Serhiy Kyslytsya: Solution lies in the realm of law and diplomacy. This, however, takes routine and painstaking work.

Transcription

1 #4 (12) 2018 IN THE CENTER OF ATTENTION The US Declared Non-Recognition Policy on Occupied Crimea page 3 THE TRUTH ABOUT THE CRIMEA Expropriation of Ukrainian property in Crimea pages 8-9 HISTORY AND CULTURE Serhiy Hromenko: Russia has nether legal nor historical rights to Crimea page 14 Serhiy Kyslytsya: Solution lies in the realm of law and diplomacy. This, however, takes routine and painstaking work.

2 FACTS TV reports transmitted on the situation in Crimea 302 over a period of one week. Such is the outcome of the monitoring conducted by the National Council of Television and Radio Broadcasting of Ukraine with a view to learn how various matters relating to Crimea are covered by Ukrainian TV channels. Among the ongoing issues reported are the current situation in Crimea, the persecution of Ukrainian nationals, and the cases of political prisoners. Russia is compelled to suspend its Decree banning the Mejlis in Crimea The UN International Court has forwarded its demand to the Russian Federation for the implementation of a mandatory clause of its Order concerning the reinstatement of the Mejlis in Crimea. Ukraine s Foreign Ministry received this information in a letter from the UN Court. On 19 April 2018, the Foreign Ministry of Ukraine requested the UN ICJ to confirm Russia s obligation to lift its ban on the activities of the Mejlis pursuant to the Order issued by the UN International Court on 19 April In its letter, the Court fulfilled this request, indicating to Russia that the Order is of a binding nature, and the demand for the resumption of activities of the Mejlis is explicit and requires concrete measures to be taken. Russia must bring about these actions and inform the Court accordingly, the Foreign Ministry of Ukraine reports. I welcome the decision of the Council of the European Union to impose sanctions against six legal persons involved in the illegal construction of the Kerch Bridge! Combined with the June decision of the EU Council to extend the entire Crimean package of sanctions against Russia until June 23, 2019, and the historic Pompeo s Crimea Declaration, the Kremlin received a rigid and powerful answer to the question of Crimean belonging and status. I instructed the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to intensify their work on the further tightening of sanctions against the Russian aggressor and any individuals or legal persons involved in the attempt of annexation and temporary occupation of the Ukrainian Crimea. President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko The Russian Prime again visits Crimea in contempt for the International Law Ukraine s Foreign Ministry has protested strongly at the visit of Dmitriy Medvedev, Prime Minister of Russia, to the temporarily occupied territory of Ukraine on July The visit by D. Medvedev to the Autonomous Republic of Crimea is a flagrant violation of the State sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine, and an outright and cynical contempt shown by the Russian party for the rules and obligations of International Law under bilateral and multilateral international treaties to which Ukraine and Russia are parties, the Declaration by the Foreign Ministry states. The EU slaps sanctions on the companies involved in the construction of the Kerch Strait Bridge The European Union has expanded its sanction list against Russia by adding restrictive measures against six Russian businesses involved in the construction of the Kerch Strait Bridge. This decision appeared in the Official Journal of the EU on 30 July Included in the sanction list are: Institute Giprostroymost-Saint-Petersburg and VAD (Saint Petersburg) joint-stock companies, Zaliv Shipyard based in Kerch, and three Moscow companies: PJSC Mostotrest, Stroygazmontazh Corporation (SGM Group), and Stroygazmontazh-Most Ltd. Crimea Inform Magazine, No. 4 (12). Certificate of State Registration КВ Р of Founder: Ukrinform Ukrainian National News Agency. Publisher: PE Company Apollon, 79054, Lviv, Yavornitskogo, 8/82, tel.: +38 (032) , +38 (067) , imperial@mail.lviv.ua. Editor in Chief: Kazdobina Y. Address of the editorial office: B. Khmelnytskoho, str. 8/16, Kiev, 01001, tel.: (044) ; fax: (044) , office@ukrinform.ua. Reprint only with written permission of the editorial office. Published by: Imperial Group Company LLC. Address: 79056, Lviv, Haiduchka, str. 1, tel. +38 (032) , +38 (063) , imperial@mail.lviv.ua Order no. КА from Circulation: 2695 copies. Distributed free of charge.

3 IN THE CENTER OF ATTENTION The US Declared Non-Recognition Policy on Occupied Crimea On July 25 the US Secretary of State Michael Pompeo declared the policy of non-recognition of Russia s attempted annexation of Crimea. A number of western countries and international organizations followed suite. Ukraine reiterated that its sovereignty over Crimea was non-negotiable. Russia was defiant. The US Crimea Declaration stressed that by the attempted annexation of Crimea, Russia sought to undermine a bedrock international principle shared by democratic states: that no country can change the borders of another by force. The document called on Russia to end its occupation of Crimea and stated that from then on the US was going to pursue the non-recognition policy similar to that proclaimed in the Welles Declaration of 1940, which refused to recognize the Soviet invasion of the Baltic states. The non-recognition policy would stay in place until Ukraine s territorial integrity is restored. The Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko welcomed the declaration and thanked Donald Trump s Administration for its uncompromising position and support of Ukraine s territorial integrity. Crimea belongs to Ukraine and it is not negotiable - it wasn t, isn t and can t be compromised, Poroshenko stressed. He said he hoped the declaration would finally deprive Kremlin of its imperial illusions. Great Britain, Poland, the European Union, Germany and Canada came out in support of Michael Pompeo s statement. In his statement, the spokesperson of the British Foreign Office said we condemn Russia s continued breach of international law; Crimea is Ukrainian territory. He also expressed his concern over the human rights situation in Crimea, persecution of minorities and called on Russia to release political prisoners. We are fully introducing our non-recognition policy, in particular by the restrictive measures, a spokesperson for the European Union said. He stressed that the Russian occupation was a direct defiance of the international security and posed a threat to the international order which protects unity and sovereignty of all states. In a statement placed on the website of the Canadian government on July 28, Canada also condemned the actions of the Russian Federation and reaffirmed its enduring commitment to Ukraine s territorial integrity. It called for the release of all illegally detained Ukrainian citizens, including Oleh Sentsov and stressed that Russia also targeted the Crimean cultural heritage and mistreated the Crimean Tatar population and their historic sites. The tone of the Russian MFA was mocking. Citing the recent changes in the US foreign policy on the Iranian nuclear program and climate change, the spokeswoman of the Russian Foreign Ministry Maria Zakharova insinuated We know the value of these fateful declarations. The Russian embassy to the United States wrote on its Facebook page that the declaration convinced them that our partners live in a different reality. # 4 (12) 2018 / CRIMEA INFORM 3

