Crimean Field Mission on Human Rights

Transcription

1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Crimean Field Mission on Human Rights Brief Review of the Situation in Crimea (January 2015) Analytical Review TABLE OF CONTENTS... 1 І. Introduction... 2 II. Problems of the residents of Crimea Civil and political rights... 3 Right to Life... 3 Right to Freedom and Personal Immunity... 3 Disappearance... 3 Arrests... 4 Freedom of Speech and Expression... 6 Freedom of Peaceful Assembly... 7 Freedom of Association... 8 Freedom of Conscience and Religion... 8 Freedom of Movement... 9 Right to a Fair Trial and Efficient Means of Legal Protection Kolchenko's lawsuit on the recognition of the right to citizenship of Ukraine Other citizens of Ukraine detained in Lefortovo Court proceedings Issues Related to Citizenship Social and Economic Rights Property Rights Access to healthcare III. Problems of the Residents of Crimea who Had to Excape from the Peninsula and Move to Continental Ukraine (Internally Displaced Persons) General situation

2 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 January The Crimean Field Mission ( the CFM ) commenced its work on 5 March 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 data. 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 on 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. 2

3 II. PROBLEMS OF THE RESIDENTS OF CRIMEA 2.1. CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS RIGHT TO LIFE The Crimean Field Mission on Human Rights has got new information on the investigation into the abduction and murder of Reshat Ametov, Mark Ivanyuk and Stanislav Karachevsky in Crimea. Reshat Ametov was arrested by unidentified men in camouflage uniforms on March 3, 2014 at the central square of Simferopol in front of the Council of Ministers of Crimea. On March 15, his body, with multiple markings of foul play, was found in Zemlyanichnoe village of Belogorsky area. The cause of death was the two stab wounds in the frontal area and brow ridge. As it became known to the CFM, the investigation into the murder of Reshat Ametov was suspended under par. 1 of Part 1 of Article 208 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The Main Investigative Department of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation in Crimea reported that the lawyer s request for approval as a representative of the victim (victim s brother) in this regard could not be considered on its merits. Mark Ivanyuk was killed on April 20, 2014 near the Olenevka village, where he lived. With regard to the killing, 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. At the same time, in December 2014, it was discovered that the investigation into this case was suspended back in August 2014, which has not been reported to the relatives in a timely manner. It should also be noted that in the media it was reported that the in death of a young man the local police may be involved. Currently, the family of the deceased has a lawyer representing their interests. Stanislav Karachevsky, the Major of the Ukrainian Navy, was killed on April 6, 2014 by the military of the Russian Federation. The murder took place 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 case on this murder was heard in the garrison military court of Sevastopol. According to the lawyer, the court hearing was postponed for an indefinite period in connection with the dissolution of the old panel of judges. The case will be considered by a new panel of judges of the Crimean garrison military court in Simferopol. The charge with murder under Article 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation was brought against a Russian sergeant Evgeny Zaytsev. The witnesses of these events told the media that a group of Russian soldiers arranged a hunt for the Ukrainian unarmed officers, broke into their dormitory, showered the corridors with stun grenades: Sergeant Evgeny Zaytsev shot Stanislav Karachevsky from a Kalashnikov: one bullet in the lung, the second in the head. RIGHT TO FREEDOM AND PERSONAL IMMUNITY DISAPPEARANCE The Crimean Field Mission has no new information on the disappearances and abductions of the following nine individuals: Ivan Bondarets, Vladislav Vashchuk, Vasily Chernysh, Timur Shaimardanov, Seyran Zinedinov, Islyam Dzheparov, Dzhevdet Islyamov, Eskender Apselyamov, Potapov O.M. With regard to the case of Timur Shaimardanov the lawyer reported that back in November he appealed against the investigator s refusal of access to the case files, but as of the end of January he had not received a response to the appeal. The Contact Group established at the Council of Ministers did not hold the meetings in January devoted to the search for the missing Crimean Tatars. In addition, a round table scheduled for January 23 by the Commissioner for Human Rights in Crimea Ludmila Lubina, where the Investigative Committee was to report on the progress of the investigation has been postponed for an indefinite period of time. 3

4 ARRESTS On January 19, the fifth person involved in the May 3 rd case Edem Osmanov was arrested on a charge under Part 1 of Article 318 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation Violence against a public official. According to the information available to the CFM, in the course of Osmanov s transportation from Chernomorsk to Simferopol the police behaved inappropriately and used physical force against him. On January 21, the Central District Court of Simferopol approved his detention for a period of two months until March 21. According to the lawyer Emil Kurbedinov, the court ignored the fact that the constitutional rights of the detained by police Osmanov were violated - the period of detention should not exceed 48 hours, which expired before the trial for the election of a preventive measure; Osmanov was convoyed to court by the law enforcement agencies, and during the hearing was behind the bars in handcuffs. In addition, according to the lawyer, there are no valid grounds for a preventive measure in the form of detention. The Osmanov s family is under scrutiny of the law enforcement bodies of the Crimean authorities and was subject to political persecution because of their support for protest events in Ukraine. This conclusion is based on the fact that on September 6 the law enforcement officers searched the home of Mustafa Osmanov, the father of Edem, known for his support of the protesters in Kiev in December Back then, Mustafa Osmanov in his car came to Maidan Nezavisimosti, brought food and a pot to cook the pilaw for the protesters in Kiev. Earlier, under the May 3rd case 4 Crimean Tatars: Musa Apkerimov, Rustam Abdurakhmanov, Tahir Smedlyaev, Edem Ebulisov were arrested detained for one to two months. Currently they are at home in their own custody or on bail. There is a pre-trial investigation in relation to them. It is to be recalled that on May 3 in Crimea there were mass public gatherings. On that day, the leader of the Crimean Tatar people Mustafa Dzhemilev was not allowed to enter Crimea. Several thousand Crimean Tatars came to meet him. In connection with these events, a large number of Crimean Tatars were subjected to administrative proceedings: administrative cases for the violation of the procedure of holding public events were opened and they were subsequently fined under the court decisions; in respect of a number of people criminal cases were opened. On January 22, the Head of the Central Election Commission of Kurultay of the Crimean Tatar people Zair Smedlyaev received a summons requiring to come to the Investigative Division of the FSS to provide explanations with regard to a criminal case on the events that took place near Armyansk on May 3, 2014 (Annex 1). On January 22, at the meeting of the Interdepartmental Working Group on Countering Extremist Activities it became known that the Prosecutor of Crimea sent to the investigative authorities the materials for the criminal prosecution of the three focal points of the Committee on Protection of the Rights of the Crimean Tatar People. They were charged with public calls for action aimed at violating the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation - Part 2, Article of the Criminal Code of Russia. It is currently unknown whether the Investigative Committee has opened a criminal case. On January 23, at about four o clock in the morning, at the border crossing point of the Russian Federation in Armyansk the three focal points of the Committee on Protection of the Rights of the Crimean Tatar People - Eskender Bariev, Sinever Kadyrov and Akmedzhit Suleimanov were arrested. After that Kadyrov was referred to the Armyansk City Court, which on the same day adopted a decision on the deportation of Sinever Kadyrov from Crimea for violating the migration law of the Russian Federation (for more detail see Freedom of Movement). On January 23, three Crimean Tatars Ruslan Zeytullaev (29 years of age), Nuri Primov (38 years of age) and Rustem Vaitov (28 years of age) were arrested under Article of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation Organization of the activity of terrorist organizations and participation in the activities of such organizations. All of them were charged with participation in the activities of the organization Hizb ut- Tahrir. On the same day there was a court hearing and the arrested were detained for 2 months. According to the lawyer, one of the suspects has previously come to the attention of the Security Service of Ukraine within the framework of the criminal case on the violation of territorial integrity, but the criminal case was 4

