Prosecutor The Hague Tribunal equated the situation in Crimea to “occupation” and “military conflict”

The prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague, Fatou Bensouda, published a report on the actions preliminary investigation situation in Ukraine, in which what happened with Crimea is called a “military conflict” and “occupation”. It also states that Russian authorities, presumably, support “anti-government elements,” that is, the self-proclaimed DPR and LPR.

The removal of the fourth president of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych, from power is not called “anti-constitutional” in the report (this version is supported by Russian side, including Vladimir Putin). “The Parliament of Ukraine voted for the resignation of President Yanukovych, who left the country on the same day, going to the Russian Federation,” the ICC states (paragraph 153).

"157. The assumption of control of Crimea by the Russian Federation generally occurred without fire. Russian military personnel were used to establish control over the territory, including Ukrainian military bases and government buildings, and in mid-March the Ukrainian government began withdrawing military units and units located at Crimean bases, to the main territory of the country.

158. According to the information received, the situation in the territory of Crimea and Sevastopol is tantamount to an international armed conflict between Ukraine and the Russian Federation. This international armed conflict began no later than February 26, when the Russian Federation used its armed forces to gain control over parts of Ukrainian territory without the consent of the Ukrainian government. The law of international armed conflicts is also applicable after March 18, 2014 to the extent that the situation in the territory of Crimea and Sevastopol amounts to a continuing state of occupation. It is not necessary to establish the legality of the original intervention that led to the occupation. For the purposes of the Rome Statute, an armed conflict may be international in nature if one or more States partially or wholly occupies the territory of another State, regardless of whether the occupation is accompanied by armed resistance."

159. Simultaneously with the events in Crimea, anti-government protests continued in other regions of Ukraine, primarily in the east of the country. During April and May 2014, anti-government protesters occupied government buildings in the Kharkiv, Donetsk and Lugansk regions in eastern Ukraine. An anti-government group has formed calling itself " Civil uprising Donbass". Law enforcement attempted to regain control of the buildings, but these attempts were unsuccessful and the buildings were reoccupied by anti-government elements.

162. Following the “referendums” held on May 11, 2014, which were declared invalid by the Ukrainian government, representatives of the self-proclaimed “Donetsk and Lugansk people's republics" made statements proclaiming "independence" from Ukraine. In addition, the "DPR" and "LPR" published appeals asking to be accepted into the Russian Federation. "DPR" and "LPR" remain unrecognized by almost all states, including the Russian Federation.

166. Clashes of varying degrees of tension continued for more than two years in eastern Ukraine between Ukrainian government forces and anti-government elements allegedly supported by the Russian Federation. Clashes involve the use of military equipment by both sides. Two periods of particularly intense fighting were reported in Ilovaisk ( Donetsk region) at the end of August 2014 and in Debaltsevo (Donetsk) in the period from January to February 2015. The increased severity of the fighting during these periods is associated with the alleged influx of personnel, Vehicle and military equipment from the Russian Federation in order to strengthen the positions of armed groups."

170. The Office of the Prosecutor is also reviewing allegations that the Russian Federation generally exercised control over armed groups in eastern Ukraine to determine whether this otherwise non-international armed conflict can be considered an international conflict in nature. The existence of a single international armed conflict in eastern Ukraine would entail the application of the articles of the Rome Statute relevant to armed conflicts of an international character during the relevant period. In conducting its analysis, the Office of the Prosecutor must determine whether available information indicates Russian government support for armed groups in the form of equipment, personnel and funding, and whether general management or assistance in planning the activities of armed groups in a manner that would indicate that they [the Russian authorities] are exercising effective control over them. The Office of the Prosecutor is currently conducting a detailed factual and legal analysis of the available information related to this issue.

173. Murders and abductions: Since March 2014, at least 10 people have reportedly disappeared in connection with the situation in Crimea. In most cases, the alleged victims were known to have opposed the occupation of Crimea, and their abductions were linked to the activities of the Crimean Self-Defense paramilitary group. The Office of the Prosecutor is also reviewing two cases of alleged abductions and murders of Crimean Tatar activists in March and September 2014.

178. Killings: According to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, since the beginning of the conflict, approximately 9,578 people have been killed and 22,236 people injured, including members of the armed forces, members of military groups and civilians̆. Between April 2014 and June 2016, up to 2,000 civilians were killed in combat zones, mostly (85-90%) as a result of artillery fire settlements both in government-controlled areas and in areas under the control of military groups. Other incidents have been reported, including the alleged killing or injury of civilians firearms, attributed to both government-supporting military forces and armed groups. It is also alleged that there have been a number of executions without trial of incapacitated Ukrainian military personnel and members of armed groups."