4 RESONANCE The drafting of proposed amendments to Chapter X of the Constitution of Ukraine ( Autonomous Republic of Crimea ) as ordered by the President is in progress. The Task Force recently adopted the final version of these proposals, and forwarded it to the Constitutional Committee Secretariat. Once finalized, the President of Ukraine will submit the Draft document to the Verkhovna Rada. We are talking about changes pending in the Constitution with Arsen Zhumadilov, a Task Force expert and Advisor to the Chairman of Crimean Tatar People s Mejlis. Arsen Zhumadilov: The Right to Self-determination of the Crimean Tatar People is the Source of a Special Status of the Crimean Autonomy. What are the proposals developed by the Task Force? The first and principal provision states that the right to self-determination of the Crimean Tatar People is the source of the special status of the Crimean Autonomy. We suggest that this proviso is added to Article 134 of the Constitution of Ukraine, stating that Crimea is an integral part of Ukraine. In this way we switch from a territorial to a national-and-territorial approach behind the establishment of the autonomy. Another key amendment aims at protecting and promoting the development of the Crimean Tatar language in Crimea. We suggest that a provision on the use of the Crimean Tatar language in the peninsula alongside the State language, i.e. Ukrainian with some exceptions, obtains a Constitutional status. We are actually laying down the foundation for the development of the language that was being exterminated throughout centuries, similarly to Ukrainian. Will the Kurultai and Mejlis of Crimean Tatar people also obtain a Constitutional status? Yes of course. The Kurultai and Mejlis will be given the status of representative bodies of the Crimean Tatar people, as laid down in the Constitution. Why is this of such significance? Primarily, because this will allow us to avoid any manipulation as to who really should represent the Crimean Tatars in their relationships with the authorities. What powers will the Kurultai and Mejlis have? Article 135 will read that the Constitution of Crimea shall be approved by the Verkhovna Rada of Crimea and adopted by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine in coordination with the Kurultai of the Crimean Tatar people. The Kurultai and Mejlis will also be authorised to decide, together with the official authorities and local governments, on those matters directly related to the Crimean Tatar people. The range of these issues cannot be set out in full in the Constitution, therefore the authorities assigned to the Kurultai and Mejlis will be laid down in the laws of Ukraine. Does it mean that the Verkhovna Rada has to examine and approve such authorities? Yes, and the relevant documents are already being drafted. Most importantly one has to understand the idea behind the proposed amendments to the Constitution: neither the Kurultai, nor the Mejlis will replace the authorities or local governments. However, these amendments will introduce such mechanisms that will allow the representative bodies of the Crimean Tatar people to interact and cooperate with the authorities and local governments on a wider basis, as regards any matters related to Crimean Tatars. Finally, another key amendment is to restore historic justice with regard to the representation of the Crimean Tatar people in the legislative branch in Crimea. The amendment provides that 34 out of the 100 Deputies of the Verkhovna Rada of Crimea, ie slightly more than one-third, will be elected as part of the Crimean Tatar people s quota. In addition, the concept of a Special Administration is added to the Constitution. This administration is to be introduced by the President of Ukraine in the event of any real danger to either the territorial integrity or the State sovereignty of Ukraine, arising in Crimea. This will serve as a precautionary instrument, something that was absent in 2014, and that has to ensure that in the future the repeat of any similar occurrences will be impossible. 4 CRIMEA INFORM / # 4 (12) 2018

5 POSITION Serhiy Kyslytsya: Solution lies in the realm of law and diplomacy. This, however, takes routine and painstaking work. What efforts is Ukraine making internationally to liberate Crimea? Most significant and comprehensive is the decision approved by the UN General Assembly on 27 March 2014, supporting the territorial integrity of Ukraine within the borders recognized by the international law and international community. This decision serves as our guidelines with regard to Crimea and the East of Ukraine alike. Resulting from our daily work at the UN General Assembly level, two more resolutions on Crimea were adopted in 2016 and They have principal significance, because they introduce Russia s status as the occupying country at the UN governing body s level. This means that the requirement to comply with the humanitarian law comes into force with regard to Russia. Consequently, among other things, the Russian Federation must enforce Ukrainian law in Crimea. The work has also been carried out in other International organisations. The Baku Declaration and other documents adopted by the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly acknowledged that Russia, having invaded Crimea, has violated all the basic principles of the OSCE. The Committee of Ministers of the European Council and PACE adopted several decisions concerning the occupation of Crimea. Also a number of Resolutions were adopted in Geneva, in particular by the Human Rights Council. UNESCO took decisions on the direct monitoring of the situation in Crimea, which UNESCO views as a part of the Ukrainian territory. However, the problem is that the Russian Federation neglects the decisions of International organisations, despite a whole chunk of them adopted as of today. It does this whilst being a permanent member of the UN Security Council, and it is the Security Council that, according to the UN Charter, bears the main responsibility for maintaining International peace and security. I would dare say that we are talking about outcomes that are not just a failure to implement the decisions pertaining to the Russian/Ukrainian conflict, but display the disregard shown by Russia to the complete system of International relations built up after WWII. Of what significance are the adopted Resolutions, if Russia ignores them? # 4 (12) 2018 / CRIMEA INFORM 5