5 subsequently closed and the trial under the administrative proceeding on the participation in an unregistered public association established his innocence. However, now, according to the Russian law, one of the detainees may face from 15 to 20 years of imprisonment or life imprisonment for organizing the activities, the other two, from 5 to 10 years for participation. Russia is the only country where Hizb ut-tahrir al-islami is recognized as a terrorist organization. On January 26, the arrested were taken to the detention facility in Simferopol (for details see Freedom of Conscience and Religion). On January 28, the law enforcement officers arrested a member of the Board of NGO Sebat, participant of the land protest glades 1 Seydamet Gemedzhi. The grounds for his arrest was the opening of a criminal case based on the statements of other participants of the protest glades, claiming that Gemedzhi took money from them for the resolution of land issues within a protest glade in Dubki village of Simferopol district. Seydamet Gemedzhi has been detained for two months. It is important to note that a month before the representatives of the organization Sebat harshly criticized the new regulations governing land relations in Crimea, declared their intentions to hold protests at the walls of the Crimean Parliament and claimed that at the territories of the protest glades the law enforcement officers raided in the evenings, establishing the identity of persons living on the taken-over lands. At the same time, the applicants denied any pressure on them and claimed that fraud had taken place. On January 29, in the premise of the Investigative Department of the FSS, a Deputy Chairman of the Mejlis Akhtem Chiygoz who came for questioning in a criminal case on the events near the Supreme Council of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea on February 26, 2014 was arrested. Akhtem Chiygoz is suspected of committing a crime under Article 212 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation Mass riots. On January 30, the Kiev District Court of Simferopol approved his detention until February 19. According to investigators, on 26 February, 2014, near the building of the Verkhovna Rada of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (State Council of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea) during a demonstration of representatives of the NGO Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar people, unidentified persons, in flagrant violation of the public order and the rules for holding the mass events, ignoring the legitimate demands of the officers of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine on the termination of illegal actions, began to call the present Crimean Tatars to disobey the lawful demands of the authorities, use violence, as well as encouraged the participants to follow them in committing the above actions, which led to the mass disorder, accompanied by the use of violence against the members of the movement Russian Unity and selfdefense of the Republic of Crimea, the damage and destruction of property. On January 30, in Bakhchisarai, the law enforcers searched the house of the Deputy Chairman of the Mejlis Akhtem Chiygoz within the investigative actions in the criminal case on the organization of and participation in the mass riots. According to the wife of the arrested, during a search the law enforcement officers were aggressive, insulted religious and national feelings, caused material damage to property and denied a request to invite the neighbors as independent witnesses. Akhtem Chiygoz is a citizen of Ukraine, the peaceful assembly took place in the territory of Ukraine, the participants of the peaceful assembly did not violate the Ukrainian legislation. Russia has no grounds to apply the Russian jurisdiction to the events of February 26, These actions can be considered in terms of offenses only by Ukraine. Shortly before the arrest of Akhmed Chiygoz, on January 26, within a criminal case opened in relation to the death of two people on the square in front of the Supreme Council of Crimea on February 26, 2014, a search in the premise of the Crimean Tatar channel ATR was conducted. According to the decision of the investigator (Annex 2), the grounds for the search was the operational information that the channel had the materials relevant to this case. 1 Protest glade - unauthorized seizure of land by the Crimean Tatars in response to the unresolved issue of rehabilitation of land of the Crimean Tatars that returned after the deportation. 5

