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.
