Crimean Field Mission on Human Rights

Brief Review of the Situation in Crimea

(February 2015)

Analytical Review

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of contents .............................................................................................................................................................. 1

І. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................... 3

ІI. Problems of the residents of Crimea ......................................................................................................................... 5

2.1. Civil and political rights ............................................................................................................................................ 5

Right to Life ................................................................................................................................................................... 5

Freedom from torture, cruel and degrading treatment .......................................................................................... 5

Right to Freedom and Personal Immunity ................................................................................................................ 8

Disappearance .......................................................................................................................................................... 8

Detentions, arrests, searches ................................................................................................................................. 8

Legislative changes .................................................................................................................................................. 9

Freedom of Speech and Expression ........................................................................................................................ 10

Freedom of Peaceful Assembly ................................................................................................................................ 14

Freedom of Conscience and Religion ...................................................................................................................... 15

Problems with re-registration ............................................................................................................................... 15

Monitoring of the status of religious communities ............................................................................................ 15

Freedom of Movement............................................................................................................................................... 18

Monitoring of the situation at the border ............................................................................................................ 18

Restrictions on the exit from Crimea ................................................................................................................... 20

Ban on the entry to Crimea .................................................................................................................................. 21

Right to a Fair Trial and Efficient Means of Legal Protection ............................................................................... 21

Issues Related to Citizenship .................................................................................................................................... 23

2.2. Social and Economic Rights ................................................................................................................................... 25

Property Rights ........................................................................................................................................................... 25

Property rights and unlawful nationalization ...................................................................................................... 25

Participation of "Crimean self-defense" and unidentified armed men in seizure of property objects ........ 26

Threats to property rights ..................................................................................................................................... 27

Labour rights ............................................................................................................................................................... 28

III. Problems of the Residents of Crimea who Had to Excape from the Peninsula and Move to Continental

Ukraine (Internally Displaced Persons) ........................................................................................................................ 30

General situation ........................................................................................................................................................ 30

Discrimination of Crimeans on the basis of place of residence ....................................................................... 30

Annexes ................................................................................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.

І. INTRODUCTION

The present Monitoring Review has been prepared by the Crimean Field Mission on Human Rights

and is based on the materials collected by the Mission during its work in Crimea, as well as in

Russia and Ukraine in February 2015.

The Crimean Field Mission (“the CFM”) commenced its work on March 5, 2014.

The aims of the Mission are as follows:

provision of information about the developments in Crimea;

mitigation of threats of all parties to the conflict;

maintenance of proper legal guaranties in the region, strengthening and promotion of

human rights standards and effective protection mechanisms through the monitoring of

the situation and verification of incoming messages about different clashes;

provision of comprehensive assistance to the initiatives aimed at the protection of human

rights of all participants of the conflict.

Emphasizing that human rights remain to be a direct and legitimate concern of the international

civil society while implementing the abovementioned aims, the Mission shall:

perform monitoring of the general situation concerning compliance with the

provisions of international humanitarian law and fundamental human rights in

Crimea, issues of protection of human rights defenders, journalists, lawyers, as well as

public figures and ensuring their professional activities;

pay special attention to the monitoring of inter-ethnic and inter-religious relations;

conduct monitoring of the activities of law enforcement agencies and state authorities;

call on all parties of the confrontation to abide by the rules of international

humanitarian law and obligations in the field of the protection of human rights, as well as

call on international organizations and their members and participants to control the

observance of such obligations.

The Mission unconditionally refuses to resort to violence or discrimination in its activities and is

guided by the principles of political neutrality and adherence to law.

The conclusions of the paper have been made on the basis of the first-hand information

(observation of the situation and developments in Crimea, interviewing the representatives of key

target groups), mass media monitoring, analysis of the developments and legal basis, as well as on

the basis of official statistic.

The review is prepared monthly and includes the chapters on the situation with civil and

political, socio-economic rights in Crimea, as well as deals with the issues of the status

of vulnerable groups and manifestations of xenophobia in the peninsula.

In addition, the Review features the issues of the residents of Crimea who had to escape from the

peninsula and move to Ukraine’s mainland (internally displaced persons).

The CFM is grateful to everyone who assisted with the preparation of the present Review.

The monitoring review was prepared with support from the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs

of Switzerland and the “Democratization and Human Rights in Ukraine” project implemented by the

United Nations Development Programme in Ukraine and financed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs

of Denmark.

The opinions, positions, and assessment contained in this Review do not necessarily represent the

position of the United Nations Development Programme, other UN agencies, the Ministry of Foreign

Affairs of Denmark and the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs of Switzerland.

ІI. PROBLEMS OF THE RESIDENTS OF CRIMEA

2.1. CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS

RIGHT TO LIFE

The Crimean Field Mission on Human Rights recalls that for almost a year there is no effective investigation into the abduction and killing of Reshat Ametov, the Crimean Tatar civic activist, who was abducted on March 3, 2014 by the unidentified men in camouflage uniforms in the central square of Simferopol, where he was on a one-man protest against the actions of Russia in Crimea. His body, with multiple signs of violence, was found on March 15 in Zemlyanichnoe village of Belogorsky district.

According to the lawyer of Ametov’s brother who was recognized as victim, the case on Reshat Ametov’s killing was suspended. The grounds for suspension of the preliminary investigation were that the person to be indicted had not been identified (par. 1 of Part 1 of Article 208 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). The lawyer and the victim filed an application for familiarization with the materials of the criminal case.

The Ukrainian officer Stanislav Karachevsky was killed by the military of the Russian Federation 10 months ago. The murder took place on April 6, 2014 in Crimea, in the urban settlement Novofedorovka, in a dormitory where the Ukrainian military personnel of Saki base resided before leaving for the mainland Ukraine. The charge with murder under Article 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation was brought against a Russian sergeant Evgeny Zaytsev.

In February 2015, in the Crimean garrison military court the three hearings on the criminal case under Article 105 ‘Murder’, in which the defendant is a Russian soldier Zaytsev E.S. were held. The judge is Zubairov Rizvan Abdullaevich, who previously worked in the Grozny garrison military court of the Russian Federation. According to the information received by the CFM, it is known that the accused Evgeny Zaytsev has not been detained during the investigation and the trial, and continued to perform military service in the same mode as before the murder of S. Karachevsky. The witnesses of the trial noted that during the trial he was not convoyed and handcuffed.

The CFM notes that over the past year there has been no significant progress in the investigation of the death of a 16-year-old Mark Ivanyuk, which occurred on April 20, 2014 near the Olenevka village, where he lived. The local law enforcement authorities opened a criminal case on the grounds of an offense under Part 3 of Article 264 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, namely, the violation of traffic rules and operation of vehicles that entailed death. Despite this, the CFM believes that the version, which appeared in the media right after the death of Mark Ivanyuk, that he was killed by the local law enforcement officials, has not been properly investigated.

FREEDOM FROM TORTURE, CRUEL AND DEGRADING TREATMENT

On February 5, in Simferopol, a Euromaidan activist, a former Ukrainian police officer Alexander Kostenko was arrested. On February 8, the Court of Simferopol approved his detention for two months. The resolution on the detention was adopted by the judge of the Kiev District Court of Simferopol of the Republic of Crimea A.N. Dolgopolov.

A. Kostenko has been charged with committing an offense under par. b of Part 2 of Art. 115 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation - deliberate infliction of bodily harm on the grounds of political, ideological, racial, ethnic or religious hatred or enmity or motivated by hatred or enmity toward a social group.

However, the court decision on Kostenko’s arrest (Annex 1) states that the criminal proceedings against him were instituted by the Investigative Department of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation in Crimea only on February 6, 2015, on the day of his arrest according to investigators. Yet, Kostenko and his friends say that he was arrested back on February 5, that is prior to the institution of criminal proceedings.

According to investigators, in January 2014 A. Kostenko arrived in Kiev to Maidan Nezavisimosti “for the purpose of armed resistance to the law enforcement officials”. In the morning of February 18, he allegedly was in M. Hrushevskoho Street in Kiev - there “were barricades” and the ‘Berkut’ seconded from Crimea were on duty. At about 14 p.m. the protesters in Hrushevskoho Street started throwing “stones, sticks and other objects” at the Crimean ‘Berkut’.

Then Alexander Kostenko, according to the investigators, “with a sense of ideological hatred and enmity towards the law enforcement officials”, armed himself with “stones of 10x10x12 cm (paving stones)” and threw with precision a “stone with the above characteristics” at a warrant officer Polienko V.V. which was standing in the cordon. The investigators insist that as a result, the member of the Crimean ‘Berkut’ V. Polienko was injured “in the form of a large hematoma in the left shoulder in the middle and lower thirds”.

Having interceded for the arrest, the investigator Odarchenko Y.V. pointed out that Article 115 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is of a little gravity and does not envisage the detention. However, in the case of Alexander Kostenko this is “an exceptional measure” - because he allegedly fled from the preliminary investigation agency, did not report about the crime he committed and also has a Ukrainian passport.

In addition, the investigators insisted that A. Kostenko held a senior position in the “Ukrainian radical nationalist political party Svoboda”, the members of which “had committed a number of crimes in February 2014 in Kiev, Ukraine”, according to the investigator. However, the Ukrainian party Svoboda officially refuted it by providing a written response that A.Kostenko did not hold executive positions in the party and was not even a member of the party (Annex 2).