6 Given the available documents and information available on the website of the Main Investigative Department it is impossible to argue that this is the same case. The case No on the death of two people was opened on June 27, 2014 and is pursued by the major case investigator of the first investigative division of the major cases investigative department of the Main Investigative Department of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation in the Republic of Crimea, Captain of Justice Azizov B.R. At the same time, the events that are being investigated occurred when the Crimean peninsula was both de facto and de jure under the jurisdiction of Ukraine. The application of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in relation to the events that occurred prior to its actual use in this area is contrary to the principle of legal certainty, makes the criminal law retroactive. Thus, the Russian investigative authorities are investigating the incident, which occurred not in their jurisdiction. They also cannot refer to a succession of cases, which they got from the investigating authorities of Ukraine in Crimea. The initiation of any of these investigations is contrary to the Criminal Code of Russia, its Article 9 on the force of the criminal law in time, which clearly stipulates that the action is defined as crime and is punishable by the criminal law in force at the time such action was committed, and the events under investigation occurred during the time when the criminal law of Ukraine was in force. FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION In Crimea there is a continued pressure on the media in the form of refusal of registration, searches, seizure and damage of property, refusal of extension of the lease of premises, arrest of journalists and threats against them. On January 22, it became known that the Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information Technology and Mass Media (Roskomnadzor) refused to register the news agency QHA. The notice of refusal of registration (Annex 3) does not clarify on what basis the decision was made - Roscomnadzor refers only to Article 13 of the Law On the Media, which only states that the competent authorities have the right to refuse the registration under certain conditions. On January 26, at the ATR channel there was a search with the involvement of a large number of armed riot police, which led to a short-term suspension of analogue broadcasting and paralyzed for a day the work of the news service of ATR. The grounds for the search was the operational data that the TV channel has materials that are relevant to the investigation into the criminal case No on the death of two people during the events of February 26, 2014 in front of the Supreme Council of the ARC, while the administration of the channel at the request of investigators reported that all the materials were destroyed (Annex 2). At the same time, there were no reasonable grounds for the involvement in the investigative actions performed by the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation and the Center for Combating Extremism with the armed riot police. In carrying out the investigations there were facts of hindering journalistic activities of channel employees. The OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media Dunja Mijatovic condemned the raid of the security forces of Crimea to the television company ATR in Simferopol, considering it an interference in the work of the free and independent media. On January 28, prior to the court hearing related to the citizenship of Alexander Kolchenko, the cameraman of the Chernomorskaya TV channel was not allowed in the building of the Kiev District Court of Simferopol. The security motivated its refusal of access by the lack of the judge s decision permitting the video recording, and the arguments about shooting the cover shots within the court and not the court hearing were not taken into account. January 29 was the deadline for submission of documents for participation in the tender for the right to carry out the ground broadcasting using specific radio frequencies in the new territories of the Russian 6

7 Federation the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol, the city of federal significance, which was scheduled at the meeting of the Federal Tender Commission on Broadcasting for February 25, In order to participate in the tender it was necessary to submit a certificate of registration of the mass media (radio channel), as well as a universal license for broadcasting, indicating the type of work radio broadcasting. The equal participation of Crimean broadcasters in the tender, as well as submission of the requested tender documents is currently unavailable - not all the broadcasters have been registered as mass media. Moreover, none of the Crimean broadcasters has the universal license for radio broadcasting. The administration of the Chernomorskaya Broadcasting Company completed the analysis of the technical condition of the equipment that was returned after withdrawal in the framework of securing a commercial dispute of the TV channel with a radio and television transmitting center. It was impossible to determine the exact amount of damage caused by the withdrawal of the equipment, however, it was found that some of the computers were returned incomplete (one computer does not have a 3 TB hard drive, the other - a sound card which costs about 600 USD), also, all filmmaking equipment was returned incomplete - all the cameras were returned without batteries, some did not have memory cards, microphones and other parts. In addition, it was found that during the storage of the withdrawn equipment, the hard drives of personal computers were removed, most probably for copying the information stored on them. FREEDOM OF PEACEFUL ASSEMBLY On January 17, Committee on Protection of the Rights of the Crimean Tatar people organized the second All-Crimean Conference on the protection of the rights of the Crimean Tatar people in Simferopol, which was attended by over 60 people. However, from the beginning of the conference attempts were made to hinder its work. The building where the conference was held was entered by a group of unknown people in the sports uniform (about 30 people), who tried to disrupt the event, provoked the participants by insults, incited hatred and hostility, attempted to attack the coordinators of the Committee - Sinaver Kadyrov and Eskender Bariev. The Conference organizers were forced to stop its work until the liberation of the premises from the unknown persons. According to witnesses, the police for a long time did not respond to the illegal actions of the unknown people that attempted to disrupt the event, and did not take measures for protection of the public order. The conference participants did not respond to provocations, all their actions demonstrated that they would not involve in the conflict and use violence. As a result, two unknown persons were taken to the police department. On January 26, Larisa Sablina announced her intention to hold a one-man protest at the building of the Council of Ministers in Simferopol with a demand to solve the issues related to the remuneration of employees of the budget institutions. She said that she notified the Simferopol city administration about that, but in response to the notification she received a refusal of holding a one-man protest. The CFM is working to establish the reasons for such a refusal. In January, the cases of persecution of participants of a peaceful assembly, which took place on February 26, 2014 in Simferopol, were of particular concern. In January 2015, the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation instituted the criminal proceedings for organizing and participating in the mass riots. On January 29, 2015, in the framework of this case, the Deputy Chairman of the Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar people Akhtem Chiygoz was arrested and is now detained. Akhtem Chiygoz is a citizen of Ukraine, the events took place in the territory of Ukraine, the participants of the peaceful assembly did not violate the Ukrainian legislation. The Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine Commissioner confirmed that the actions committed on February 26, 2014 at the indicated place represented the exercise of the right to peaceful assembly and did not violate the laws of Ukraine. Russia has no grounds to apply the Russian jurisdiction to the events of February 26, These actions can be considered in terms of offenses only by Ukraine. 7