November 16, 13:20 Today, November 16, Russia abandoned the agreement on the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague, such an order was signed by Russian President Vladimir Putin. It was published on official portal legal information. The document says:

"1. Accept the proposal of the Russian Ministry of Justice, agreed upon with the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and other interested federal authorities executive power, with the Supreme Court Russian Federation, Prosecutor General's Office Russian Federation and the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation, on the direction Secretary General UN notification of the intention of the Russian Federation not to become a party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, adopted by the Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries under the auspices of the UN in Rome on July 17, 1998 and signed on behalf of the Russian Federation on September 13, 2000.

2. The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs shall send a corresponding notification to the UN Secretary General.

3. This order comes into force from the date of its signing."

In September 2000, Russia signed the Rome Statute but did not ratify it, so it did not become a state party to the ICC. Russia cooperated with the ICC as an observer.

November 16, 14:36 The International Criminal Court (ICC) did not live up to the hopes placed on it and did not become a truly independent body of international justice, the Russian Foreign Ministry said:

“Russia consistently advocates bringing to justice those responsible for the most serious international crimes. Our country was at the forefront of the creation of the Nuremberg and Tokyo Tribunals, and participated in the development of fundamental documents to combat such serious international crimes as genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. It was for these fundamental reasons that Russia voted for the adoption of the Rome Statute and signed it on September 13, 2000.

The ICC, the first permanent body of international criminal justice, was closely linked to the expectations of the international community in the fight against impunity in the context of overall efforts to maintain international peace and security, resolving existing conflicts and preventing new sources of tension.

Unfortunately, the Court did not live up to the hopes placed on it and did not become a truly independent, authoritative body of international justice. Fundamentally, at various venues, including the General Assembly and the UN Security Council, the ineffective and one-sided work of the Court in the cases it investigates was noted. An indicative fact is that during the 14 years of its work, the ICC issued only 4 verdicts, spending more than $1 billion.

In this regard, the demarche of the African Union is understandable, which decided to develop measures for a coordinated withdrawal from the Rome Statute of states African continent. In some participating States such procedures are already in place.

Russia cannot but be concerned about the ICC’s attitude towards the events of August 2008. The attack of M. Saakashvili's regime on peaceful Tskhinvali and the murder of Russian peacekeepers gave rise to accusations by the ICC against South Ossetian militias and Russian military personnel. The eventual investigation into the actions and orders of Georgian officials is purposefully left to the discretion of Georgian justice and remains outside the focus of the ICC prosecutor’s office. Such a reversal speaks for itself. In such conditions, one can hardly talk about confidence in the International Criminal Court.

The decision taken by the Russian Federation not to become a party to the ICC Statute, or, in other words, to withdraw its signature under this document, entails legal consequences provided for by the Vienna Convention on the Law of international treaties 1969".

We have created a chat in Telegram for the rapid exchange of news. If you witnessed any event or simply discovered important news, send it here as soon as possible:

The International Court of Justice in The Hague announced an interim decision on Ukraine's claim against Russia.

Consideration of the case on its merits may drag on for several years. Bye we're talking about about temporary, so-called preventive measures, which official Kyiv insisted on taking. The court, having considered all the arguments, rejected most of the Ukrainian claims.

Ukraine was unable to convince the UN court that Russia violated one of the most important international conventions - on the financing of terrorism. Official Kyiv insisted that the court in The Hague introduce so-called interim measures against Moscow. He demanded, in particular, to tighten control on the border with Ukraine and to stop any assistance to the authorities of the self-proclaimed people's republics of Donetsk and Lugansk. Kyiv claims that Russia allegedly supplies them with weapons.

“The court concluded that the conditions necessary to determine additional measures under the Financing of Terrorism Convention are not adequate. Ukraine has not provided evidence that would sufficiently demonstrate that such allegations are plausible,”- said the President of the International Court of Justice Ronnie Abraham.

Chief Justice Ronnie Abraham chose his words very carefully. It was clear that he did not accept the overly politicized rhetoric of Ukrainian lawyers and diplomats. At the Peace Palace in The Hague they only studied documents about the crash of the Malaysia Airlines airliner. Members of the Russian delegation at the meetings recalled that the investigation into the MH-17 crash has not yet been completed.

The court only partially agreed with the arguments of the Ukrainian delegation. As Ronnie Abraham stated, the situation of Ukrainians and Crimean Tatars in Crimea is vulnerable. The judges did not explain what they meant.

“With regard to the situation in Crimea, the Russian Federation must, in accordance with its obligations under the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, refrain from maintaining or imposing restrictions on the ability of the Tatar community to maintain representative institutions, including the Mejlis, and ensure accessibility of education in the Ukrainian language",- said Judge Philippe Couvreur.