The former colleague of A. Kostenko, Stanislav Krasnov, who was with him at the Maidan in February 2014, denied the investigators’ information that Kostenko could allegedly throw a stone at the member of ‘Berkut’ in Hrushevskoho Street. Krasnov said that at that time Kostenko was not in the specified street as he was in the building helping the wounded. Moreover, S. Krasnov believes that the Russian secret service had abducted Kostenko and transported him to Crimea, as the case represents personal revenge for the A. Kostenko’s activities in the Simferopol police, when he and Krasnov, in 2013, uncovered a criminal network.

Alexander Kostenko stated that from February 5 to February 6, 2015 he was tortured in the unknown basement by the FSS officers Andrey Tishenin and Artur Shambazov (Annex 3).

In the “written statement of the defense with respect to the arguments of the petition of appeal” (Annex 4), which was submitted by Kostenko A.F. to the Supreme Court of Crimea, his lawyer Sotnikov D.V. points out that “during the A.F. Kostenko’s arrest, the acts of violence were committed with respect to him by the FSS (former SSU) officers Andrey Tishenin, Artur Shambazov and others. Kostenko was transported in the FSS official car with license plate AK 3274 CH. The bare wires were put under his nails through which the electric current was transmitted. He has obvious bruises all over his body, a broken arm (Annex 5), fingers, the injury of moderate severity. Then, the said persons made a video of alleged Kostenko’s full confession so that it would seem that the injuries were caused before his arrest.

At the same time, in a state of fear and under psychological pressure, Kostenko A.F. signed the interrogation records without actually reading them. These records contain false information about the fact of his beating in the Gagarin Park in Simferopol.

The A.Kostenko’s appeal to human rights defenders (Annex 6) states that he continues to suffer from degrading treatment in detention, but he is afraid to inform the prison authorities of it, because he is regularly threatened by a “man in civilian clothes”. A.Kostenko reported that he was required to testify against his friends and acquaintances that were with him at the Maidan in Kiev. He emphasized that he committed no crime against the ‘Berkut’.

On February 24, the lawyer Dmitry Sotnikov, Alexander Kostenko’s defender, filed an application to the prison authorities with a request to consider the cases of repeated use of physical force to A.Kostenko by his cellmates. (Annex 7).

In an application the lawyer pointed out that: “Kostenko A.F. not only arrived in jail after being tortured to a moderately grave condition, but is regularly subjected to beatings”. In an application the lawyer also pointed out that on February 20, the investigator Odarchenko said that A.Kostenko would certainly refuse his services, and already on February 24, A.Kostenko told the defense lawyer that he was beaten by the cellmates. It is likely that the violence against A.Kostenko used by his cellmates was authorized by the investigator in order to force him to conduct his own defense. This practice is widespread in the Russian investigative bodies.

The A.Kostenko’s appeal was rejected on February 24. On February 26 he wrote a retraction of testimony that he has given under torture.

The actions of the investigator and the FSS officers, as well as unfounded accusations demonstrate the political nature of this case. In addition, there are reasonable doubts about the activity of the investigators, because it is unclear how Simferopol investigators could conduct investigations in Kiev into the events that took place a year ago, and how the size of the stone had been determined, as well as Kostenko’s motive, relying on which he allegedly threw a stone, what witnesses, except for members of the Crimean ‘Berkut’ have been interviewed etc.

The Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation has no legal basis for an investigation of this case, as the events for the participation in which A.Kostenko has been accused took place in the territory of Ukraine, and the accused and the victim were then the citizens of Ukraine. In this regard, the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation has violated the principles of legality and territorial jurisdiction.

The lack of objectivity of the investigation and justice, the political subtext in Kostenko’s case have been confirmed by the message on the website of the Prosecutor’s Office of Crimea that “one of the first decisions of the Prosecutor of the Republic Natalia Poklonskaya was an opening of the criminal investigation into the encroachment on the life of the Crimean Special Force ‘Berkut’ soldiers during the riots in Kiev in February 2014 committed by the radical activists of the Maidan”. The Prosecutor stated that “currently, the 49 ‘Berkut’ soldiers were recognized as victims, and the course of a criminal investigation is under the special control of the Prosecutor of the Republic”.

Within the framework of the opened criminal case in respect of Alexander Kostenko, on February 9 the apartment of Stanislav Krasnov was searched. Krasnov, together with Alexander Kostenko worked at the Kiev district police department of Simferopol. In 2013, they were fired from the Ministry of Internal Affairs. They claim that they were fired for bringing publicity to the case on the abduction and sale into sexual slavery of the two female Crimeans. During the search S.Krasnov was outside Crimea, and the search was witnessed by his elderly mother with poor health.

RIGHT TO FREEDOM AND PERSONAL IMMUNITY

DISAPPEARANCE

The fate of 9 people: Ivan Bondarets, Vladislav Vashchuk, Vasily Chernysh, Timur Shaimardanov, Seyran Zinedinov, Islyam Dzheparov, Dzhevdet Islyamov, Eskender Apselyamov, Potapov O.M. remains unknown. Among them there are the civil society activists, the Crimean Tatars and ethnic Ukrainians who disappeared and were abducted in Crimea after the establishment of Russian control over the peninsula.

DETENTIONS, ARRESTS, SEARCHES

On February 4, the law enforcement officers arrived in Sovetskoe village to Asan Chebiev who is a close relative of one of the coordinators of the Committee on Protection of the Rights of the Crimean Tatar people Abmedzhit Suleimanov. He was brought to Simferopol for questioning regarding his “involvement in the riots at the walls of the Supreme Council of the ARC on February 26, 2014”. According to Eskender Bariev, Asan Chebiev was released after the questioning on the same day.

It is to be recalled that Abmedzhit Suleymanov, Iskender Bariev and Sinaver Kadyrov are the coordinators of the Committee on Protection of the Rights of the Crimean Tatar people. Sinaver Kadyrov was expelled from Crimea on January 23, with an indefinite ban to enter Crimea, and Abmedzhit Suleymanov and Eskender Bariev are afraid to enter Crimea because of threats of criminal prosecution. According to CFM, the criminal cases were opened against them.

On February 6, in respect of the arrested under the ‘May 3rd’ case1 Edem Osmanov, the Central District Court of Simferopol approved the detention for a period of two months until March 21. Earlier, on February 4, at the meeting of the ‘Contact Group on Human Rights’2 participated by the Head of Crimea Sergey Aksenov, it was decided to as soon as possible apply to the Head with a petition to the investigators and prosecutors of the republic to change the preventive measure with regard to E. Osmanov to a less restrictive one.

On February 25, Edem Osmanov was released from the detention facility, as reported by the lawyer Emil Kurbedinov. The lawyer noted that the preventive measure with regard to E. Osmanov was changed to a less restrictive one. The arrest was replaced by the guarantee of the Vice-Speaker of the State Council of Crimea Remzi Ilyasov.

It is to be recalled that Edem Osmanov (34 years of age) was arrested on January 19, in the urban settlement Chernomorskoe at a gas station. The car drove up to the gas station and five masked men came out of it. They arrested Edem, took him in their car and drove away. Later, it turned out that he was brought to Simferopol, to the investigative department. He was charged under Article 318/1 (“Violence against a public official”) in connection with the events of May 3rd. The house of Edem Osmanov’s parents was searched, and his mother, according to the court decision, was fined 10 thousand rubles for “organizing” the road closure on May 3, 2014, when the leader of the Crimean Tatar people Mustafa Dzhemilev was not allowed to enter Crimea.

1On May 3, 2014, in different areas of Crimea there were protests in connection with the prohibition of entry to Crimea of

the leader of the Crimean Tatar people Mustafa Dzhemilev. In respect of many Crimean Tatars who were in places where the protests took place, the administrative offence reports were drawn. Then, the cases were considered in the district courts of Crimea. Many participants of the event were fined to considerable amounts.

2 The Contact Group on Human Rights in Crimea was established under the auspices of the ‘Council of Ministers’ of Crimea and deals with Crimean Tatars’ affairs. The Group cooperates with the Presidential Council for Civil Society and Human Rights, as well as the Crimean Field Mission on Human Rights.

On February 7, under the ‘February 26th case’ Iskender Kantemirov was arrested. On February 8, the court in Simferopol approved the Iskender Kantemirov’s detention for the period of two months. Iskender Kantemirov is charged with committing a crime under Part 2 of Article 212 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation “Participation in the riots”. According to the investigators, during the “mass riots on February 26, 2014 in Simferopol” he caused injuries to several individuals.

According to investigators, on 26 February, 2014, near the building of the Supreme Council of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, during the demonstration held by the NGO Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar people there were calls to disobey the demands of the officers of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine, which has led to mass riots accompanied by the use of violence against the representatives of the ‘Russian Unity’ movement and the people’s self-defense.

Earlier, on January 29, under the same ‘February 26th case’, a Deputy Chairman of the Mejlis Akhtem Chiygoz who is suspected of organizing the riots was arrested. On February 11, the court in Simferopol extended the arrest of Akhtem Chiygoz till May 19, 2015.

The Head of the Main Investigative Department of the Investigative Committee of Russia in Crimea Mikhail Nazarov said that in the framework of the investigation of the criminal case initiated in connection with the mass riots that took place on February 26, 2014 in Simferopol, more than 150 witnesses were questioned, 40 persons were recognized as victims, and 2 persons were accused. However, the circumstances of the case indicate that the charges against Akhtem Chiygoz and Iskender Kantemirov are legally baseless and politically motivated.