8 FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION The local authorities organized criminal prosecution for political reasons of the creators and coordinators of the Committee on the Protection of the Rights of the Crimean Tatar people. On January 29, at the meeting of the Interdepartmental Working Group on Countering Extremist Activities at the Prosecutor s Office in Crimea, the Prosecutor Natalia Poklonskaya reported that six materials were submitted to the investigative authorities for the organization of criminal prosecution 2, including with regard to certain individuals on the grounds of crimes under Part 2 of Article (public calls for action aimed at violating the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation), Part 2 of Article 239 (establishment of a nonprofit organization, encroaching on the identity and the rights of citizens), Part 2 of Article 282 (incitement of hatred or enmity), Article (funding of extremist activities), Part 1 of Article 212 (organization of mass riots) of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The Prosecutor said that among these materials there are materials relating to the fact of committing of unlawful activities by the three coordinators of one of the unofficial organizations. This organization is the Committee on Protection of the Rights of the Crimean Tatar people, which was not registered under the Russian law, on the basis of which the local authorities consider the organization unofficial. In this regard, it should be noted that the right to free association should be freely exercised regardless of the legal status of the association. The coordinators of the Committee did not commit actions reported by the prosecutor. And because the prosecution was organized after the Committee held the second All-Crimean Conference on the Protection of the rights of the Crimean Tatar people, where the organizers expressed their disagreement with the actions of local authorities, it indicates the political persecution of the coordinators of the public association with the use of legal mechanisms, namely, the forging of criminal cases. FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE AND RELIGION In early January, the Archbishop of Simferopol and Crimea of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Kiev Patriarchate (UOC-KP) Clement confirmed that in Crimea there are only 9 parishes of the UOC-KP, and at the beginning of 2014 there were 15 parishes. The UOC-KP has currently lost five temples (in Perevalnoye village of Simferopol district, in Krasnoperekopsk, Kerch, Sevastopol and Saki). The reduction of parishes has increased the number of parishioners in the main temple in Simferopol (in honor of Prince Vladimir and Princess Olga). Serious concern is raised by the situation with the adherents of Hizb ut-tahrir al-islami (Islamic Party of Liberation). The literature of this religious and political group is available in the mosques in many Muslim families. According to the decision of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated February 14, 2003, Hizb ut-tahrir was recognized as a terrorist organization, its activities in the territory of the Russian Federation are prohibited. The participation in the movement, according to Russian law enforcement agencies, constitutes a criminal offense. However, according to the Ukrainian legislation, Hizb ut-tahrir was a legal organization in Crimea and had certain adherents who stayed in Crimea. Since in Russia the Hizb ut- Tahrir is recognized as a terrorist organization, it leads to the risk that all members of the organization who had previously acted legally in Crimea, shall now be prosecuted. On January 23, near Sevastopol, the FSS officers arrested three people: Ruslan Zeytullaev (29 years of age), Nuri Primov (38 years of age) and Rustem Vaitov (28 years of age), who were detained for 2 months under the court decision. The detainees are suspected of organizing in the peninsula and participation in the activities of Hizb ut-tahrir. One of the detainees may face from 15 to 20 years of imprisonment or a life imprisonment for organizing the activities, the other two - from 5 to 10 years for participation under Article of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation Organization of activity of the terrorist organization or participation in a terrorist organization prohibited in the Russian Federation. The relatives and acquaintances confirmed that the detainees were not involved in the terrorist activities and were adherents of Islam. There is no conclusive evidence of detainees involvement in Hizb ut-tahrir. Some of those, whose homes had been searched, previously came to the attention of the Security Service of 2 8

9 Ukraine, but even then their involvement in the extremist Islamic groups had not been proved. The Contact Group on Human Rights, which conducted a survey of relatives and neighbors, also emphasizes that the version of the investigation finds no confirmation and, in their opinion, the actions of the law enforcers are aimed at intimidation. Another problem for the various religious communities is the migration status of religious leaders. Thus, in the chapel of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary in Simferopol (Roman Catholic Church) the abbot for 4 months has not been able to enter the territory of Crimea, as he is a citizen of Poland. He is substituted by father Valentin, a citizen of Ukraine, who under the applicable Russian legislation is considered a foreigner in Crimea and is forced to leave Crimea every 90 days. The three sisters of the Catholic monastery in Simferopol, citizens of Poland and Ukraine, were denied an extension of the residence permit, despite the fact that they have worked in this monastery for 18 years. The problems with the migration status led to the fact that many spiritual servants cannot stay in the territory of Crimea, or cannot stay there permanently, which significantly limits the religious and ceremonial worships and leads to a violation of the freedom of religion. The local authorities apply restrictive measures to the exercise of the freedom of assembly. Thus, on January 19, in Simferopol, at the entrance to an Orthodox church the police installed the metal detecting fence. The entry to the temple was allowed only after passing such a fence (Annex 4). The head of the Committee for International Relations and Deported Citizens Zaur Smirnov said that in Crimea a Center of information and social technology and the development of inter-ethnic communication shall be established. The objective of this center will be to monitor the status of inter-ethnic and interfaith relations in Crimea, leading to an additional supervision and control of religious communities and exercise of the freedom of conscience and religion. FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT The Russian border guards are continuing to violate the freedom of movement, namely, restrict or prohibit the entry into or exit from Crimea. In the evening of January 19, at the entrance to Crimea, at the Armyansk checkpoint, a member of the Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People, the delegate of Kurultai Emina Avamileva was not allowed by the Russian border guards to enter the territory of Crimea for two hours. Without legal grounds or justification Avamileva was arrested by the Border Service of Russia, underwent personal search, her passport, phone and flash drive were temporarily seized, she was interviewed and her car was inspected twice. After that, without any explanation, her belongings were returned and the entry allowed. On January 23, at about four o clock in the morning, at the border crossing point Armyansk, the Russian border guards arrested three focal points of the Committee on the Protection of the Rights of the Crimean Tatar people - Eskender Bariev, Sinaver Kadyrov and Akmedzhit Suleimanov. The activists reported that the keys were taken away from them and they were kept in a closed car until the FSS officer arrived. The border guards refused to explain the reasons for the arrest and show the documents validating the arrest. 7 hours later, Bariev and Suleimanov were released, and Kadyrov was sent to the Armyansk city court. The Armyansk city court adopted a decision on the indefinite deportation of Sinaver Kadyrov in connection with the violation of migration law in terms of stay of foreign citizens (Annex 5). Kadyrov claims that he had previously crossed the border in November and did not exceed the 90-day period of stay according to Russian legislation, which means the impossibility of applying expulsion to him. The court decision is contrary to the Law of the Russian Federation On admission of the Republic of Crimea to the Russian Federation and creation of new constituent entities of the Russian Federation the Republic of Crimea and federal city Sevastopol, according to which the residents of Crimea are automatically recognized as Russian citizens. The court decision on Kadyrov indicates a selective application of the provisions of the Russian legislation. The application of perpetual deportation to the resident of Crimea Kadyrov violates the freedom of movement (deprivation of opportunity to enter the own country, place of permanent residence) and free choice of residence, as he is unable to enter Crimea, where he permanently resided before. 9