6 POSITION Firstly, we are dealing with a situation that will not be resolved either today or tomorrow. It requires daily painstaking work that often provides no spectacular photo opportunities. Without this work, however, it would be a daunting task to bring home Ukraine s position for example in The Hague. The decisions made by the UN General Assembly, and governing bodies of other International organisations, are part of the overall legal position, and even sometimes pillars on which Ukraine s position in the courts is based. Even if we take the environmental issues, just imagine the size of environmental damage inflicted by the aggressors, the way they extract mineral resources and the coastal foreshore is being ruined. Let us recall how many billions have been spent in order to overcome the environmental damage after the GDR reunited with Germany Similar processes will take place in the presently occupied territories of Ukraine. However, the above-mentioned decisions will become part of our claims to receive compensation from the aggressor towards the renovation of Crimea and other territories. Also, the Crimean issue is raised at all international events involving different government agencies. Take, for instance, the International Telecommunication Union. Where should Crimea belong when we talk of phone communications, satellite communications or the allocation of frequencies? The UN General Assembly Resolutions are very important in this respect, I would like to emphasise strongly that there is no military solution to the Crimea issue. Solution lies in the realm of law and diplomacy. This, however, takes routine and painstaking work... providing guidance for all organisations: they recognize Russia as an occupying power. What has Ukraine achieved during the period of its membership in the UN Security Council? Our delegations have continuously, and in various formats, raised the issue of Russian aggression against Ukraine. Apart from the Security Council we continued working with other UN bodies. Unfortunately, due to the specific nature of these procedures, we could not avoid the fact, that Russia has the right of veto. By the way, it has, to some degree, been forgotten that in 2014, before Ukraine tabled a Resolution at the General Assembly on the territorial integrity, Russia had blocked a similar decision in the Security Council. It also vetoed the resolution on the investigation of the tragedy with the Malaysian MH17 plane in July Given the obstruction by the aggressor country of issues related to its actions in Ukraine, the Security Council is limited to producing only watered-down documents and decisions concerning the Russian aggression. Take, for instance a Press statement issued on 31 January 2017 in relation to the aggravation of the situation around Avdiyivka, or a recent statement by the Security Council President on the situation in Donbas. Such documents are not voted on, but adopted by consensus. Unfortunately, their wording is not as strong as we would wish them to be. Russia absolutely would not allow this. Today, it is practically impossible to influence this. Nevertheless, of course politicians 6 CRIMEA INFORM / # 4 (12) 2018

7 POSITION and experts do exist who think that Russia should be deprived of the right of veto, but this issue is not going to be resolved in the immediate future. However, little strokes fell great oaks! We should not stop, or give up, since everything that is done today will stand us in good stead tomorrow. Does Ukraine have any vision regarding the veto power? Different visions exist. A radical approach suggests that Russia should not even be a member of the UN Security Council, because it received its membership under dubious circumstances, at the time when the Soviet Union dissolved. Ukraine is one of the initiators of proposals related to the curtailment of this veto power, in particular when large-scale crimes against humanity, or genocide, are considered, and also to the actual curtailment of the rights of a Security Council member in a conflict situation where this member, as in the case with Russia, is an aggressor. I think this also involves the practical employment of the UN Charter provisions, and in particular Article 27 thereof. Nevertheless, the Security Council is a body that on a daily basis considers issues that jeopardise global security. Let us take the Syrian conflict, for example, where hundreds of thousands people have perished. Or the Middle East problem, Iran s issue, that of maintaining peace in Africa. Russia is wielding its veto power very successfully. Whether or not we like it, neither the UN, nor individual countries, are able to resolve that same Syrian conflict without communicating with Russia. At the same time, despite the regular re-elections to the Security Council, Russia was unable at any time to get decisions adopted re Ukraine that were not supported by our partners both permanent and non-permanent Security Council members. Even in procedural matters, not covered by the veto power, Russia has repeatedly failed to achieve the required number of votes. Russia looks forwards to a subtle and imperceptible erosion with regard to the po- Serhiy Kyslytsia and Mustafa Dzhemilev sition on Crimea in the UN. In one case it will provide its own statistics according to which Crimea belongs to Russia, and in another one resort to implementing various other tactics. We will at once retaliate at any such body or organisation that accepts these statistics and thus fails to comply fully with the decisions of the General Assembly. What are the next steps to be taken by Ukraine? The President has tasked us with preparing a new resolution on Crimea. We will advance it at the next session of the UN General Assembly. It will be based on the two previous resolutions, however it will take into account the situation as of today. It is important that the UN is drafting Reports on Crimea to implement the previous two Resolutions. A new Report will be published in September. We will use this, and its provisions, in the drafting of a new Resolution that will contain stronger assessments of the failure by Russia to implement the relevant decisions. I would like to emphasise strongly that there is no military solution to the Crimea issue. Solution lies in the realm of law and diplomacy. This, however, takes routine and painstaking work. Even just one memorandum submitted to the International Court of Justice contains hundreds or even thousands of pages with a huge amount of facts making up the evidence body. It is therefore important to organise the coordinated work of all those involved in it. We are working in close cooperation with other ministries and agencies, and enjoy broad support from our colleagues. I am very grateful to Mustafa Dzhemilev. In November 2016, he travelled to New York, despite his very busy schedule, to advocate the first resolution on the Human Rights situation in the occupied Crimea. He was holding meetings morning till night, until the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly adopted this Resolution. I am also grateful to civil society members, including those based in Crimea, for the work they often do in assisting us in the collection of information required for the evidence body. To conclude, Crimea will be Ukrainian without any doubt. It will return to Ukraine, and this will not be accomplished through military tactics. # 4 (12) 2018 / CRIMEA INFORM 7