It is worth recalling that the Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar people Supreme Court Russia recognized extremist organization. Its leaders are in Kyiv. As for the Crimean Tatars, they are proportionally represented both in government bodies and in public organizations.

“As for the demands that forms of racial and national discrimination, then I would simply like to get evidence of this. Because such statements are completely unfounded, which are not only untrue, but also offensive,"- says political scientist Vladimir Dzharalla.

Even during the preliminary hearings Russian diplomats informed the judges that on the peninsula, Ukrainian, along with Russian and Tatar, is the state language. And no one can ban its teaching. The court may take all these circumstances into account in the future.

The final court decision in soon not worth the wait. Experts say: the process started by Ukraine may drag on for five years. It seems that the Kyiv authorities are interested not so much in the court decision as in another opportunity to present themselves as a victim and attract maximum attention to this process.

At some point, the head of the Ukrainian delegation, Elena Zerkal, spoke with the words of the hero of the epic film " star Wars“: “We are confident of victory, because we are on the bright side!” But the judges are not dealing with intergalactic treaties, but with international law.

Nenka did not catch up that the chairman of the court, Ronnie Abraham, did not leave Ukraine any hope of victory and did not even warm up.

Ukraine’s goal is clear: to poke into all the cracks rather than constantly put pressure on Russia, the offender. IN European Court There are five human rights lawsuits that seem to be lying around awaiting their fate. In The Hague. In London.

But no, in London it’s us. But Ukraine perceives any international platform as a place where it can once again talk about aggression, hybrid wars, in which he considers himself an expert, and love for democracy and European values. In which, for some reason, he also considers himself an expert.

It’s clear that the public is at the level of the eloquent Speaker of the Verkhovna Rada, the head of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, who in Lately relaxed and stopped putting on a smart face, or even the president - perhaps the most intelligent representative of the modern ukroelite, judging by economic indicators his chocolate empire are not capable of building such intrigues. The hand of the master is visible here.

But now the master has no time - he is too lazy to call Brussels or Strasbourg in order to intimidate the obstinate judges. And they completely lost their belts.

"Having considered the provisional measures requested by Ukraine and the circumstances of this case, the court decides that the measures to be determined must not be identical to those requested by Ukraine,"- President of the UN Court Ronnie Abraham proclaimed today. It seems that the cleansing lustration did not touch him. In Ukraine, he would have been thrown into a trash can long ago for such speeches.

And the decision itself smacks of evil. The court will repeat, ordered Russia "refrain from imposing restrictions on the Crimean Tatars and their community, preserve their institutions, including the Majlis". And he demanded that the Russian Federation ensure the availability of education in the Ukrainian language on the territory of Crimea. That is, he actually recognized that the peninsula is under Russian jurisdiction.

But he did not want to admit Russia’s financing of terrorism in the Donbass republics. "At this stage of the case, Ukraine has not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that these elements are plausible,"- said Ronnie Abraham. And he added that he expects both sides to implement the Minsk agreements to resolve the crisis in Ukraine. Thus stepping on a sore spot for politicians who have long wanted to forget about this terrible document for them, which has the force of a UN resolution.

Of course, you and I understand: everything can change. Perhaps the State Department will soon receive an answer as to why the American taxpayer needs Ukraine, and things will go in the direction Kyiv needs. But today, when the arbitrators are not under US pressure, they can afford to judge fairly.

Dmitry Soshin, Pavel Shipilin

From the editors of Novo24. Here’s how the leader of the People’s Republic of Russia, Oleg Tsarev, assessed the results of the trial:

“On Wednesday, April 19, the International Court of Justice in The Hague refused to satisfy Ukraine’s request to establish provisional measures in a claim against Russia in connection with a violation of the convention for the suppression of the financing of terrorism.

Kyiv filed its claim with the International Court of Justice on January 16, 2017. Ukraine accused the Russian Federation of violating the conventions on the fight against the financing of terrorism and on the elimination of racial discrimination and demanded that “temporary measures” be introduced against Moscow until the final verdict of the court. Among Kyiv’s demands is to stop “supplying weapons to Ukraine, supporting militants,” as well as “discrimination” in Crimea.

"At this stage of the case, Ukraine has not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that these elements are plausible," the court's president, Judge Ronnie Abraham, said at a public hearing at the Peace Palace in The Hague on April 19.