10 The Ukrainian authorities decision to terminate the train and bus transportation to and from Crimea and Sevastopol remains in effect. This decision led to a sharp increase in private and unlawful transportation of passengers, which creates additional risk to the life and health of passengers, and significantly increases the cost of transportation. Some Ukrainian citizens travelling in their own vehicles from Crimea to the mainland Ukraine were denied the entry. The Ukrainian border guards do not provide the written refusals with motivated substantiation of such decisions. The citizens are provided with verbal explanation that vehicles (with more than 8 seats) cannot enter/exit Crimea. The information on the title, date of issue or the number of the document establishing such a ban is not provided. At the same time, on December 26, 2014, the media reported that under the decision of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine the transportation of passengers and cargo between the mainland Ukraine and the Crimean peninsula shall be terminated. The regulation establishing such a ban is not publicly available at the moment. Also, there is no document on the ban on the entry and exit from the territory of Crimea of vehicles with a certain number of seats. The failure of Ukrainian border guards to provide a written decision to ban the entry and exit from the territory of the Crimean peninsula prevents the citizens of Ukraine from the exercise of the right to appeal against the actions of public authorities taking such decisions. The State Administration of Railway Transport of Ukraine refused to explain the reasons for the termination of railway communication with Crimea. The management believes that the order to terminate the railway communication with Crimea is an internal document and contains classified information. The State Administration of Railway Transport of Ukraine states that it was acting within its powers and given the stabilization of the situation, the restrictions on transportation shall be lifted (Annex 6). RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL AND EFFICIENT MEANS OF LEGAL PROTECTION The Advisor to the Chairman of the Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar people, social activist, a well-known representative of the Crimean Tatar diaspora Ismet Yuksel filed a petition to the Russian court on the recourse against the decision of a public authority to ban the entry into the territory of the Russian Federation. It is to be recalled that on August 10, 2014, at about 6:30 am, at the entrance to the territory of the Crimean peninsula through the border checkpoint Armyansk, the official of the Border Service of the Russian Federation told Ismet Yuksel in Russian that the FSS of Russia forbade him to enter the territory of the Russian Federation for the period of 5 years, until June 30, At the end of December 2014, I. Yuksel through his representative lawyer, on the basis of the power of attorney appealed to the Kiev District Court of Simferopol with an application for invalidation and reverse of the decision of the Federal Security Service of Russia of July 17, 2014 on the prohibition of entry into the territory of the Russian Federation. On January 12, the judge of the Kiev District Court of Simferopol Didenko D.A. adopted a decision to return the application to the applicant pursuant to Article 135 Code of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. The judge reasoned the decision by the fact that the court had no information on the delegation to the lawyer acting on behalf of I. Yuksel of authority to represent his interests in the courts of the Russian Federation (Annex 7). However, according to the text of the power of attorney the lawyer was authorized to handle the matters and represent the interests of I. Yuksel in the courts of any level... with all the necessary powers for this purpose, which are given by law to the complainant. The power of attorney was issued in the territory of Ukraine in the manner and form prescribed by law. I. Yuksel has no opportunity to get the power of attorney in Crimea in connection with the prohibition of entry to the peninsula. On January 26, the Meshchansky District Court of Moscow, composed of the presiding judge Afanasieva I.I., in the presence of the secretary Morozova V.S., considered in the open court the civil case #2-1713/2015 on the application of I. Yuksel for the appeal against the decision of the Russian FSS prohibition of entry into the territory of the Russian Federation, took into account the petition of the representative of the FSS of Russia Potapov S.E. to refer the case for consideration to the Moscow City Court, since during the hearing of the given case, the Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation shall provide the documents containing 10

11 state secrets, including those related to the prohibition of entry of a foreign citizen to the Russian Federation, and decided to refer a civil case #2-1713/2015 on the application of I.Yuksel to the competent jurisdiction of the Moscow City Court. Thus, currently, both complaints of Yuksel have not been considered. Ismet Yuksel is now forced to live outside of Crimea, in isolation from his family, public relations, permanent residence and permanent job. KOLCHENKO'S LAWSUIT ON THE RECOGNITION OF THE RIGHT TO CITIZENSHIP OF UKRAINE It is to be recalled, that activist Alexander Kolchenko was arrested in Simferopol on May 16, 2014 and convoyed to Moscow to Lefortovo jail. The FSS investigators accused him and three other residents of Crimea in organizing and participating in the terrorist association, preparation of a terrorist attack and arms trafficking. In October, the term of Kolchenko s detention was extended until January 16, Despite the fact that Kolchenko considers himself a citizen of Ukraine, the investigation continues to insist on his Russian citizenship. On January 28, the court hearing was held in Simferopol on the case of Alexander Kolchenko s retention of the Ukrainian citizenship. The Federal Migration Service (FMS) insists that all the residents of Crimea that did not apply for the retention of the Ukrainian citizenship have lost it. The court decided to reject the Alexander Kolchenko s retention of the Ukrainian citizenship. Kolchenko s lawyer Svetlana Sidorkina intends to submit an appeal. Svetlana Sidorkina explained her point of view to the CFM. In May 2014, A.Kolchenko was detained in connection with a criminal case opened against him and other individuals. The only document certifying his identity at the time and now is a passport of the citizen of Ukraine, thus Kolchenko continues to consider himself a citizen of Ukraine. According to the provisions of Part 1 of Article 3 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, Part 1 of Article 17, Article 18 of the Russian Constitution, Article 27 of the Vienna Convention On the Law of Treaties, Kolchenko, as a citizen of Ukraine, in addition to any other rights, also has a right to see in detention any authorized representative of the Ukrainian Embassy in Russia, thus he submitted an appropriate application for meeting with any authorized representative of the Ukrainian Embassy in Russia. With reference to the request submitted by the law enforcement agencies regarding the Kolchenko s citizenship to the FMS of Russia in the Republic of Crimea, he was denied a meeting with the representatives of the Embassy of Ukraine. The reasoning of the Federal Migration Service of Russia in the Republic of Crimea stated that Kolchenko, in violation of Article 5 of the Treaty between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Crimea on the admission to the Russian Federation of the Republic of Crimea and creation of new constituent entities of the Russian Federation of , did not express his will during one month on retaining the citizenship of Ukraine. This fact was the reason for the appeal to the court. Kolchenko did not actually apply for retaining the citizenship of Ukraine, because, like many of his peers, he did not understand the need to apply for the retention of the citizenship of Ukraine, because he believed that his Ukrainian passport constitutes sufficient grounds for the recognition of his citizenship. Also, there were only three offices for application in order to retain the citizenship of Ukraine - in Simferopol, Bakhchisaray and Belogorsk. The deadline for submission of documents was very short, only one month. The Prime Minister of Crimea Sergei Aksenov promised to extend this deadline, but did not fulfill his promise. According to Kolchenko, he did not submit an application for obtaining the Russian citizenship. In court, the Federal Migration Service of Russia in the Republic of Crimea did not admit the claim relying on Article 5 of the Treaty of , and the fact that the Kolchenko allegedly applied for the citizenship of the Russian Federation, but did not receive the passport of the Russian Federation, as he was in detention. After a conversation with the lawyer Kolchenko said that he did not acknowledge the fact of their application. OTHER CITIZENS OF UKRAINE DETAINED IN LEFORTOVO The CFM previously reported the forced disappearance of Valentin Vygivsky on September 18, 2014 at the railway station in Simferopol with the participation of the Crimean self-defense, who was later found by his relatives in the Russian FSS detention facility Lefortovo in Moscow. Another citizen of Ukraine Yuriy Soloschenko is also detained there. 11