On February 16, the Sevastopol City Court upheld the decision to arrest a resident of Orlinoe village Ruslan Zeytullaev, who is suspected of violating Article 205.5 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (“Organization of the activity of terrorist organization and participation in the activities of such organization”). The defense intends to appeal against this decision in the court of cassation.

Ruslan Zeytullaev is one of the three Muslims arrested by the FSS in late January. All of them are charged with participation in the activities of Hizb ut-Tahrir, which is officially banned in Russia. The court then approved the detention for a period of two months.

The lawyer Emil Kurbedinov said that the court hearing was held without the arrested and his defense lawyer, which is a gross violation. The defense intends to appeal against the decision on arrest in the court of cassation.

LEGISLATIVE CHANGES

It is important to note that on February 17, there was a meeting of the Prosecutor’s Office of Crimea, where the Prosecutor of Crimea N. Poklonskaya took the initiative to amend the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, namely Article 37 of the Criminal Code. N. Poklonskaya proposed to authorize the Prosecutor to personally initiate criminal proceedings. Currently, according to Article 37 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the Prosecutor has the right to submit the materials to the investigator and only require to open a criminal case. N. Poklonskaya asked the Head of the State Council of Crimea V.Konstantinov to support the amendments to the Criminal Code and submit them as a legislative initiative to the State Duma for consideration.

Given the recent events in Crimea (the ‘May 3rd case’, the ‘February 26th case’, the Kostenko’s case) such an initiative shall lead to the fact that the right to freedom and personal immunity in Crimea will be subjected to a serious threat of the systematic, escalating violation.

Of a special concern is the fact that not only the “proactiveness” of local leaders in the region threatens the right to freedom and personal immunity: the biggest danger comes from the implementation of the Russian legislation in Crimea.

An example is the adopted in Crimea Decree On approval of the Comprehensive Plan for Countering the Ideology of Terrorism in the Republic of Crimea in 2015 - 2018, signed by S. Aksenov on January 30, 2015. The basis of this Decree is the Comprehensive Plan for Countering the Ideology of Terrorism in the Russian Federation for 2013 - 2018, approved by the President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin on April 26, 2013 (see the detailed analysis in the Freedom of Speech). The threat from these documents is that they provide legislative framework for the ideology of xenophobia and intolerance to the opinions that differ from the views of the authorities.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION

The situation with the freedom of speech and expression in Crimea remains difficult. In February there were certain events that have aggravated the situation.

On January 30, 2015, the Head of Crimea Sergey Aksenov approved a Decree On Approval of the Comprehensive Plan for Countering the Ideology of Terrorism in the Republic of Crimea for 2015 - 20183, which is a blatant encroachment on the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion.

The analysis of this regulation revealed several provisions that are contrary not only to the European legal standards, but also to the Russian legislation.

Firstly, according to the general provisions of the Comprehensive Plan “the ideology of terrorism (terrorist ideology) refers to a set of ideas, concepts, beliefs, dogmas, targets, slogans justifying the need to engage in terrorist activities, as well as other destructive ideas that have led or may lead to such ideology”.

The concept of ‘destructive idea’ is not found as a legal term in the Russian legislation. The above regulation also does not provide for the definition and description of this phenomenon. This is contrary to the principle of legal certainty. Such wording of the definition of ‘terrorist ideology’ allows to freely interpret any religious, social or political statements (and even thoughts) as terrorist ones.

Secondly, the persons engaged in ‘destructive activity’ include “accomplices of the participants of the armed conflicts in Syria and Ukraine”, “distributors of terrorist, extremist ideology and information discrediting the Russian Federation”, “active members and ideologues of the non-traditional religious organizations”.

The procedure for the dissemination of information “discrediting the Russian Federation” is not regulated by the legislation, therefore the activities, under this document, with respect to persons distributing such information are contrary to the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the Russian Federation and has no legal basis.

Furthermore, nowhere in the document there is a legal definition and signs of the “non-traditional” religious organizations. The division of religious organizations into “traditional” and “non-traditional” is contrary to the generally accepted legal principles of equality of all before the law, the Constitution of the Russian Federation and the Federal Law On the Freedom of Conscience and Religious Associations.

3 http://rk.gov.ru/rus/file/pub/pub_238807.pdf

However, the greatest concerns are raised in respect of the planned under the Comprehensive Plan for Countering the Ideology of Terrorism in the Republic of Crimea in 2015 - 2018 measures aimed to protect the Internet space of Crimea and block the websites “containing terrorist and extremist materials” at the discretion of local authorities.

It should be noted that the Russian social network Odnoklassniki blocked and then removed one of the most numerous groups titled Crimea and the Crimean Tatars. This was reported by one of the group members, the leader of the Moscow community of Crimean Tatars Mustafa Mukhteremov. According to him, the group included more than 14,500 members and was active since May 2008.

Sergey Aksenov also made public statements that can be interpreted as the pressure on the freedom of speech on the peninsula. On February 13, he declared4 that Crimea is in a “semi-military situation” and in this connection the “enemy media” don’t belong in the peninsula.

“We are opposed to some TV channels covering the events inadequately, distorting the objective information, and sometimes openly lying about certain facts... In general, of course, the media, which will escalate the hysteria and even give some citizens the hope of Crimea becoming a part of Ukraine again, well, and therefore performing the destructive actions – the activity of such channels will not be welcomed in the republic anyway. Well, why do we need the essentially enemy media, which excite the people ... “, said Sergey Aksenov.

Another gross violation of the freedom of speech in the peninsula is the fact that in February, the broadcasting frequencies were taken away from all the private radio broadcasting companies in Crimea. Moreover, they were even not allowed to take part in the tender on the distribution of radio frequencies, which was held on February 25. According to the results of the tender, the rights to frequencies belonging to the Crimean companies were transferred to the major Russian media holdings.

The tender announced by the Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information Technology and Mass Media (Roskomnadzor) on the right to lease the radio frequencies of terrestrial broadcasting, despite the numerous appeals to the officials of the Russian Federation, including on behalf of the Commissioner for Human Rights in the Russian Federation, was not cancelled or postponed to a later date.

The Crimean radio stations willing to participate in the tender for frequency allocation faced several problems. Those included the unrealistic deadlines for submission of documents and the refusal of the local and federal authorities to recognize the inequality of the procedure.

In particular, the deadline for submission of applications for the tender was by January 29, 2015, which made it impossible for the Crimean radio broadcasters to participate in the tender, as by the time they were not able to issue all the necessary documents for participation.

The issue related to the peculiarities of legal regulation of relations in the field of media in the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol was legislatively formalized on December 1, 2014. The timeframe for media registration is thirty working days. The timeframe for obtaining the license for radio broadcasting is thirty working days.

One of the key documents required for participation in the tender on the allocation of terrestrial radio frequencies was a universal license for radio broadcasting. The deadline for submission of documents for participation in the tender was by January 29, 2015.

4 http://investigator.org.ua/news/148917/

However, at least three Crimean companies admitted to participate in the tender according to the data of the Register of issued broadcasting licenses of the Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information Technology and Mass Media, obtained a universal license only on February 11, 2015. According to the editor of the radio station Leader Svetlana Razina, they submitted an incomplete set of documents for participation in the tender, but they were not allowed to participate in the tender.

Thus, even in the timeframe established by law, the Crimean media did not have an opportunity to issue and submit an application with a list of required documents for participation in the tender for lease of the radio frequencies.

The frequencies of the six Crimean radio stations (Trans-M-Radio, TV and Radio Company Breeze, TV and Radio Company Morion, radio Leader, Assol, the Radio of Our City) according to tender results were transferred to other users. The 24 frequencies were received by 6 firms owned by the entrepreneur Alexey Amelin.

According to the media reports, A.Amelin established in 2014, in Simferopol, the following legal entities: Assol LLC (not to be confused with radio Assol, which shall broadcast in Simferopol for a few days only), PROMEDIA LLC, CRIMEAN PENINSULA, LLC, NIKA MEDIA LLC. Amelin also owns shares in the authorized capital of Good Service LLC (registered in Tatarstan at a Simferopol address in 2010) and Grand Media LLC.

The six Crimean radio broadcasters submitted a number of appeals to the Crimean and Russian authorities asking to postpone the deadlines for the submission of documents and the tender. There was no response from the federal agencies officials, and the only public statement on the matter was made by the Commissioner for Human Rights in the Russian Federation Ella Pamfilova, which a few days later was removed from the official website of the Ombudsman. In her statement, Ella Pamfilova requested to take measures to preserve the radio broadcasters operating in Crimea. In response, the Minister of the Internal Policy, Information and Communications of Crimea Dmitry Polonsky said that he “did not see any difficulties”. He added that everybody who was willing to apply for the tender submitted the necessary documents.

Then Roskomnadzor acknowledged that the Crimean radio broadcasters can operate based on the effective licenses by April 1, 2015 (Annex 8), but did not explain the situation in which the allocation of frequencies took place before the period of transition determined by this agency.

The lack in Crimea of the local non-state radio broadcasters can lead to the one-sided coverage of the situation in the peninsula. The Crimean Field Mission on Human Rights stated that the deprivation of the Crimean population of the possibility to obtain comprehensive information violates the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Art. 19) and the European Convention on Human Rights (Art. 10).

In addition to withdrawal of licenses, the local radio stations face other problems. In Kerch, the local authorities refused to extend the lease agreement of TV and Radio Company Kerch, which in this context was forced to stop the broadcasting because of the lack of funds to lease another premise, dismantle and transport the equipment.