8 THE TRUTH ABOUT THE CRIMEA Expropriation of Ukrainian property in Crimea The annexation of Crimea by Russia has brought about massive and continual violations of the right to property one of the most fundamental rights in the democratic world. Such violations are not limited to the Stateowned national property and cultural heritage sites that were nationalized by the de facto Crimean authorities. This right is also being breached with regard to land, minerals, water and other natural resources that, according to the Constitution of Ukraine (Article 13), fall under the right of ownership of the Ukrainian peoples. Also reported are numerous violations of private property rights in the peninsula. Illegally nationalized property of the production and agrarian association Massandra How the property was appropriated Yulia Tyschenko, an expert at the Ukrainian Independent Centre for Political Research, singles out several stages in the appropriation by the occupation authorities of public and private property in Crimea. The first stage which occurred almost immediately upon the annexation of Crimea resulted in the nationalization of public property. On 17 March the self-appointed Verkhovna Rada of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea approved a Resolution Re the Independence of Crimea. It reassigned all Ukrainian property to the Republic of Crimea or those relevant organisations operating at that time in the peninsula. On the same day, Chornomornaftogaz PJSC, a company engaged in the extraction and transportation of gas and oil, was nationalized together with other State-owned companies. The self-proclaimed regime took control over seventeen oil-and-gas deposits in the Black Sea shelf. Subsequently, de facto authorities issued a number of documents concerning the nationalization of property in various sectors. The second stage was the nationalization or the so-called buy-out of large private companies. In this way, the assets of Ukrtelecom PJSC, together with its subsidiary 3Mob, Krymenergo DTEK, Krymkhlib PJSC, etc. were nationalized. Yulia Tyschenko states: The expropriation of Ukrainian public and private property actually took place in Crimea, and this nationalization/privatization procedure violated even Russian laws, let alone the International law. With regard to private assets, this is a direct breach by Russia of the Agreement between the Governments of the Russian Federation and Ukraine of 1998 on the Promotion and Mutual Protection of Investment. The Agreement, ratified by both countries, provides for a protection mechanism for investment from unlawful expropriation, nationalization, etc, the expert says. Reallocation of stolen assets The next stage in Ukraine s property appropriation was the reallocation of seized businesses. Some of them, such as Krymska Zaliznytsia (Crimean Railway), were transferred into Russia s federal ownership, the relevant decision being approved in Moscow at government level. Back in 2014, the self-appointed Crimean authorities turned over the facilities of Yusupov s Palace and Park Array, the Crimean natural reserves and Masandra national concern, etc. for the use of the Office of the President. These were followed by the assets of the Artek International Children s Centre, universities, and the Academy of Science of Ukraine. 8 CRIMEA INFORM / # 4 (12) 2018

9 THE TRUTH ABOUT THE CRIMEA Crimeanenergo property illegally nationalized by Russia So-called privatization started concurrently. In 2016, the nationalized health resort of Foros was sold to the Tatarstan Trade Union Federation at auction for bln roubles (around USD 18.3 mln at the then exchange rate). In July 2018, the Ai-Petri, Miskhor, and Dulber health resorts were sold. In terms of the national law, all assets in Crimea are currently in the ownership of those same persons to whom they belonged before the occupation. This provision is set out in the Law Re Securing the Rights and Freedoms of Citizens and the Legal Regime in the Temporarily Occupied Territory of Ukraine enacted in April 2014, says Yuriy Smelianskyy, an expert on issues related to the temporarily occupied territories at the Maidan of Foreign Affair, and co-founder of the Institute of Black Sea Strategic Research, a charity organisation. Any agreement signed or fulfilled in Crimea is null and void from the standpoint of the Ukrainian National Law. Protection of property rights by lawful owners Ukraine is employing all available legal mechanisms to protect its property rights in the occupied territory. Yuriy Lutsenko, the Prosecutor General, reported that Ukraine has forwarded a letter to the International Criminal Court of Justice concerning ten facts of the breach of individual property rights in Crimea, that are being investigated within seven criminal proceedings. Previously, Ukraine had brought several actions before the European Court of Human Rights. In May 2018, The Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights relinquished jurisdiction over four Ukraine v. Russia cases in favour of the Grand Chamber. The EUHR has also received hundreds of appeals from legal persons and individuals concerning the events in Crimea. Such appeals have also been filed in international arbitration bodies. Article 1 of the First Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms states that every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, and that no one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law, says Serhiy Zaets, a lawyer and expert at the Regional Centre for Human Rights. He further adds that, as a rule, any applicant would have previously exhausted all other possible means of protecting his rights in those courts whose decisions Russia recognizes and is willing to fulfil, before proceeding with invoking the above article in the ECHR. I mean Russian courts, and among them those in occupied Crimea. No other way exists, Serhiy Zaets contends. He believes that the award of the ECHR Grand Chamber in the Ukraine v. Russia > 4000 case will be of great importance to proceedings in appeals filed in the ECHR by individual persons. The experts agree that the Grand Chamber has to lay down valid principles on which other awards will be based. We fully anticipate that the award will include a statement to the effect that occupation has taken place and that Russia is fully responsible for all outcomes resulting from this occupation, the lawyer states. It should be mentioned that the International Arbitration Court in The Hague decided a case brought by eighteen companies and one individual regarding the breach of the Investment Protection Agreement by Russia. According to Olena Zerkal, the Deputy Foreign Minister of Ukraine, the Court ruled that the Russian nationalization in Crimea is a breach of the Investment Agreement. Russia has to pay out USD 159,000,000 as compensation to the claimants. Ukrainian businesses were seized in Crimea according to the Ukrainian Prosecutor General s Office. > UAH 1 trillion (USD 37.7 billion) The total sum of losses inflicted on the State of Ukraine exceeds The Simferopol bakery is illegally nationalized > UAH 2.4 trillion (USD billion) is the estimated sum of losses borne by Ukrainian legal persons and individuals due to the annexation of Crimea by Russia. The Ministry of Justice of Ukraine has set up an Inter-departmental Task Force to draw up a method for the estimation of losses. This estimation work is in progress # 4 (12) 2018 / CRIMEA INFORM 9