12 The FSS detention facility Lefortovo was visited by the members of the Russian Public Oversight Commission for observation of human rights in places of detention. One of them, a human rights activist and journalist Zoya Svetova, told about the cases against the citizens of Ukraine and the conditions of their detention in Lefortovo. Svetova reported that Yuri Soloshenko (72 years of age) has a severe mental condition, coronary heart disease, blood pressure problems and it is very difficult for him to be in prison. The lawyer visits him rarely, because most likely he was provide by the Investigative Department of the FSS, which pursues the case of the former director general of the defense plant Znamya from Poltava. Yuri told the representatives of the Commission that he was not guilty, and he was accused of spying. He submitted a clemency application to the President of Russia, although he had not yet been convicted and his guilt has not been proven. The second detainee Valentin Vygivsky (30-32 years of age) is highly intimidated. It is known that he was accused under Article 183 of the Criminal Code of Russia - illegal banking activities or economic crime. However, the relatives reported that his case will be allegedly re-classified for espionage. He was arrested in Crimea. In both cases, neither Soloshenko nor Vygivsky are allowed to meet with a Ukrainian consul, who has repeatedly appealed to the FSS to be allowed to meet with the detained. In addition, the lawyers who are working with them, according to Svetova, are likely to support the interests of the investigation, because they predispose them to cooperate with the investigation, admit their guilt. In this regard, the attention should be drawn to the fact that even the recognition of the Ukrainian citizenship of Kolchenko and Sentsov does not guarantee them the opportunity to communicate with the consul of Ukraine. In cases of Vygivsky and Soloshenko the investigating authorities do not dispute their citizenship and recognize them as citizens of Ukraine, but, nevertheless, they are deprived of the opportunity to communicate with the Consul of Ukraine, which significantly limits the right of the accused to a fair trial and effective means of legal protection. COURT PROCEEDINGS In accordance with Article 9 N 6-FCL of March 21, 2014 the administration of justice in the Crimean peninsula in the transition period shall be performed by the judges appointed earlier in accordance with the laws of Ukraine that worked in the Ukrainian courts at the time of the adoption of the law. Their status was defined by the law as citizens holding the positions of judges. The condition of admission to the administration of justice was the reception of the citizenship of the Russian Federation, the transfer of the original passport, certifying the citizenship of Ukraine to the Russian authorities and submission to the Russian authorities of the application for renunciation of the citizenship of Ukraine. The term of administration of justice by the citizens holding the positions of judges was defined prior to the establishment of the courts of the Russian Federation in the relevant areas. The period, during which the justice was in the territory of Crimea was administered by the judges in the above status, lasted from April 1, 2014 to December 26, In fact, taking into account the reporting periods in courts, the established federal courts and a number of designated federal judges began to work since the New Year. On December 19, the President of the Russian Federation signed a Decree #786 On the appointment of federal judges, which for a period of 6 years appointed the Deputy Chairmen of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol city court, the chairmen of 4 district courts, the deputy heads of 18 district courts and 2 garrison military courts, several hundred Crimean judges. Although the law guaranteed a preferential right to citizens holding the positions of judges to be appointed as judges of the courts of the Russian Federation established in these areas, the process of formation of the federal courts did not envisage any guarantees. Based on the analysis of the composition of courts as of March 18 and after the adoption of the Decree #786, not all the judges holding the positions before March 18, 2014 and having completed the competitive selection, were appointed as judges in Crimea. According to the interview with N. Timoshin, chairman of SCC of the Russian Federation, in Crimea and Sevastopol it is planned to appoint 462 judges. Based on the results of the first stage of selection of judges the vacancies are filled by 70%, the holding the positions of judges during the transition period constitute 12