The Kerch administration explained that according to the law a new contract cannot be signed with the company, which has rent arrears, which is the case with TV and Radio Company Kerch constitute, according to the administration, 98 thousand rubles.

Meanwhile, in some cities of Crimea there is practice, when the companies are intentionally not provided with information on the details for the payment of debts, so that later it would constitute a basis not to renew the lease agreements with them.

Other media also faced the challenges with re-registration.

On February 20, the chief editor of QHA agency Gayana Yuksel said5 that the Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information Technology and Mass Media (Roskomnadzor) refused to register the news agency QHA. Earlier, the editors received an electronic response, which did not explain the reasons for the refusal, but in the hard copy of the response it was indicated that the reason was the provision of false information about the founder of the media.

The journalists continue to be refused the admittance to cover the activities of the local authorities.

Thus, on February 13, the two unidentified men, under the order of the Head of Alushta City Council Galina Ognevaya, forced the employee of the newspaper Crimean Telegraph to leave the room where there was a meeting of the City Council. G.Ognevaya argued that her decision was based on the fact that the journalist violated the regulation, requiring the advance notification of the authorities of the will to attend the meetings of the City Council. At the same time, the Head of the Municipality ignored the fact that this regulation applies to citizens who voluntarily intend to be present at the events of the City Council.

In the Alushta City Council there is no special procedure for accreditation of media representatives covering such events as part of their professional activity. Subsequently, G.Ogneva refused to mention the names and titles of persons who forcibly made a journalist leave the premises. They also refused to present themselves.

In the Crimean judiciary there is a practice of preventing the journalists with cameras to enter the courthouse, although the legislation envisages a judge’s permission to video recording directly in the hall where the court hearings take place.

The CFM observed other problems with access of journalists to information from the official sources.

Thus, on February 3, the Minister of Ecology and Natural Resources of the Republic of Crimea Gennady Naraev refused to answer a journalist’s question about the assessment of impact of the developed wells on the environment, and required to issue a written request for information. On February 9, a request for information was sent to the Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources of the Republic of Crimea the response to which was not provided within the term (7 days) set forth in the legislation. As of 5 March, when this review was being prepared, the response had not been received (Annex 9).

In addition to the abovementioned, in February, the CFM has recorded another fact of obstruction of journalists’ professional activity on the part of the ‘Crimean self-defense’.

On February 3, during the events commemorating the Ukrainian singer Kuzma Skryabin in Simferopol, the representatives of the paramilitary groups, in the presence of the police tried to interfere with the professional work of journalists covering the event. In particular, the representatives of the ‘Crimean self-defense’ demanded from the representatives of at least three media to stop photographing and video recording.

Also important is the issue of the presence in the peninsula of the Ukrainian-language press. As it became known to the CFM, the Kiev publishing company is ignoring the requests of the chief editor of the only Ukrainian-language newspaper Krymska Svitlytsya to renew the publishing of the printed version of the newspaper, although it did not notify the editor of the termination of cooperation. To date, the newspaper is published only in the electronic form.

5 http://qha.com.ua/informagentstvu-qha-otkazano-roskomnadzorom-v-registratsii-143200.html

FREEDOM OF PEACEFUL ASSEMBLY

In the morning of February 2, near the Lozovatka village in Krivoy Rog district of Dnepropetrovsk region there was an accident, which killed the famous Ukrainian musician Andrey Kuzmenko, the bandleader of Skryabin. The very same day, in the evening, in more than 30 cities of Ukraine the people came to the central squares to express their sorrow for the loss of the famous musician.

Around ten people tried to hold the commemoration meeting devoted to Andrey Kuzmenko in Sevastopol. Those who came switched on the Skryabin songs on their phones, lit the candles, but the police and officers of the investigative committee forced them to turn off the music, put out the candles and disperse. The police recorded the passport data of all the participants of the event. In addition, to the monument to Taras Shevchenko, where the event was to be held, several people in civilian clothes came and “supported the police”. They refused to introduce themselves, saying that they are “simply the respectable residents of Sevastopol, who care about what is happening” .

On February 5, an application from Umerov I.R. was submitted to the Bakhchisaray City Council with a request of permission to hold a meeting on February 19, in Bakhchisarai “to support the arbitrarily arrested Deputy Chairman of the Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar people” Akhtem Chiygoz. It was planned to hold a meeting of around 250-300 people in the central square of Bakhchisarai, from 11 to 12 o’clock (Annex 10). However I.Umerov was denied to hold a meeting and the document was signed by the Acting Head of the Bakhchisarai City Administration V.A.Verhovod (Annex 11).

The application of the Russian legislation in Crimea does not contribute to the protection of human rights and freedoms, in particular the freedom of peaceful assembly. Moreover, the Russian legislation allows officials to interpret it in their sole discretion, to apply it selectively, to unreasonably reject some people and authorize the other, if their views correspond to the views of the administration.

An example of this is an event ‘Antimaidan’, held in Simferopol on February 21. The event was aimed at supporting the national sovereignty of Russia and Vladimir Putin’s policy. The organizers of the event are the Crimean branch of the party ‘Great Fatherland’, the movement ‘Antimaidan’ and the Russian bikers ‘Night Wolves’ (who had been earlier involved in the dispersal of the Ukrainian events in the southern coast of Crimea). The participants of the meeting were carrying the flags of Russia, DPR and LPR. The people held banners with slogans “No Maidan in Russia”, “Stop the 5th column in the Central Bank”, “Our country - our rules”, and chanted “Russia”.

The event was held in the city center at the intersection of Karl Marx and Pushkin streets. In addition, the Crimean authorities allowed the organizers to drive the cars and motorcycles to the pedestrian zone.

It is to be recalled that earlier, the authorities determined6 only four places in Simferopol, where it is allowed to peacefully assemble. However, this meeting was held in a place that is not allowed for such gatherings.

This once again confirms the creation of formal obstacles for certain groups of people in the exercise of the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and selective application of the established norms.

6 http://investigator.org.ua/news/145323/

FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE AND RELIGION

PROBLEMS WITH RE-REGISTRATION

One of the main problems related to the continuation of the activities of religious organizations in Crimea is their re-registration according to the requirements of the legislation of the Russian Federation. The local authorities obliged them to re-register by March 1, 2015.

Prior to establishing the jurisdiction of Russia, in Crimea there were over 2,000 religious communities, of which more than 1,400 have been officially registered. According to CFM, as of February 12, 2015, only about 100 parishes applied for re-registration, of which only 11 have completed it.

The religious communities identified the main problems as follows: the demand for issuing a great many documents, the lack of necessary legal knowledge (among those submitting and receiving the documents), long queues. In addition, there are a lot of complaints about the creation of formal difficulties on the part of registration authorities.

The religious communities of Crimea have two options for the registration. First is the joining of the existing Russian structure. Second is the registration of a separate parish or an entire denomination. The first option is simpler, because it simplifies the approval of documents, including the statute. For example, the community of Orthodox Jews of Yalta, the former independent organization, was forced to join the Federation of Jewish Communities of Russia. However, not all of them can or are willing to register in such a way.

The second option requires more coordination. For example, it is necessary to describe the essence of faith. It is necessary to explain the attitude of the doctrine to the family, the same-sex marriages, and divorces. The registration authorities are asking questions about the attitude to the state, which are not directly related to religion. The documents submitted for registration are first considered in Crimea and then checked in the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation.

Under the threat of closure in Crimea is the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Kiev Patriarchate. If its churches do not re-register, their activity in Crimea shall be considered illegal, and the temples can be transferred to the Moscow Patriarchate. The churches in Osoviny, Perevalnoe villages, in Krasnoperekopsk and the temple at the Nakhimov Naval Academy in Sevastopol have already been seized. The price of lease of the Cathedral of St. Vladimir and Princess Olga of the UOC-KP in Simferopol raised from 1 to 600,000 UAH per year.

The Catholic churches, in addition to re-registration, face the issue related to the citizenship of priests. Most of them are the citizens of Poland and Ukraine. They are allowed to stay in Crimea not more than for three months.

In addition to re-registration, the religious communities face the problems with financing, distribution of their materials, communication and relationships with their missions outside Crimea. The unregistered communities cannot pay for utilities, as the individuals are prohibited to pay the bills of organizations. In this regard, the premises they own can be withheld over the utility debts.

The problems with registration encumber and restrict the work of parishes, lead to a reduction of parishes and religious communities, which has an extremely negative impact on the exercise of the freedom of religion.

MONITORING OF THE STATUS OF RELIGIOUS COMMUNITIES

In February, the CFM monitored the situation of the major religious communities in Crimea in order to identify the main difficulties in the exercise of the freedom of religion. During the field studies

the Mission visited the communities in Simferopol, Sevastopol, Yalta, Alushta, Evpatoria, Kolchugino and other settlements.

The Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Kiev Patriarchate.

Currently, the priests of the UOC-KP identify the re-registration requirement as a main threat to their existence, as in case of failure to re-register, the local authorities will recognize their activities as unlawful. The priests refused to take out the Russian citizenship, which also complicates the possibility of re-registration.

Given the formal reasons (the lack of status of a legal entity) that the churches cannot pay the utility bills, their premises may soon be seized.

Earlier, the premise of the temple in Simferopol was leased for 50 years for the price of 1 UAH per year, but now the rent was increased to 600 thousand UAH per year.

The priests confirmed that several churches of the UOC-KP have been currently seized: in Kerch (Osovennoe village), in Sevastopol (at the Nakhimov Naval Academy) and in Krasnoperekopsk; there is no information on their further use; as well as the temple in the Perevalnoe village, which was forcibly seized and transferred to the use of the Church of the Moscow Patriarchate.