10 THE TERRITORY OF DISCRIMINATION People are abducted and freedom of expression is infringed in Crimea 22nd Report by the UN Monitoring Mission in Ukraine The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) has published its 22nd Report on the situation in Ukraine based on the work of the United Nations Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine and covering the period from 16 February to 15 May Its Section VIII traditionally highlights Human Rights issues in the occupied Crimea. During the reporting period, 24 cases were documented, involving 54 human rights violations, the Report says. OHCHR focuses on enforced disappearance of people, criminalisation of free expression, violations of election rights, and infringement of property rights. Enforced disappearance A Kharkiv resident disappeared at the Russian Federation-controlled side of the Administrative Boundary Line between Crimea and mainland Ukraine on 11 April 2018, the UN Monitoring mission reports. OHCHR received information that the victim was initially detained by the Russian Federation Federal Security Service (FSB) with no official charges. This was followed by a further formal detention of this Kharkiv resident for a period of 12 days, allegedly for committing an administrative offence. On the day when he was supposed to be released, he disappeared again. His whereabouts as of 15 May 2018 were still not known. The Report also details two additional cases of abduction that occurred previously. Freedom of opinion and expression Two convictions challenging the right to freedom of opinion and expression were issued during the reporting period. On 1 March, a Crimean Tatar man was given a two-year suspended sentence and forbidden from posting messages on the internet and social media, because of his comments that Crimea is Ukraine, it has always been, it is and it will always be! The Court found him guilty of expressing publicly the violations regarding the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation. On 15 March, the Supreme Court of Crimea upheld the conditional prison sentence of a female resident of Crimea, also for a Facebook post. She received a suspended sentence of 22 months. In both cases, in violation of the presumption of innocence, the names of the accused were added to the so-called State List of Extremists prior to their conviction. Pressure to vote The election of the President of the Russian Federation that took place in Crimea on 18 March 2017 is a violation of three concurrent United Nations General Assembly Resolutions, ie 68/262 of 27 March 2014, 71/205 of 19 December 2016, and 72/190 of 19 December 2017, the Report says. Simultaneously, a resident of Sevastopol, who had drawn the attention of other citizens to their right of refusal to take part in the election, was sentenced to 11 days of administrative detention. OHCHR received reports of pressure applied in Crimea on teachers, medical staff and local government employees to vote in order to ensure a high turnout, the document also states. Forcible transfers and deportations persist On 2 February, 23 Ukrainian citizens who worked at a construction site in Crimea were deported by court order and banned from entering Crimea for a period of five years. They were held in a temporary detention facility in Russia s Krasnodar region before being deported. Confiscation of property in Crimea OHCHR points out that under international humanitarian law, private property cannot be confiscated under any circumstances. Notwithstanding, crimes by the occupying forces against private property continue in Crimea. Judicial practices remain inconsistent, with 334 land plot confiscations approved or upheld on appeal by the courts throughout the same period, the Report states. 10 CRIMEA INFORM / # 4 (12) 2018

11 THE TERRITORY OF DISCRIMINATION Petro Vyhivskyy: They beat my son, and on several occasions took him to a forest for a staged execution Valentyn Vyhivskyy is one of the Kremlin s first political prisoners. Also, the first political prisoner that Ukraine attempted to free, based on provisions of the Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons. In November 2017, Russia refused his extradition without providing any explanations, thus violating the Convention. We are talking with his father, Petro Vyhivskyy, about the arrest, the sentence, and the attempts to free Valentyn. How was Valentyn arrested? My son has been passionate about aviation since his childhood. Over many years he communicated via social networks with similar amateurs and professionals in different countries. He was working, however, in another field trading in spare auto parts. Following his arrest, it became clear that one of his acquaintances, a Russian woman, whose hobby was also aviation, was raising funds among her friends towards a cancer surgery for a relative. My son travelled to Crimea which was already occupied to give her some money for the medical treatment. However, as was later revealed, this was a special and covert operation by Russian intelligence services: he was lured out to Crimea so he could be arrested. We spent a great deal of time searching for him in Ukraine and in the occupied Crimea. Then we received information that he was in prison in Moscow, and was suspected of gathering commercial information Did Valentyn experience any pressure in the Detention Facility? Only if torture could be referred to as pressure My son is reluctant to talk about this. However, based on what we know they beat him and on several occasions took him out to a forest for a staged execution. During the investigation, he was asked on many occasions to either take Russian citizenship or return to Ukraine and work for Russia. He flatly declined these proposals. Nevertheless, he pled guilty? Yes, he did, after 7 months of torture, and under the threat of a 20-year imprisonment. He was not allowed any visits, and the Consul was not granted any access to him. He was promised a shorter term of sentence and improved imprisonment conditions in exchange for pleading guilty. In February 2017, the Darnitsky Court in Kyiv acknowledged the verdict brought by the Russian courts It was necessary to commence the procedure of transferring Valentyn to Ukraine under the Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons. At first, Russia seemed to agree and produced the necessary documents for us. Ukraine held the necessary court hearing. However, they then retracted their promise of extradition, with no reasons given. Since then, all Ukrainians have been refused extradition under this procedure. What other possibilities to free Valentyn are available? We are looking forward to an exchange, and expect that Russia will change its position under pressure from the international community. How is your son now? Throughout his whole term in the detention facility and in the colony, Valentyn was kept in a single cell. In February he was transferred to another single cell, however this was a solitary confinement cell, as punishment for alleged repeated violations. The question must be asked: what violations are possible in a cell holding just one person? I think he was punished for his obstinacy, and for the letters he sent home, since he is a very straightforward person, and makes no attempt to hide his negative attitude towards the Russian regime. In the detention facility he is not entitled to any visits, phone calls or packages. He can use a small amount of money in the prison shop, etc. We keep in touch with our son via the Consul who visits him once every three months, and from time to time corresponds with him. It seems that many of his letters are not passed on. Valentyn is holding on in there, managing the best he can, although he is dearly missing his family, especially his little son. # 4 (12) 2018 / CRIMEA INFORM 11