13 slightly more than a half (~56%). In the interview, N. Timoshin also said that a lot of attention was paid to the analysis of professional relationships and constant, primarily kindred relationships with other people in order to identify the potential conflict of interests. These actions of the Russian authorities lead to a complete undermining of judicial independence in the peninsula. In particular, the authority of the judges appointed in accordance with the laws of Ukraine, was suddenly terminated, and their status became undefined. The expectations of the possible appointment as judges and the non-transparent procedures pushed the applicants to demonstrate the maximum loyalty to the Russian authorities. Furthermore, the actual administration of justice, based on mixed jurisdictions, deprive the court the constituent elements of a court established by law. On January 26, 2015, for the review of the State Council of the Republic of Crimea a draft Resolution On the legislative initiative of the State Council of the Republic of Crimea on submission to the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation of the draft federal law On Amendments to Article 1 of the Federal Law On the total number of magistrates and the number of judicial districts in the entities of the Russian Federation was submitted. According to the draft Federal Law, in the Republic of Crimea it is planned to establish 126 judicial districts and magistrates. It can be assumed that the criteria for the selection of judges mentioned earlier by the chairman of SCC of the Russian Federation, will also apply to persons willing be appointed as magistrates. ISSUES RELATED TO CITIZENSHIP After the end of the so-called transition period the position of the following population groups, considered vulnerable according to the CFM, remains difficult: 1) Ukrainian citizens who permanently resided in Crimea, did not apply for retention of the citizenship of Ukraine and did not apply for the 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. The Federal Migration Service in Crimea and the judiciary selectively apply, in respect of these groups of people, the provisions of the Russian legislation concerning the violations of the stay of foreign citizens in the territory of Crimea. The violation of stay may entail an administrative punishment of a fine amounting up to 5000 rubles (which is a substantial sum of money for the majority of the inhabitants of the peninsula) or the expulsion from the territory of Crimea. The families where some family members have a Russian passport and the other, due to various reasons, do not have it and have not been able to register with FMS, find themselves in a difficult situation. They also face the threat of being expelled from the territory of Crimea. The certain problems are faced by the citizens of Ukraine, which in April managed to submit an application renouncing the Russian citizenship. Because of the huge flow of people addressing the FMS on migration registration, not all of these people were able to get the migration registration and obtain a residence permit or a temporary permit for stay in Crimea. In January 2015, the Federal Migration Service began to transfer the lists of those that renounced to the police departments, which in turn use them as a basis for summoning the people to the law enforcement agencies. A special emphasis should be put on the Kolchenko s case in terms of citizenship, as it indicates the compulsory nature of the automatic citizenship of the Russian Federation, which does not depend on the will of the person. The court rejected to retain Kolchenko s Ukrainian citizenship, despite the fact that Kolchenko, while in detention in Moscow, could not apply for Russian citizenship and get a Russian passport. Kolchenko confirmed that he took no action to obtain the Russian citizenship. The only document that 13

14 certified his identity at the time of arrest and to date is the passport of the citizen of Ukraine; Kolchenko considers himself a citizen of Ukraine and Ukraine recognizes the Kolchenko s Ukrainian citizenship. The court decided to reject the retention of Alexander Kolchenko s Ukrainian citizenship. The court decision on the rejection to retain the Ukrainian citizenship is contrary to the international instruments, the legislation of the Russian Federation and the legislation of Ukraine. Thus, Kolchenko is deprived of the right to citizenship despite the fact that no one can be arbitrarily deprived of citizenship. In addition, the court decision violates Article 16 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights that establishes that every person, wherever he may be, has the right to recognition of legal personality. Thus, Kolchenko s legal personality is based on his citizenship of Ukraine and his legal relationship as a citizen of Ukraine is retained outside Ukraine. In this case, the court, deciding in the name of the Russian Federation, has unreasonably refused to recognize the legal personality of Alexander Kolchenko. The Russian Federation has exceeded its powers in the sphere of deprivation or termination of the citizenship of a foreign state. Thus, amendments have been introduced to the federal law #6-FCL 3 On admission of the Republic of Crimea to the Russian Federation and creation of new constituent entities of the Russian Federation the Republic of Crimea and federal city Sevastopol allowing the Russian Federation to recognize foreign nationals as those who do not have foreign citizenship. According to the amendments, the residents of Crimea that were recognized as citizens of the Russian Federation and received a document certifying the identity of the citizen of the Russian Federation shall be recognized in the territory of the Russian Federation as citizens without a foreign citizenship in the case of their application on the unwillingness to be the citizens of a foreign state. The application on the unwillingness to have a foreign citizenship should be submitted to the FMS of Russia. However, the decision on the termination of citizenship of a particular state shall be considered only by the competent authorities of the foreign state, which granted citizenship to a particular individual. For example, the decision on the termination of the citizenship of Ukraine shall be made by the appropriate authorities of Ukraine. Thus, Russia s recognition of the absence of Crimean residents foreign citizenship does not imply such recognition by other states. Since A.Kolchenko is conferred with a citizenship of the Russian Federation against his will, it is also a violation of the right to privacy. In addition, the Kolchenko s case and expulsion of Kadyrov indicate a different interpretation and application of the provisions of the Russian legislation on citizenship. Both Kadyrov and Kolchenko, at the time of entry into force of the law #6 On admission of the Republic of Crimea to the Russian Federation and creation of new constituent entities of the Russian Federation the Republic of Crimea and federal city Sevastopol resided in Crimea, were registered in Crimea and did not take action to obtain Russian citizenship. However, in respect of Kolchenko the provisions of law are applied as compulsory citizenship and in respect of Kadyrov as his recognition as a foreigner followed by the expulsion. Both cases are political in nature, and the unequal application of the Russian legislation evidences the use of legal mechanisms to put pressure on the activists SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC RIGHTS PROPERTY RIGHTS The local authorities continue to nationalize not only the state property of Ukraine, but also the commercial collective and private property. Thus, on January 21, the State Council of Crimea adopted a decision to nationalize the public joint stock company DTEK Krymenergo, which is a supplier of electricity. A significant amount of shares of this company belongs to a major Ukrainian businessman Rinat Akhmetov