The priest reported the constant pressure on the part of FSS officers and threats to him and his family, being forced to sign various documents, questioning of priests for extremism and links with ‘Pravy Sector’, threatening to conduct searches.

Currently, in Crimea there are the main churches of the UOC-KP in the villages Mramornoe, Oktyabrskoe, Stepnoe, the city of Simferopol, Evpatoria and others. As of the beginning of February, of the 15 priests in Crimea only 12 remained.

The new issue is related to the attempt to transfer the land of the UOC of the Kiev Patriarchate in Simferopol to the Federal Security Service of Russia. The Archbishop of Simferopol and Crimea Clement was offered to voluntarily give up the land plot, which was previously allocated for the construction of the cathedral. The Archbishop was addressed with this proposal by the Head of Administration of Simferopol Gennady Bakharev. In addition, the Act on selection of this land plot has already been approved by Sergey Aksyonov (Annex 12).

The Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate

The representatives of the church in Simferopol report the difficulties related to the forced re-registration. The diocese has already been registered and intends to remain a part of the UOC.

At the same time, the materials published in the Ukrainian media7 indicate that the senior leaders of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate legally recognized Crimea as part of Russia, having transferred all the property of the two Crimean dioceses to the Russian Orthodox Church.

The Roman Catholic Church

In Crimea there are 9 Catholic parishes: in Simferopol, Kerch, Djankoi, Feodosia, Evpatoria, Yalta, Kolchugino village and 2 parishes in Sevastopol.

The main problem for them is related to the citizenship of the clergy (Ukrainian and Polish), forcing them to stay in Crimea for not more than three months, as well as to re-registration, because

7 http://ru.tsn.ua/politika/cerkovnyy-skandal-ili-gosizmena-upc-mp-yuridicheski-priznala-krym-chastyu-rossii-i-peredala-

ey-dve-eparhii-414611.html

without registration under the laws of the Russian Federation, the clergy cannot have the work visas to stay in Crimea.

Of the abovementioned parishes, the parish in Sevastopol was registered and 2 others are in the final stage. The representative of the church told the CFM that 2 priests can obtain the documents allowing them to permanently stay in Crimea.

This situation has led to the fact that the priests leave Crimea: of the 12 Roman Catholic priests now there are only 5.

The priests said that the FSS officers come to them from time to time. Thus, in Yalta, they came to collect the fine from a priest who served in the church, which had not been re-registered. The fine amounted to 4,000 rubles, and after that the priest left Crimea.

The priests pointed to some other issues that were resolved after the intervention of the Vatican.

The Greek Catholic Church

The priest of the Greek Catholic Church from Simferopol was forced to leave Crimea with his family in April. Thus, currently, the priests from other Greek Catholic parishes say a service in the church.

The priests reported the harassment of the Greek Catholic priests because of their support and care for the Ukrainian military units in February-March 2014. In general, they said, the harassment was carried out by the so-called Cossacks, who often threatened over the phone.

Currently, the priests have to leave every three months because of the Ukrainian citizenship. In Kerch the church is facing the challenges related to re-registration, the documents have been returned four times.

In addition, the priests noted that the number of parishioners has decreased, which can be explained by the psychological pressure from the people around.

The Protestants

The representatives of the Lutheran Church reported that in some cities there are difficulties related to the re-registration. However, their greatest concern was caused by the statements of Alexander Selevok, the Head of the Religious Affairs Committee, made at a meeting of the Committee of the Crimean State Council for Culture and Protection of Cultural Heritage. He mentioned the possible nationalization of property of the ‘non grata’ religious organizations, but indicated only the Lutherans of Crimea.

The baptists reported that they have been constantly denied registration. According to them, in Crimea there are about 70 churches, and now each of them needs to be re-registered under the new requirements. The ongoing registration process led to the high legal services expenditures.

The evangelicals also reported the problems with registration. According to them, out of about 70 churches in Crimea, currently, only one – ‘The Word of Life’ has been registered.

The representatives of the Seventh-day Adventist Church reported that in Sevastopol they have registered the land plot on which the church is located, and then began the process of church registration. Timofey Gladkov, the acting Secretary of the Crimean Adventist Association said that “the registration is carried out as planned and through the incorporation into a Russian nationwide Adventist organization”.

The Hava Nagila Community

The representatives of the community in Simferopol reported the problems with registration of the charter and charitable home care for the drug addicts in Mazanka village of Simferopol district. They are being registered as part of the Russian church structure.

The Yahudi

The religious community of Progressive Judaism Ner Tomid Kira Grublite in Simferopol reported the problems related to the re-registration and the current lack of a rabbi. The Orthodox Jews in Simferopol noted that the deputy rabbi needs a residence permit.

Vladlen Lyustin, a representative of the Orthodox Jewish community in Yalta said that their community was registered first, although the process was complicated. Given the situation, they were forced to suspend the construction of the synagogue until they found the new investors, but now there is a need in the re-registration under the Russian law.

The Karaite religious community

The representatives of the Karaites in Simferopol reported that they started the registration of the national and cultural community of Karaites, and then they will proceed with the registration of a religious community. They submitted the relevant documents for examination to Moscow four weeks ago. However, they were told that the examination shall take about 6 months. Only after that the Karaites will be able to proceed with the registration of a religious community.

The Buddhists

The representatives of the Buddhists reported that, as before, they do not plan to undergo the registration procedure, and just plan to gather in Yalta, Simferopol, Evpatoria and other cities. Earlier, in Ukraine, only the Sevastopol parish had been registered, and thus it may be also registered at present.

The Islamic Ummah

The representatives of the Muslims, mostly the Crimean Tatars, including the spiritual ministers, continue to suffer from various forms of harassment and pressure. The houses of spiritual leaders and mosques continue to be searched under the pretext of searching for the extremist materials. The FSS officers often come to the mosque for the so-called preventive conversations. The specific concerns among the Muslims are raised in relation to the possible prosecution under the pretext of involvement in Hizb ut-Tahrir, which is recognized as a ‘terrorist organization’ in Russia.

The Crimean Tatars Culture and Mutual Assistance Association in Seydishehir (Turkey) has prepared 6,000 copies of the holy book of Muslims - the Koran and sent them to Crimea. However, on February 20, these materials were stopped at the customs in the port of Kerch. The Chairman of the branch of Crimean Tatars Culture and Mutual Assistance Association in Seydishehir Mustafa Sarykamysh said that the Russian leadership in Crimea banned the entry of books of the Koran and “ordered to throw the books to the sea or return them back to Turkey”.

Thus, the most difficult and vulnerable is the situation with the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kiev Patriarchate and the Islamic Ummah. The formal obstruction through the re-registration procedures and obtaining of migration status significantly limit the ability of worship, the continuation of traditional community activities, reduce the number of parishioners.

FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT

MONITORING OF THE SITUATION AT THE BORDER

The CFM has monitored the entry and exit checkpoints in Crimea (Kalanchak and Chongar) at the

Ukrainian administrative border and the Russian border.

Kalanchak Chongar

Pedestrian zone At the Ukrainian checkpoint the

pedestrian zone is not equipped;

the rope is used to separate the

pedestrian zone from the roadway.

There are no other measures to

ensure the safety of pedestrians.

After the Ukrainian checkpoint

there is no such separation and the

people are forced to walk on the

roadway.

The pedestrian zone is not

equipped both in a ‘buffer zone’

and at the posts. The pedestrians

are walking on the roadway

(Annex 13)

Passport control At the Russian checkpoint the passport control is conducted by the

officers of the Border Guard Service of Russia. At the Ukrainian

checkpoint the passport control is conducted by officers of the Border

Guard Service of Ukraine (wearing the appropriate uniform and insignia)

At the Ukrainian checkpoint the pedestrians are checked on a first-

come, first-served basis, the number of people is not limited. Prior to

undergoing the passport control, the person gets a ticket where the

number of people that entered the territory of the checkpoint is stated.

The citizens of the Russian Federation, during passport control are

required to show a foreign or an internal passport and migration card

with a note on the entrance to Ukraine. The Ukrainian citizens are

required to show a passport (internal or foreign).

At the Russian checkpoint the people are checked in groups of five. If a

person is alone, he/she must wait until there is a group of five people.

Prior to undergoing the passport control, the person gets a ticket where

the number of people that entered the territory of the checkpoint is

stated. In order to undergo the passport control, the Russian citizens

and the citizens of Ukraine with the registration on the territory of

Crimea (‘Crimean residence permit’) are required to show an internal or

foreign passport. The Ukrainian citizens which do not have the ‘Crimean

residence permit’ are required to fill out a migration card.

The length of the ‘buffer

zone’

1,5-1,7 km 3,5-3,7 km

The presence of

unidentified armed men

Not found. After the Russian checkpoint on

the bridge there is another post

under the Russian flag, where

there are armed men in green or

camouflage uniforms without

insignia. The purpose of their

presence is unclear.

Safety of passenger

transportation

As of December 27, 2014 the passenger bus and train transportation to

Crimea was terminated. The transportation of passengers is carried out

by unlawful, uncontrolled and private carriers (both from the Kherson

region and from Crimea). The Ukrainian administrative border can be

crossed only by vehicles with up to 5 passenger seats. In this regard,

the buses from both sides arrive only to the borders and the passengers

get out and walk across the ‘buffer zone’, and on the other side use the

next bus. The ‘buffer zone’ can be also crossed in a car provided by the

unlawful carriers.

