The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has delivered a verdict in the case of Ukraine vs. Russia over Crimea, recognizing systematic human rights violations, and, accordingly, the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in the territory of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol, Commissioner for ECHR Margarita Sokorenko reported analyzing the decision.

She recalled that in its decision on the admissibility of the case of 16 December 2020, the ECHR recognised that the rf had been in control of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol since at least 27 February 2014 (rejecting the rf's objection to the "legality of the annexation of the territory of Crimea to Russia").

In its decision on the subject on 25 June 2024, the ECHR stressed that the situation in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea had not changed since then.

"This conclusion will be extremely important and helpful for all persons who have applied to the ECHR with individual complaints against the rf for violations of their rights in the temporarily occupied territory," said Margarita Sokorenko.

She stressed that one of the key points in the entire ECHR ruling was the recognition that the rf acted in violation of international humanitarian law and, accordingly, the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, having unreasonably established its legislation in the temporarily occupied territory of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol.

"This means that all the so-called 'resolutions', 'laws', and other 'acts' issued by the rf and its occupation authorities and the actions taken on their basis will not be recognised by the ECHR as legitimate. The entire "judicial system" in the temporarily occupied territory of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol and the "decisions" made by such "courts" are not legal for the purposes of the ECHR proceedings," the Commissioner explained.

At the same time, the ECHR separately stressed that it faced particular difficulties in analysing all the circumstances and events that had taken place both in the temporarily occupied territory of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol and in the territory of the rf due to the lack of cooperation from the russian government since February 2022 and the denial of access to the territory of Crimea for Ukrainian officials and/or independent monitoring groups.

The ECHR also found a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the Convention by russia in connection with the "passportisation" policy in the temporarily occupied territory, under which individuals could not renounce to "obtain" russian citizenship, and in connection with the practice of transferring detainees and those serving sentences in the territory of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol to the territory of the rf, which caused suffering due to family separation.

With regard to human rights violations, based on the comprehensive evidence and positions provided by the Government of Ukraine, the ECHR found russia in violation of the following articles of the Convention:

• Article 2 (right to life) in connection with the practice of enforced disappearances organised by the rf and the lack of effective investigations into such cases. This policy was carried out with the aim of completely eradicating any opposition to the actions of the rf;
• Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 5 (right to liberty and security of person) in connection with illegal detentions, inhuman treatment and torture suffered by Ukrainian military personnel, ethnic Ukrainians and Crimean Tatars, and journalists;
• Article 6 (right to a fair trial) in connection with the functioning of "courts" on the territory of Crimea, which cannot be considered "established in accordance with the law";
• Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) in connection with the practice of arbitrary searches based on russian "anti-extremist legislation";
• Article 9 (freedom of religion) in connection with harassment and intimidation of religious leaders who do not profess the russian Orthodox faith, arbitrary raids on religious buildings and confiscation of religious property;
• Article 10 (freedom of expression) in connection with the harassment of media outlets not controlled by the rf, including the closure of Ukrainian and Crimean Tatar media outlets, systematic harassment and intimidation of journalists;
• Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association) due to the practice of banning public gatherings and manifestations of support for Ukraine or Crimean Tatars, as well as intimidation and arbitrary detention of demonstration organisers;
• Article 1 (protection of property rights) of Protocol No. 1 in connection with the campaign of large-scale expropriation/nationalisation of property belonging to civilians and private enterprises;
• Article 2 (right to education) of Protocol No. 1 in connection with threats and harassment for the use of the Ukrainian language in the context of education;
• Article 2 (freedom of movement) of Protocol No. 4 in connection with the actions of the rf aimed at restricting freedom of movement between Crimea and mainland Ukraine and the actual transformation of the administrative border line between mainland Ukraine and the Autonomous Republic of Crimea into a state border (between russia and Ukraine);
• Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) in conjunction with Articles 8, 9, 10 and 11 and Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 in connection with the targeted persecution of Crimean Tatars and actions that "disproportionately" affected Crimean Tatars in the temporarily occupied territory of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol and restricted their enjoyment of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention.

For more details visit the Ministry of Justice official website.