15 On January 21, the Council of Ministers of Crimea adopted a Resolution #14 4 On the reacquisition of the property of the private joint-stock company Yugrybholod in Kerch. The Resolution establishes the appointment of an interim administration to manage this association, and control of the implementation is the responsibility of the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of Crimea Yanaki N.L. In Sevastopol, the employees of the Institute of Biology of the Southern Seas and the Marine Hydrophysical Institute reported that these institutions are being forced to become the branches of the Sochi Institute of Natural and Technical Systems. The employees are forced to write letters of resignation. The employees are confident that the institute established in Sochi is a fictitious structure, its purpose is to capture the facilities and equipment of the Institute of Biology of the Southern Seas and the Marine Hydrophysical Institute. The actions of the local and Russian authorities lead to violations of rights to the inviolability of home. Thus, the CFM found out that in November 2014, the representatives of Crimean authorities and the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation illegally seized two service apartments in Simferopol and two apartments in Sevastopol, owned by the Ukrainian Navy officers, who were forced to leave the territory of Crimea in March The locks in the apartments were broken, the doors were opened and sealed. After that the Russian officers were accommodated in the apartments. The representatives of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, through the neighbors, told the Ukrainian officers to take all their belongings from the apartments before December 1, They substantiated their actions and decisions by the fact that the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation decided to accommodate the Russian military in the apartments owned by the Ukrainian officers. In addition to these cases, the requirements of eviction from the owned apartments were announced to several other soldiers of the Ukrainian army. Such actions of the Russian authorities are incompatible with the prohibition of unreasonable and arbitrary encroachment on the inviolability of home, which obliges the authorities not only to prevent the violation of the inviolability of home, but also to take active steps to protect these rights. ACCESS TO HEALTHCARE After the end of the so-called transition period, the CPM has repeatedly received complaints from the residents of Crimea, who were denied the free basic health services due to their lack of Russian passport and insurance policy of the Russian Federation. The residents of Eastern Ukraine, which due to the armed conflict have left their homes and came to Crimea, face problems related to the inpatient care in the health facilities in Crimea. Thus, in Kerch, a child was denied admission of tests and specific services in the clinic due to the lack of insurance. The child s mother - a resident of Kramatorsk (Eastern Ukraine) is a citizen of Ukraine and is unable to get such insurance. In Kerch, for a few months the insulin was not provided to parents of children with diabetes. The parents reported that in Kerch they last received insulin in October The hospital staff explained that insulin should only be provided in the state pharmacies Krym-Pharmacy and there are no such pharmacies in Kerch. This situation leads to a serious threat to the life and health of children suffering from diabetes. III. PROBLEMS OF THE RESIDENTS OF CRIMEA WHO HAD TO EXCAPE FROM THE PENINSULA AND MOVE TO CONTINENTAL UKRAINE (INTERNALLY DISPLACED PERSONS) GENERAL SITUATION

16 The previously identified systemic problems faced by the internally displaced persons from Crimea in Ukraine have not been resolved. 1. The discriminatory practices of application of the status of non-resident to all persons who have a registered place of residence in Crimea. The basis of such discrimination in obtaining the banking services is formed by the two Resolutions of the National Bank of Ukraine (NBU), which were upheld by the court. 2. After the cessation of transport communication with Crimea, namely, the transportation of passengers, the possibility of travel to Crimea significantly complicated. Until now, the Ukrainian authorities have not arranged a system of public transportation to the main crossing points at the administrative border with Crimea - Armyansk and Chongar. The transportation of passengers is carried out by nonscheduled carriers whose activity is no longer regulated by the Ukrainian legislation. Thus, the transportation is illegal, there is no guarantee of safety of the passengers, and the prices are unreasonably high. The lack of transportation has significantly disrupted the social, economic and cultural relations with Crimea, especially with regard to the right to private and family life, as for many residents of Crimea the regular visits of relatives and friends have become impossible due to the cost and complexity of the travel (several interchanges, nonscheduled transport, crossing the border on foot). 3. There is a problem with certain types of documents of Crimeans, which are to be used in the mainland Ukraine. The acts of civil status (certificates of birth, death, marriage), issued in Crimea, are not recognized by the Ukrainian authorities and do not constitute the grounds for issuance of the similar Ukrainian documents. Another set of problems is related to the pension matters of Crimeans relocating to mainland Ukraine. Such citizens are required to provide pension files from Crimea and certificates stating that they do not receive pensions in the Russian Federation. However, usually the Crimean authorities refuse to issue such documents. The resolution of these problems requires the introduction of changes to the current legislation of Ukraine; currently the working groups of civil society experts have been established and are involved in the preparation of such changes seeking cooperation with the MPs of Ukraine in addressing these problems. The review was prepared by: Olga Skrypnik, Deputy Head of the Crimean Field Mission on Human Rights; Vissarion Aseev, analyst of the Center of Civic Education Almenda; Victoria Gromova, representative of the Crimean Field Mission on Human Rights in Moscow; Alexandra Krylenkova, field coordinator of the Crimean Field Mission on Human Rights; Dmitry Makarov, Deputy Head of the Crimean Field Mission on Human Rights, Youth Human Rights Movement; Dariia Sviridova, lawyer, Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union; Tetiana Pechonchyk, Chairman of the Board of the Human Rights Information Centre. 16

17 ПРИЛОЖЕНИЯ Приложение 1 Повестка Заиру Смедляеву от Следственного отдела ФСБ 17

18 Приложение 2 Постановление о производстве обыска на телеканале ATR 18

19 Приложение 3 МИНИСТЕРСТВО СВЯЗИ И МАССОВЫХ КОММУНИКАЦИЙ РОССИЙСКОЙ ФЕДЕРАЦИИ Г.З. Юксель ФЕДЕРАЛЬНАЯ СЛУЖБА ПО НАДЗОРУ В СФЕРЕ СВЯЗИ, ИНФОРМАЦИОННЫХ ТЕХНОЛОГИЙ И МАССОВЫХ КОММУНИКАЦИЙ (РОСКОМНАДЗОР) Китайгородский проезд, д. 7, стр. 2, Москва, тел./факс: (495) ; Уважаемая Гаяна Заировна! В ответ на Ваше обращение (вх от ) сообщаем о нижеследующем. Федеральная служба по надзору в сфере связи, информационных технологий и массовых коммуникаций рассмотрела поступившие от Вас документы на регистрацию информационного агентства «Агентство «QHA» (вх сми от ) и, в соответствии со ст. 13 Закона Российской Федерации от 27 декабря 1991 года «О средствах массовой информации», отказала в его регистрации (Приказ Роскомнадзора от 30 декабря 2014 года 313-смк «О решениях Федеральной службы по надзору в сфере связи, информационных технологий и массовых коммуникаций по вопросам регистрации средств массовой информации»). Начальник Управления разрешительной работы в сфере массовых коммуникаций М.В. Виноградов Документ подписан электронной подписью в системе электронного документооборота Роскомнадзора СВЕДЕНИЯ О СЕРТИФИКАТЕ ЭП Кому выдан: Виноградов Максим Викторович Серийный : Кем выдан: CA RTK Срок действия Отказ в регистрации информационному агентству «QHA» 19

20 Приложение 4 Симферополь, православный храм 20

21 Приложение 5 Постановление по делу об административном правонарушении решение о выдворении С. Кадырова. 21

22 Приложение 6 Ответ Государственной администрации железнодорожного транспорта Украины по вопросу прекращения железнодорожного сообщения с Крымом 22

23 Приложение 7 Определение Киевского районного суда г. Симферополь по заявлению И. Юкселя 23