At the Ukrainian and Russian checkpoints there are no equipped stops

where people can wait for the transport. The passengers have to wait

for the transport on the roadside near the checkpoint (Annex 14)

The presence of traffic

congestion

From the direction of the Kherson region, at both checkpoints, one lane

is occupied by the large queues of trucks (there are two lanes of

automobile traffic), which travel to Crimea with different kinds of goods

(Annex 15)

The queue of 254 trucks The queue of 175 trucks

Thus, the checkpoints are not adequately equipped for the on-foot border crossing, which creates

health risks for persons crossing the border. The lack of regular transportation complicates the

movement of people, creates additional risks to health and significantly increases the cost of such

movement; the unlawful transportation minimizes the guarantees of safe transportation of

passengers.

RESTRICTIONS ON THE EXIT FROM CRIMEA

Another problem is a restriction on the exit of the citizens of Ukraine from Crimea by the Russian

border guards due to the lack in a passport of the photo taken at the 25 or 45 years of age. In

Crimea it is impossible to put such photos in a passport, because there are no bodies of the

Migration Service of Ukraine. However, the Russian border guards prohibit such citizens to exit

Crimea as their passports are invalid under the Russian law. In this regard, the Cabinet of Ministers

of Ukraine approved the procedure for registration of passport documents8 for the residents of

Crimea, which allows to put the photos in a passport by the authorized representative.

However, this procedure applies only to those persons who are duly registered in Crimea. In

Crimea there are citizens who are registered in other regions of Ukraine, thus, this procedure is not

applicable to them.

8 http://zakon2.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/289-2014-%D0%BF

The CFM began to receive complaints from such citizens of Ukraine, who, due to lack of

registration in Crimea, cannot use this procedure to put a photo in the passport through the

authorized representatives. The Russian border guards do not allow such citizens to exit the

territory of Crimea, referring to the invalidity of such passport documents under the Russian

legislation.

These actions of the Russian border guards violate the freedom of movement within the meaning

of Part 2 of Article 2 of the Protocol #4 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and

Fundamental Freedoms, securing certain rights and freedoms other than those already included in

the Convention and the first Protocol thereto, namely, depriving of the right to freely leave any

country, including the own country.

BAN ON THE ENTRY TO CRIMEA

On February 12, the Moscow Basmanny Court refused to suspend the decision on the Federal

Migration Service ban for Mustafa Dzhemilev to enter Russia. Moreover, the court dismissed the

defense and vindication of the Decision of the Federal Migration Service to ban the entry of

M.Dzhemilev to Russia. The decision to ban the entry to Russia was handed to Mustafa Dzhemilev

on May 3, 2014.

On February 20th, the Crimean Tatar Server Abkairov was on his way to Crimea to see his

relatives, but the Russian border guards said that he was denied the entry to the territory of the

Russian Federation, and, hence, to the territory of Crimea. S.Abkairov is not involved in the political

or social activities, did not violate the migration legislation of the Russian Federation and cannot

explain the reasons for such refusal. The CFM is clarifying the circumstances of the incident.

RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL AND EFFICIENT MEANS OF LEGAL PROTECTION

The Sentsov – Kolchenko’s case

On February 2, it was reported that the Ukrainian film director Oleg Sentsov was additionally

charged under Part 3 of Article 222 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (unlawful

purchase, transfer, sale, storage, transportation or carrying of weapons, explosives and explosive

devices). The corresponding resolution was handed to him by the Lefortovo detention facility

officers, where he is being held since the end of May 2014 on the charge of terrorism.

Earlier, O.Sentsov was charged under Part 3 of Article 30, Part 3 of Article 222 of the Criminal Code

(attempted unlawful acquisition of weapons and explosives). In addition, he is charged with Part 1

of Article 205.4 (organization of the terrorist community), par. a of Part 2 of Article 205 (act of

terrorism committed by an organized group), Part 1 of Article 30, Part 2 of Article 205 (preparation

for a terrorist attack). The film director does not recognize his guilt.

On February 6, the CFM found out that in Ukraine a criminal proceeding on the fact of unlawful

deprivation of liberty of a citizen of Ukraine Oleg Sentsov was opened under Article 146 of the

Criminal Code of Ukraine ‘Unlawful deprivation of liberty or abduction’. This crime can be qualified

under Part 2 of Article 146, as it was committed against two or more persons (Oleg Sentsov,

Alexander Kolchenko, Gennady Afanasyev, Alexey Chirniy), accompanied by the infliction of

physical pain, the use of weapons for a long period of time. The Ukrainian investigative authorities

appealed to the Russian authorities with a request to provide the materials of the Sentsov’s case,

but the authorities of the Russian Federation refused the request, explaining that such information

“cannot be subject to disclosure in the interests of the investigation”.

On February 9, the Moscow City Court extended the arrest of the Ukrainian film director Oleg

Sentsov by April 11, having rejected the appeal against the decision of the Lefortovo Court of

December 26. The defense asked to elect a preventive measure for the accused, which is not

related to the detention.

O. Sentsov refused to participate in the hearing. His lawyer said that neither the accused nor the

defender have seen the investigator since last December. No investigative action has been carried

out. The lawyer expects that in the near future they will be informed of the termination of the

investigation and provided with the materials of the case for the review.

The Oleg Sentsov’s lawyer Dmitry Dinze said that the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office

acknowledged the dual citizenship of Oleg Sentsov. Such a statement is contained in the response

of the supervisory authority to the complaint lodged by him. D.Dinze appealed against the actions

of the investigative department of the FSS, which submitted to the court a certificate of FMS,

according to which O.Sentsov is a Russian citizen. It is on the basis of this certificate the identity

and nationality of Sentsov were established.

The lawyer argues that the supervisory authority has recognized as lawful the fact that in a

criminal case the FSS refers to O.Sentsov as a citizen of Russia, ignoring his Ukrainian citizenship.

At the same time, the Prosecutor General’s response allows to file a petition for admission of the

Ukrainian consul to the detainee. The lawyer said that the relevant petition has been filed.

At the same time, D.Dinze assured that the O.Sentsov’s defense shall, as before, insist on the

Ukrainian citizenship of the film director, emphasizing the lack of legal facts allowing to speak

about his Russian citizenship.

It is to be recalled that Alexander Kolchenko who was arrested on the same case, on January 28

was refused to retain the citizenship of Ukraine by the court in Simferopol.

A statement published on the website of the Ombudsman of Ukraine with regard to the refusal of

recognition by the Russian authorities of A. Kolchenko’s citizenship of Ukraine says: “Since lately

the Russian media disseminated the information of the Federal Migration Service of Russia that

Alexander Kolchenko is a citizen of the Russian Federation and is not a citizen of Ukraine, the

Commissioner for Human Rights Valeria Lutkovska appealed to the State Migration Service of

Ukraine with a request to provide information on Alexander Kolchenko’s Ukrainian citizenship. The

State Migration Service of Ukraine informed that in accordance with the Law of Ukraine On the

Citizenship of Ukraine, Alexander Kolchenko is a citizen of Ukraine, and his place of residence is

registered in the territory of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea“. (Annex 16).

The Ukrainian Ombudsman considers that the authorities of the Russian Federation thus violated

the basic principles of the legislation of Ukraine on citizenship, in particular, the impossibility of

depriving a citizen of Ukraine of the Ukrainian citizenship and preservation of the citizenship of

Ukraine irrespective of the place of residence of a citizen of Ukraine, as indicated in Article 2 of the

Law On the Citizenship of Ukraine. Moreover, in accordance with the international law, only the

State of Ukraine may decide to deprive a citizen of Ukraine of the Ukrainian citizenship.

On February 18, A.Kolchenko’s lawyer Svetlana Sidorkina stated that the case of Oleg Sentsov,

Alexander Kolchenko and Alexey Chirniy shall be considered in one of the two district military

courts - either the Moscow, or the North-Caucasian in Rostov-on-Don. It is more likely that the

case will be transferred to Rostov.

They are charged with Articles 205 (terrorist attack) and 205.4 (organization of a terrorist

community or participation in it) of the Criminal Code, and as of January 1, 2015, the Part 6.1 of

Article 31 of the Criminal Code (jurisdiction of criminal cases) entered into force. The paragraph 2

of this provision states that all cases instituted in Russia under the above Articles, fall under the

jurisdiction of these two courts only.

The exclusive jurisdiction of the Moscow and the North-Caucasian district military courts includes

the cases on a number of other ‘terrorist’ articles of the Criminal Code: 205.1 (facilitation of

terrorism), 205.2 (public incitement to terrorism or its public justification), 205.3 (involvement in

terrorism training), 205.5 (establishment of a terrorist organization or participation therein), 206

(hostage-taking) - as well as on part 4 of Article 211 (hijacking a plane, ship or train, coupled with

terrorism).

The Part 6.1 has been included in Article 31 of the Criminal Code by the Law #130-FZ On

amendments to certain legislative acts of the Russian Federation, which Vladimir Putin signed on

May 5, 2014.

The lawyer S.Sidorkina suggests that the process will be open as the proceedings are closed if the

case file contains information constituting a state secret, and in this case there is no such

information in the case.

In addition to O.Sentsov and A.Kolchenko, in Lefortovo detention facility there are other citizens of

Ukraine arrested in Crimea - Valentin Vygivsky and the 72-year-old Yuri Soloshenko.