12 DETAILS AND TRENDS Barbaric restoration works in the Khan s Palace in Bakhchisarai In March 2018, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) issued a report on the deterioration of the situation with the protection of the cultural heritage of Crimea occupied by Russia. A special emphasis in this report is placed on the state of conservation of the cultural property Khan s palace in Bakhchisarai, which was submitted to the World Heritage Tentative List in 2003 as a site of the national significance of Ukraine as well as an integral part of the cultural heritage of the Crimean Tatar people. The Russian occupying authorities, having registered the illegal appropriation of the 32 historic buildings of the Bakhchysarai Crimean Khan s Palace, launched the large-scale barbaric restoration works in this site in total defiance of international law, in particular of relevant UNESCO Conventions, the document says. During the removal of tiles and old oak beams from the Big Khan Mosque, the murals of the 18th century were damaged. Cracks appeared on the facade of the building, and plaster crashed due to the application of cleaning technology that uses high pressure water hosing. Also, a metal canopy is being built around part of the Main Building of the Khan s Palace in order to ensure protection of the site during restoration works on the roofing of the Divan room and the Golden Parlour. Due to the heavy load of metalwork there is a threat of destruction of the monument. The most alarming fact is that all these restoration works are supervised by construction personnel that have neither experience nor qualification in restoration of historic buildings. Such violent and off-hand actions pose a real threat of destruction of this unparalleled historical monument, the authors of this report have warned. Edem Dudakov, the former Head of the Committee for Inter-Ethnic Relations and Deported Citizens Affairs, contended in February 2018 that the occupiers have violated Article 12 of the Venice Charter of 1964, stating that during the restoration of The Khan s Palace, the only Crimean landmark included in the UNESCO s 2012 Presentation Project, is being transformed into a poorly replicated sham. They are destroying the landmark s identity. They are destroying the history and the technology used by ancient builders. By doing this, they are deliberately banishing Bakhchisarai from the UNESCO Project architectural sites, the elements used to replace missing parts must integrate harmoniously with the whole, but at the same time must be distinguishable from the original so that restoration does not falsify the site as a work of art or a historical document. Dudakov said that the company engaged in the Palace restoration has destroyed the ancient elements of the building. Archaic solid wood beams, according to him, were replaced by composite beams using OSB technology; hand-made tiles are being replaced with commercial reproductions brought from Spain. In addition, concrete is being used in the restoration work, causing erosion of limestone walls, and increasing the load on the building foundation. Murals are being destroyed through the incompetence of the construction workers, and modern materials are constantly used that do not correspond and have no relevance to the historic period. The Khan s Palace, the only Crimean landmark included in UNESCO s 2012 Presentation Project, is being transformed into a poorly replicated sham. They are destroying the landmark s identity. They are destroying the history and the technology used by ancient builders. By doing this, they are deliberately banishing Bakhchisarai from the UNESCO Project, Dudakov summarized. 12 CRIMEA INFORM / # 4 (12) 2018

13 Elmira Ablialimova: The Khan s Palace in Bakhchisarai is of a special deep cerebral and spiritual significance to the Crimean Tatars The Khan s Palace in Bakhchisarai is much more than just a historical landmark for the Crimean Tatars. We are discussing this with Elmira Ablialimova, a former Director of the Khan s Palace Museum and Reserve. DETAILS AND TRENDS What exactly is the Bakhchisarai Khan s Palace? There are more than 180 sites managed by the Bakhchisarai Historical and Cultural Reserve. The Khan s Palace is a large palace cluster comprised of several dozen buildings; actually covering the whole area of the Bakhchisarai Palace, Khans Cemetery, Palace Square, the Main Building, Eagle s Tower, the Harem and Stable building, Large and Small Khan s Mosques, Golden Fountain, and the Fountain of Tears, Ambassador s Yard, etc. Included is even the sea-front esplanade and three bridges. The Palace dates back to the 16th/18th cc. This was the main residence of the Crimean Khanate rulers of the Giray dynasty that originated as a branch of the Chingizid dynasty. The construction of the Palace began in the 1530s, in the valley of the river Churuk-Su. Throughout several centuries, the cluster was extended, with each khan adding several elements of his own. This is why it features a complex configuration and a variety of different styles. This cluster is of a great cultural importance to the Crimean Tatars because it represents a complete cultural and historical layer. Why is the Bakhchisarai Palace so important to Crimean Tatars? To date, this is probably the only landmark in Crimea testifying to the nationhood of the Crimean Tatar people; the evolution, the development of our people in this territory, and the existence of their state. Hence its high spiritual value for Crimean Tatars. It should be noted that it was in the Palace Square of the Khan s Palace that the first Kurultai of the Crimean Tatars was held in Today s situation with the Bakhchisarai Khan s Palace evokes parallels with its history. During the first annexation of Crimea, the Russian authorities also, almost immediately, began work on the Palace restoration. Yes indeed three or four years following the first annexation, a reconstruction of the Khan s Palace was started, prior to the visit of Catherine II. The same has happened now: four years after the annexation the so-called reconstruction began. By and large, this can be viewed as much more than only as a huge disrespect to the Crimean Tatar culture and history. To my mind, this is an element of the systematic political actions aimed at the extermination of Crimean Tatars as Crimea s indigenous people. Leaving aside the subject of the Bakhchisarai Palace I have studied several publications by the Archaeology Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences, and have noticed this trend: they exclude the word Crimean from the Crimean Tatar collocation, simply stating: Tatar burials, Tatars of Crimea, etc. They have brought in the idea of renaming Crimea as Tavrida, planting it into the public consciousness. Constant pressure is exerted: criminal cases, detentions, arrest of Crimean Tatar activists. All these facts bring us to the conclusion that a targeted policy of extermination of the Crimean Tatars in Crimea is being consistently pursued; a policy aimed at forcing the Crimean Tatar people to leave their native land. The explanation is simple: the very existence of Crimean Tatars in Crimea, our historiography and ethnography shatter the ideological paradigm that Russia is introducing in the peninsula that Crimea always was, is, and will be Russian. This is why, both during the first annexation, and also today, long-term plans are constantly implemented in order to destroy the historical memories, and to change the mentality of our people. Rewriting history and destroying monuments these are links of the same chain. # 4 (12) 2018 / CRIMEA INFORM 13

