that the Russian Federation was spreading in this regard,” he said.

The court has issued its verdict against Russia for its crimes against Ukraine and Georgia, and crimes must be accompanied by punishments. Col.-Gen. Ruslan Khomchak, commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, for one, believes Russian leaders must be punished for all crimes committed against the civilian population and military personnel in Ukraine.

Speaking with Obozrevatel, Khomchak said: “For all crimes against the civilian population and military personnel in Ukraine, Russia must be held accountable. For every home destroyed, for every life of our people, broken or lost.”

Sounds very similar to what William Wallace of “Braveheart” told the British invaders: “Lower your flags and march straight back to England, stopping at every home you pass by to beg forgiveness for a hundred years of theft, rape, and murder. Do that and your men shall live. Do it not, and every one of you will die today.”

The court itself declared that Moscow committed flagrant violations of international law. In other words Russia is guilty. Certainly this verdict by itself demands justice, at least some sort of sentence, a reckoning for crimes committed and human and property damages done. What will be the price for these crimes? The International Tribunal in Nuremberg efficiently dealt with guilty Nazi defendants.

In the case of Russian crimes, there is always the historically proven possibility that the Kremlin and its leaders will be released to go on their way without any occasion for punishment, allowing Moscow to bask in the sunshine of absolution, with global leaders queuing up to shake hands with Putin and toast Russia’s achievements.

Justice certainly is not served.