ISSUES RELATED TO CITIZENSHIP

The following groups remain vulnerable with regard to issues related to citizenship:

1) Ukrainian citizens that permanently resided in Crimea, did not apply for the retention of the

citizenship of Ukraine and did not apply for citizenship of the Russian Federation. The FMS in some

cases considers them the “automatic citizens” of the Russian Federation, and in other cases – the

foreigners to which the relevant norms of the Russian legislation apply;

2) citizens of other countries who have lived in Crimea as of March 2014, which did not have a

simplified procedure for obtaining a residence permit or a temporary residence permit in the

territory of Crimea;

3) people who had lived in Crimea for a long time but do not have the registration, which failed to

prove their residence in the territory of Crimea in court.

In February, in Saki and Simferopol, the peculiarities of consideration of cases on the establishment

of the fact of residence, which have a negative impact on the situation of people were revealed.

Namely, with regard to cases on the establishment of the fact of a long stay in Crimea required in

order to obtain a Russian citizenship, the courts hold meetings without prior notification of the date

and time of the hearing, without the participation of the plaintiff, and often do not consider the

provided evidence or unreasonably put the evidence into question.

The CFM has implemented a selective monitoring of activity of some territorial divisions of FMS of

Russia in Crimea.

Once again the following was revealed:

- the non-compliance with the timeframe for the receipt of documents established by the

procedure;

- the unregulated long queues to the FMS divisions for the submission of documents, the absence

of the promised electronic queue management system;

- the unprofessional conduct of FMS officials;

- the lack of free access to the necessary information about the activities of the FMS, the hours of

operation, the list of documents and other relevant information.

In the FMS divisions visited by the monitors of the CFM, there were no representatives of the

‘Crimean self-defense’ or other paramilitary groups. Earlier, their presence was recorded by the

CFM.

2.2. SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC RIGHTS

PROPERTY RIGHTS

PROPERTY RIGHTS AND UNLAWFUL NATIONALIZATION

Earlier, on September 10, the State Council of Crimea cancelled the decision on the corporatization and selling of a controlling parcel of shares of the Yalta film studio, thus having conducted the ‘nationalization’ and the transfer of the studio to the ownership of Crimea. However, the owner of the studio Sergey Arshinov considered such actions unlawful and appealed to the court.

On February 3, the Court of Arbitration of Crimea acknowledged the nationalization of the Yalta film studio unlawful and cancelled the decision of the State Council of Crimea as of September 10, 2014. However, the representatives of the State Council of Crimea were dissatisfied with this decision and announced their intention to appeal against it.

In addition, the court had doubts about the validity of the law of August 8, 2014 #47-ZRK On the peculiarities of reacquisition of property in the Republic of Crimea. It is on the basis of this law the film studio was nationalized. According to the owners, the representatives of the Crimean authorities refused to pay the cadastral value of land and compensate for the costs of building the new facilities in the studio under the compulsory reacquisition.

However, contrary to the decision of the court, the State Council of Crimea included the Yalta film studio in the list of objects of property of Crimea.

In addition to the Yalta film studio, the Crimean authorities wrongfully nationalized a number of objects of property located in the peninsula.

On February 27, at a meeting of the State Council of Crimea, in the so-called additional list of property, accounted for as property of the Republic of Crimea9, the following objects of property were included:

- a number of transport infrastructure objects, including the 66 bus stations and the assets of the stock company Krymavtotrans;

- the warehouse of fuels and lubricants and the movable property of the Crimean Fuel Alliance;

- the property of the Ukrainian Stock Exchange;

- the land plot and immovable property of the Yalta film studio;

- the shares of the closed joint stock company Hotel on the Revolutionary St. of the Feodosia shipbuilding company Sea and the shares of the East Crimean energy company;

- the property of the Crimean branch of the public joint-stock company Ukrtelecom;

- the assets of the Ukrainian companies Farlep-Invest, Svit and AO-Svyaz, included in the telecommunications group Vega.

- the property of the sanatorium Zori Ukrainy (Opolznevoe village of Yalta) and the Central military sanatorium Yalta of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine;

- the objects located in the park-monument of landscape art Charax in Gaspra;

- the 105 land plots in Semidvorie village (Alushta);

9 http://crimea.gov.ru/news/27_02_15_9

- the property of the holiday centre Chernomorsky (Chernomorskoe village), formerly owned by the state stock company Bread of Ukraine;

- the water pipes and wells in the Baydarskaya valley;

- the property of the public stock company Dvuyakornaya Bay (Feodosia);

- the Limited Liability Company Kerch seaport Kamysh-Burun;

- the closed joint-stock company Aerobud (Yalta);

- the Berthier-Delagarda estate (Yalta);

- the property of the Ukrainian mobile operator, the private joint stock company Kyivstar etc.

Thus, the local authorities have appropriated both the state property of Ukraine, and the private property. One of the reasons for such unlawful actions in the field of property, according to MPs, was the “prevention of the destabilizing situations in Crimea”.

The so-called nationalization of the objects of mobile operators and service providers (Ukrtelecom, LLC TriMob and Kyivstar) led to a disruption in the mobile communication, periodic blackouts of mobile connection, the termination of the ‘Ukrainian’ mobile connection, severe restriction of the possibility of communication with relatives living in the mainland Ukraine, periodic inability to use the emergency calls (ambulance, fire brigade, police etc.).

Thus, at night on February 10, all communication services provided by Ukrtelecom were terminated. The communication was partially restored only by 8 o’clock in the morning. The opportunity to call the emergency services in a number of regions of Crimea was available only on the next day.

Sergey Aksenov, upon submission of the draft Resolution on the nationalization of Ukrtelecom, reported that the Crimean branch of Ukrtelecom did not re-register under the laws of the Russian Federation, as well as allegedly, in the control system, a malware that was supposed to leave the Crimeans without communication was discovered. The confirmation of the detection of such a malware has not been provided.

On the day of the meeting of the State Council of Crimea, on February 27, S.Aksenov told10 the RIA News that as of March 2014, the local authorities ‘nationalized’ about 250 objects of private property. He did not mention the number of the nationalized state-owned facilities of Ukraine.

On February 28, the government of Sevastopol adopted a Resolution On the list of objects to be taken into public ownership of Sevastopol as a constituent territory of the Russian Federation, according to which the rights to property of 13 companies were transferred to the ‘public ownership’ of Sevastopol (Annex 17).

The list includes: the public joint stock company Sevastopol Marine Plant, which was formerly owned by Petro Poroshenko, the limited liability companies Sevmorsudoremont, Korabel, Sevmordorstroy, Sevmorverf, Sevmormash, Novaya Vera, Intekmebel, Sevmorrem, Yugmorservis; the state-owned enterprises Sevmorenergo, Vneshekonomservis, Design Office of radio communication.

PARTICIPATION OF "CRIMEAN SELF-DEFENSE" AND UNIDENTIFIED ARMED MEN IN SEIZURE OF PROPERTY OBJECTS

10

http://ria.ru/crimea_news/20150227/1049985941.html

During February, there were several cases of participation of the ‘Crimean self-defense’ and the unidentified armed men in the seizure of objects of private or collective property, including with the aim to implement the unlawful nationalization.

On February 2, the truncheon-wielding masked men with chevrons ‘Crimean Lions’ occupied the premises of the Bakhchsarai Branch of the District Consumer Union. On February 6, these armed men, and most of all, the representatives of the ‘Crimean self-defense’ took the employees out of the building against their will. One of the shareholders Anton Levashkin said that the staff did not want to work with the new management, so they were planning to write the letters of resignation. He stated that the shareholders and employees of the District Consumer Union appealed to the police, the local administration and the reception office of the Russian President with a request to stop the unlawful actions of the ‘Crimean self-defense’ and the seizure of the company, but no action was taken.

On February 5, in Simferopol, near the Kuban market, there were the unidentified armed men. According to witnesses, the armed with machine guns men in camouflage uniforms and masks surrounded the main office of the private enterprise Berezhnoy, which owns a chain of stores Vezunchik. The eyewitnesses reported that the same situation was at the office of the company Crimean Sultan, which is engaged in manufacturing the confectioneries and is located near the office of PE Berezhnoy. The owners of enterprises and representatives of the armed group of men refused to comment on the situation.

On February 10, the unidentified armed men in camouflage uniforms seized the offices and property of several companies that provided communications services. Thus, the office of the Sevastopol branch of the company VEGA Telecom was seized. Later, on February 27, the objects of the company in Simferopol, Evpatoria and Yalta were seized.

On February 10, at night, the key facilities of Ukrtelecom in Crimea were seized, probably by the representatives of the ‘Crimean self-defense’. The company representatives said that after the seizure, the remote monitoring system recorded the switching off of the both main networks in Crimea. Thus, the Crimean branch of Ukrtelecom and the company-owned enterprise Trimob were seized.

On February 10, the ‘Crimean self-defense’ seized the lead plant of the National industrial and agricultural association Massandra in Yalta. The employees of the plant reported that the territory of Massandra was entered by the armed ‘Crimean self-defense’, which blocked all the entrances and exits. Earlier, the Massandra plant was transferred to the Russian President Administration, including about four thousand hectares of plant’s vineyards.

On February 22, in Saki, the territory of the motor transport private enterprise Trassa was entered by the bus with a group of unidentified men in black uniforms. The unidentified men took control of all objects of the enterprise, refused to explain the reasons for their actions, threatened the director of the company with physical violence, seized his personal mobile phone, and took the director out of the enterprise premises against his will. The member of the legal service of the Saki City Administration said that the lease agreement shall be considered terminated by the decision of the administration unilaterally, but did not provide the relevant confirming documents. In addition, he confirmed that the administration has not addressed the court for termination of the lease agreement. The arrived police refused to establish the identity of those who seized the object, and did not interfere with their unlawful actions.