14 HISTORY AND CULTURE Serhiy Hromenko: Russia has nether legal nor historical rights to Crimea The book, #Crimea is Ours. History of the Russian Myth by the Ukrainian historian Serhiy Hromenko, has surely become a significant phenomenon in Ukraine and was very positively received abroad. The book makes the first attempt to organise the propagandistic mythology Russia has created with relation to Crimea, and refutes the propaganda spread by the aggressor country. How and for whom this book was written, and the myths it combats these are the topics of our conversation with its author Serhiy Hromenko, a History Ph.D. and staff member of the Ukrainian Institute of National Memory. How did you come up with the concept of this book? Following the annexation of Crimea, a huge tide of fiction and fantasy came into being. All of this was allegedly meant to substantiate the relationship of Crimea to Russia. So, in order to provide Ukrainian society with the necessary instruments to combat the aggressor country s propaganda, I and my like-minded colleagues from the public initiative Likbez. Historical Front (Likbez refers to the Soviet campaign to combat illiteracy in the early 20th c. Here: combating historical illiteracy is meant Translator s note) came together and began refuting the most popular myths about Crimea, Donbas, etc. at our website. I was in charge of the Crimean subject-matter. Russian myths kept appearing on our website, and after some time it became clear that the Russian propagandistic mythology goes way beyond just an unorganised collection of nonsense. This is a very well-thought out system. Also, sometime in the winter 2015 we realized that a book on the subject is needed to systemize the Russian propagandistic mythology, and also to debunk it using a systematic approach. What myths of the Russian propaganda are debunked in the book? The book deals with a total of around twenty myths. I will tell you about the three most popular ones. Myth #1 suggests that Crimea was always historically Russian. In reality, Russians did not reach a relative majority there before the early 20th century. They only became an absolute majority following the deportation of Crimean Tatars in The current ethnical and demographic map of the peninsula is an outcome of Russia s imperial policy during the past 300 years. Myth #2: Crimea always belonged to Russia. This is also a direct lie. Crimea first came under Russia s rule in 1783, escaping from it in However, the Ottoman period was even longer, to say nothing of the period when Crimea was under the authority of the Byzantine Empire. Allegations that Old Russian princes once owned lands in Crimea are completely unfounded. Russia therefore has no archival historical rights to Crimea. Myth #3 asserts that Crimean Greeks, not Tatars are the indigenous Crimean people. The truth is that the process of setting the peninsula by the Greeks took place in four waves. The ancient Hellenic colonists who founded Crimean towns were assimilated by the local population, and integrated with the latter during the great transmigration of peoples. The second wave, ie Crimean Greeks of the Middle Ages era, was either assimilated by the Crimean Tatars or deported in 1778 by the Russian government to the Azov Sea. The third wave, ie Albanians, resettled from Greece in the late 18th/early 19th cc., lived in Crimea until only then to be deported to Central Asia following the deportation of Crimean Tatars. Today s Crimean Greeks are the fourth wave. However, Crimean Tatars instead are the direct successors of the local Crimean Cumans, and thus are surely an indigenous people. What do you consider is the reason for these present-day myth-creating activities by Russia concerning Crimea? Explanations are simple: Historical rights are called upon only when there is a lack of legal rights. Russia simply has no legal rights to Crimea, therefore they are attempting to substantiate its annexation with the alleged historical rights. The latter, however, are also missing. That is why they resort to rewriting history and inventing these myths. 14 CRIMEA INFORM / # 4 (12) 2018

15 9 August: International Day of the World s Indigenous Peoples Status-related problems of the Crimean Tatar people HISTORY AND CULTURE Crimean Tatars meet all criteria of an indigenous people set in the International law and practices of the world s democratic countries. This is reflected in reports issued by International organisations, analytical papers, and Resolutions by the European Parliament adopted in Crimean Tatars meet all criteria of an indigenous people set in the International law and practices of the world s democratic countries. This is reflected in reports issued by International organisations, analytical papers, and Resolutions by the European Parliament adopted in The policy pursued by the Russian authorities is however aimed at denying the Crimean Tatars the status of an indigenous people. This is evidenced by persistent attempts of scientific substantiation of this position. In 2016, for instance, historian Sergei Sokolovskyy, commissioned by the Russian Federation s Presidential Administration, published his research entitled Recognition Policy with Regard to Indigenous Peoples in International Law and in the Legislation of the Russian Federation. Deliberately manipulating the International Law provisions, the author concludes: The notion of indigenous people cannot be applied to the present-day Crimean Tatar community the specific linguistic and cultural needs of this community may be efficiently protected by the Russian legislation on the protection of national minorities. The question arises: Why is the Russian government so concerned about the recognition of Crimean Tatars as an indigenous people? The answer is evident: such a status means their right to self-determination in Crimea, including a requirement to obtain the permission of the indigenous people to military actions or occupation. granted by their supreme self-government body, ie the Mejlis, that was, in addition, labelled by the Russian Federation as an extremist organisation and finally banned by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 29 September Ukraine attaches great importance to adopting the legislation warranting the rights of indigenous peoples, and primarily those of the Crimean Tatar people. Such recognition stipulates the adoption of two Bills: On the Status of Crimean Tatar People in Ukraine and On Indigenous Peoples in Ukraine. The need to draft two differently worded bills instead of one general bill derives from the considerable difference between the situation of Crimean Tatars and the small number of Karaites and Krymchaks who also meet the internationally recognised criteria of indigenous peoples. However, unlike Crimean Tatars, the latter two groups have not established their representative bodies with the legitimate right to act on behalf of the whole people, and have never applied for such status in Ukraine (and not in Russia, as the Crimean Karaimes wish). Therefore, within its framework bill, Ukraine will recognize the existence of all these three indigenous people in Crimea, and confirm its willingness to secure their rights according to International law. The status-related Bill contains a detailed account of the rights and obligations of the Crimean Tatar people and its representative bodies, the mechanisms for collaborative arrangements with the State authorities and local governments, and guarantees for the protection and development of their identity, etc. A large section of these provisions can only be implemented following the liberation of Crimea from the occupation, but nevertheless all of them constitute an important component of the vision of Crimea s future and the strategy of its deoccupation. Some of the clauses can now be probed in mainland Ukraine. Of no lesser importance are the changes to Section X of the Constitution of Ukraine (The Autonomous Republic of Crimea). When linked in their totality, these important documents will create a sound legal framework by which to secure the rights of indigenous peoples, in line with International law and in full correspondence with Ukraine s national interests. Natalia BELITSER, Expert at the Pylyp Orlyk Democracy Institute # 4 (12) 2018 / CRIMEA INFORM 15

16 PHOTOFACT Crimean Tatars - indigenous people of the Crimea The integration of the classic Crimean Tatar image into the current fashion has been mainstream since the beginning of the 21st century. This is one of the brightest examples of the way in which the culture of Ukraine s indigenous people, the Crimean Tatars, is alive and advancing. Also, this is a specific identity marker, bringing diversity and brilliant colours and emotions into the world surrounding it, whilst also existing in harmony with modernity. Leila Halide Afize Traditionally, a girl from an early age would start collecting her dowry with the help of her family. This mostly comprised clothing and textiles, and embroidered household items, handmade by the girl herself. The number of such items could reach The unique qualities of Crimean Tatar embroidery today still display the specific features of ornamentation and its patterns. The line of embroidery and the colour are self-sufficient, whereas its visual imagery, with the intermingling and superimposing of various cultural heritages and eras conjures up a polyphonic composition. The clothing of Crimean Tatar women includes numerous types of headscarves placed over the headwear, ie fes. They had different functions. For example, a head coverlet, baş örtüsü, had to cover the woman s head, ears and neck from the glances of men, the evil eye, and bad weather conditions. Also, a töpelik, a multilayered filigree decoration fashioned from precious materials on top of a fes, served as a kind of reserve capital for a married woman. A traditional item of festive attire of Crimean Tatars is a real piece of applied and decorative art, reflecting the unique historical, ethnographic, and artistic processes of evolvement of this people s culture throughout several centuries. This decorative art reached its apex during the Crimean Khanate period, ie between the second half of the 15th and late 18th centuries. Islamic canons became an important factor influencing the Crimean Tatar women s clothing: it was required that it must conceal a woman from the eyes of men from head-to-toe. Ornamentation and decorations were arranged above the waist only, so as not to draw attention to the lower part of the body by someone s prying eyes! Such concealment was compensated for by the accented subtlety and exquisite appearance of the outfit, and also the symbolic language of its ornamentation that allowed a Crimean Tatar woman to communicate with those around her without the need for words. Naile Nariman Aider Kokuşluk, a breast collar, is the focus of a Crimean Tatar woman s attire, put on before going out into the street, and also worn for festivities, or when receiving guests. The kokuşluk, as a rule, was made of coins given to the bride by her bridegroom as her dowry. Not only did it have to cover up the bodice of her dress to prevent untoward glances from men, but also to protect her from an evil eye. A breast collar made of gold coins and pearls, and jewellery fashioned from precious metals, served as a financial insurance of a woman in case she was left without a husband. Crimean Tatar men used to cover their heads with a black astrakhan cap pulled down low (qalpaq). In summer, a small cap (takja) or a tarboosh (fes) were popular. Men s tarbooshes had a rigid cone-shaped outline, and were made from felted woollen cloth. A long black or blue silk tassel hung from a central point at the back. A belt (quşaq) has always been an essential element of a man s traditional Crimean Tatar outerwear. Supernatural properties were attributed to it, and therefore it tied around the waist to protect the most sensitive part of the body, ie the stomach. The belt also indicated the social status of a man, being sewn together from textiles of varying types and colours. Young Crimean Tatars, regarding themselves as rather special and fashionable, used to wear a slim-cut kaftan with long trumpet- shaped sleeves (çekmen). CRIMEA INFORM / # 4 (12) 2018