THREATS TO PROPERTY RIGHTS

On February 10, under the Order of the Council of Ministers of Crimea No. 82-r11, it was decided to liquidate the company Ayvazovskoe. Oleg Yurievich Kuzmich was appointed the chairman of the liquidation committee. Such a decision may be the basis for taking possession of the property of Ayvazovskoe.

On February 12, the Prosecutor’s office of Crimea publicly stated that in the course of exercising supervision over the implementation of laws in the sphere of land relations, the Prosecutor’s Office of the Republic, in 2014, revealed over 860 violations of the law, including the 215 unlawful legal acts, 192 protests, 91 petitions submitted for recognition void of the decisions adopted by the local self-government bodies in violation of the law.

However, the systemic violations of property rights in Crimea and the established practice of seizure of property objects cast doubt on the decisions approved by the Prosecutor’s Office. Such decisions may serve as a basis for the so-called legalized raiding.

The Prosecutor’s Office of Crimea initiated the review of decisions on the disposal of land plots adopted by March 2014. Such a review, in terms of international standards, is very controversial and creates a serious threat to property rights, since there is no statute of limitations, legal certainty, title guarantee.

The Head of the Public Council of the Ministry of Property and Land Relations of Crimea Irina Trufanova published the information according to which the decisions issued before October 14, 2008, on the allocation of land to private ownership shall be invalidated. The grounds for this decision have not been specified; this information is checked for accuracy.

LABOUR RIGHTS

The Resolution of the Council of Ministers of Crimea No. 658 On approval of the Regulation on the system of remuneration of employees of the state budget and autonomous educational institutions of the Republic of Crimea significantly alters the conditions of work, namely, reduces the wages from a few hundred to a few thousand in connection with the understated coefficients of payroll calculation.

Thus, in early February, the educators were informed that the size of their remuneration as of 2015 shall be revised in accordance with this Resolution and shall be reduced.

The Russian lawyers pointed out that this decision of the local authorities is contrary to the Presidential Decree No. 193 of March 31, 2014 On raising the salaries of public sector employees and the employees of state and municipal authorities of the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol, providing for the social guarantees of citizens residing in the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol.

In addition, in February, it was found that some educators did not receive the wages for January in full. For example, in one of the educational institutions of Bakhchisarai, the 12 holidays were registered as unpaid leave; therefore, these days were not paid for as the work days. In Simferopol there were teachers’ wage arrears. At the end of February, under the application of the Prosecutor’s Office the Simferopol City Administration paid the debt of 130 mln. rubles for 7,500 educators.

In the healthcare the wages have also been reduced to the officially approved salary, which is almost equal to the current subsistence minimum in Crimea. The incentives, which provide for the increase of the salary, were cancelled; their application has not been determined; the staff of

11

http://rk.gov.ru/rus/file/pub/pub_239347.pdf

medical institutions have not been informed about such payments. In addition, the employment contracts with the majority of staff members of healthcare institutions have not been concluded.

Thus, in certain budget sectors, lately, the working conditions have worsened due to the reduction of wages. The lack of employment contracts with the staff of a number of enterprises and institutions significantly reduces the level of protection of such workers.

III. PROBLEMS OF THE RESIDENTS OF CRIMEA WHO HAD TO EXCAPE FROM

THE PENINSULA AND MOVE TO CONTINENTAL UKRAINE (INTERNALLY

DISPLACED PERSONS)

GENERAL SITUATION

The main problems of individuals who were forced to leave Crimea include the issues related to the registration of various documents (such as passport and acts of civil status), the difficulties in accessing social security benefits, a significant limitation of the possibility to visit Crimea (see the relatives and friends) because of the termination of transport communication with Crimea, as well as certain types of discrimination in various spheres.

DISCRIMINATION OF CRIMEANS ON THE BASIS OF PLACE OF RESIDENCE

The Resolution of the Board of the National Bank of Ukraine (NBU) #699 of November 3, 2014 On the application of certain provisions of currency legislation in the regime of temporary occupation of the territory of the free economic zone Crimea12 envisages that a person registered/permanently residing in Crimea shall be considered a non-resident.

The Resolution of December 16, 2014 #81013 introduced amendments to this Resolution, according to which an individual who is an internally displaced person and got the relevant certificate shall be considered a resident of Ukraine. The validity of such a certificate is 6 months.

The use of the term ‘non-resident’ has led to stigmatization of a certain group of people and the formation of a negative attitude towards such persons. In particular, the citizens Y. P. and M. M., both having a registered place of residence in Crimea and working in Kiev in a commercial bank and archival institution, respectively, complained that their management was considering their dismissal because, in the opinion of the management, their further employment shall require the obtaining of work permits for foreigners. This situation is a prime example of stigmatization.

Although the above NBU Resolution does not address the employment and these problems were far-fetched, in fact, as a result of determining a group of citizens as ‘subjects of Crimea’ and giving them the status of non-residents, they encountered a number of actual constraints in accessing the banking services.

Thus, the PJSC UkrSibbank blocked the bank account of citizen D.S. with all her savings. The account was unlocked only after the provision of a certificate of her registration as a person who was displaced from the temporarily occupied territory of Ukraine.

In December 2014, a citizen S.S. was denied the opening of a bank account in the PJSC Raiffeisen Bank Aval as a resident, but was offered to open a current account with the status of a non-resident. The citizen R.M. in early February 2015, was denied the opening of a bank account in the PJSC UkrSibbank as a non-resident, referring to the fact that the technical capability of opening such bank accounts is in the development stage.

The banking institutions differently implement the instructions of the NBU Resolution regarding the accounts opened prior to its adoption. Thus, for example, the PJSC Raiffeisen Bank Aval, in the case of provision of a certificate of registration of a person who was displaced from the temporarily occupied territory of Ukraine, changes the status of the current account without closing it. At the same time, the PJSC BM Bank interprets the Resolution as such that obligates to close the previously opened bank accounts, even in the case of provision of the relevant certificates by

12

http://zakon4.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/v0699500-14

citizens, and in order to continue the service requires to conclude a new agreement and open a new account.

Thus, in connection with the Resolutions of the National Bank of Ukraine, there are five groups of individuals among the ‘subjects of Crimea’, in respect of which the restrictions apply differently (or do not apply at all):

• the Ukrainian citizens that were registered and permanently reside in Crimea and have no certificate of the internally displaced persons (IDPs): they are actually deprived of the opportunity to use banking services, but usually they do not need them;

• the Ukrainian citizens whose place of residence is registered in Crimea, but which left Crimea after March 16, 2014: such persons are able to obtain a certificate of IDPs, and thus restore the status of a resident for the next 6 months;

• the Ukrainian citizens whose place of residence is registered in Crimea, but which for a long time have resided in the mainland Ukraine, left Crimea before March 16, 2014: such persons are deprived of the opportunity to obtain a certificate of IDPs, and thus generally cannot restore the status of a resident for the next 6 months. For example, the citizen M.M., who has a registered place of residence in Crimea, was denied a certificate of a person that was displaced from the temporarily occupied territory of Ukraine, with reference to the fact that there were no circumstances which led to the displacement from the temporarily occupied territory of Ukraine because she had lived in Kiev since 2011;

• the Ukrainian citizens with a registered place of residence in Crimea, but who periodically travel to mainland Ukraine without the intention to leave Crimea (i.e., not IDPs): they are deprived of access to the banking services;

• the Ukrainian citizens with a place of residence registered in the mainland of Ukraine, but who have been the long-term residents of Crimea and do not intend to leave Crimea. The number of such citizens, which proved in court that they have resided in Crimea for a long time without registration, according to various sources, constitutes more than 15 thousand people (including Sevastopol).

The citizens S.S., R.M., A.M., I.M., D.S. and the LLC Audit Firm Lex Service, Ltd. appealed against this Resolution of the NBU in the District Administrative Court (case No. 826 / 17587/14). The lawsuit was based on the fact that the setting for the ‘subjects of Crimea’ of restrictions on access to the banking services, which are not envisaged for the Ukrainian citizens, who have the place of registration in other regions of Ukraine, is a discrimination based on the place of residence.

The position of the above persons was supported by the Human Rights Commissioner of the Verkhovna Rada, who in December 2014, opened the proceedings and approved a decision on the presence of its representative during the consideration of the said case.

The Resolution of January 22, 2015 of the panel of judges of the District Administrative Court dismissed the claim. The Court considered that the actions of the NBU were justified, based on the law, not related and not intended to discriminate the individuals on the basis of their place of residence and were related to the temporary occupation of the territory of Ukraine, having a legitimate aim, on the basis of which the court concluded that there was no discrimination. However, the applicants do not agree with such a decision, and currently the case is under the review by appeal.

The review was prepared by:

Vissarion Aseev, analyst of the Center of Civic Education Almenda;

Victoria Gromova, representative of the Crimean Field Mission on Human Rights in Moscow;

Sergey Zaets, lawyer, Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union;

Alexandra Krylenkova, field coordinator of the Crimean Field Mission on Human Rights;

Roman Martynovsky, expert of the Regional Human Rights Centre;

Tetiana Pechonchyk, Chairman of the Board of the Human Rights Information Centre;

Dariia Sviridova, lawyer, Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union;

Olga Skrypnik, Deputy Head of the Crimean Field Mission on Human Rights.