It must be said right away that this is not the final decision of the court. Ukraine will (at least intends to) present some evidence of Russia’s financing of the militia of the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics, thereby providing the basis for its main accusation – Russia’s financing of terrorism. Proving Russia's financing of terrorism will be extremely difficult. If the solution is the same as the one we received now, then in any case this will be a plus for Russia. Plus - because with the Majlis, the Tatars, with Ukrainian language Somehow we can sort it out and come to an agreement. Here serious problems I do not see. But if it is not proven (and most likely it will not be proven, which we see from the preliminary position of the court) that Russia is financing terrorism, then it turns out that in Ukraine there is Civil War. And if there is a civil war, the army is involved in the killing of its own civilian population, airplanes are used, there are bombings and shelling - then this actually gives us the opportunity to appeal to legal authorities. Just not to the UN international court, but to the tribunal (which should then be created) for the criminal actions of the Ukrainian authorities. And Ukraine’s lawsuit will come back to her like a boomerang. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was a serious failure for the Russian Federation in the UN court - rather, it is still a victory. I am always careful with words, and today I see the situation that way. Another thing is that this local victory must be skillfully developed further.

The decision of the Kyiv authorities to go to court on charges of aiding terrorism was initially a losing one. Maybe somewhere in the world the Donetsk militias were called terrorists, there was some kind of recognition of the DPR and LPR terrorist organizations? No. There were no such court decisions nowhere in the world and not even inside Ukraine. Therefore, Ukraine stands on shaky ground. When you go to court, you recognize the jurisdiction of this court. In 2009, Ukraine already lost part of its territories (the shelf of Snake Island) in court, and they went to Romania. IN in this case Ukraine itself was the initiator of this trial, but if a decision follows that there is no Russian financing of terrorism, then it will be a very serious loss for Ukraine. That is, Ukraine, by the very way it raised the issue of financing terrorism, predetermined the impossibility of sane lawyers making a positive decision on this issue for Ukraine. From the point of view of simple legal literalism, this is impossible: if there are no terrorists, then what is the financing of terrorists? It is extremely difficult to prove the financing of terrorism and the very existence of terrorism. I have no idea what documents must be presented to the court or how these documents can be obtained in order to prove anything on this charge.

I would like to more specifically examine the possibilities for implementing the temporary measures to which Russia was obliged. Let's start with something simpler - Ukrainian schools. I think that this is very simple to implement - we need to invite all parents who want this to write an application for their children to study in Ukrainian classes. And if a sufficient number of such applications are collected, then it is necessary to organize training in Ukrainian. There are no difficulties in organizing this. Another thing is that we are unlikely to find anyone willing - even in such major cities, like Simferopol or Sevastopol - at least for one class. You can, of course, create fictitious classes, such schools, and allocate salaries for teachers. But these classes will be empty. And then what – force the children there? Nobody will do this, there is no such procedure. The procedure can only be as I said – an initiative from below. This will demonstrate Russia's desire to comply with the court's demands. But I don’t think that such classes will be created - due to the fact that there will be no takers.

As for the Majlis, I think that all Tatars should just join there and elect normal leaders. There are candidates. For example, Ruslan Ismailovich Balbek, I have known him for many years from working in Verkhovna Rada(he was an assistant to my colleague Dmitry Shevtsov). Now Balbec is a deputy of the State Duma of the Russian Federation. I have photos on Facebook (though the page has been deleted, but you can search for them on the Internet): Tatars came and were very active in Anti-Maidan. Therefore, the overwhelming majority of Tatars came to Crimean referendum, voted to join Russia. Those who were against it left. But there are very few of them. Therefore, there are no obstacles to the creation of a normal Majlis.

There are some organizations that practice radical Islam. But this is literally a fraction of a percent of the entire Tatar population. There are outrageous young people who drive cars quickly through Crimean cities, shout something, and a yellow-blue Tatar flag is stuck out the window. I think that we should not alienate young people - we should attract them. If they want to emphasize their individuality and preserve their identity, then the Russian Federation in this sense is a more convenient country than Ukraine. In general, with the transition under Russian jurisdiction Crimean Tatars received more rights than they had in Ukraine. Issues that had never been resolved began to be resolved. Issues with the allocation of land and the registration of enterprises were in favor a short time resolved. Maybe there was such a setup supreme power to gain the support of the Tatar population. But in any case, this practice, this installation worked. I drive around Crimea by car and hear Tatar broadcasts all the time. The fact that the Tatar media are actively working is fundamental.

Let's get back to the courts. Is Russia too late with its counterclaims? The question of those characters who blow up power poles and carry out various blockades of Crimea - representatives of the current so-called Majlis - could have long been raised at the global level. How to bring up for international discussion the issue of recognizing that Kyiv authorities carry out discrimination and genocide against Russians. I think this is a systemic problem for the Russian Federation. The problem is that, first of all, it is necessary to finance and nurture organizations that will protect the rights of Russians, of Russia. I came to the OSCE and saw how this is done. It is very bad that this work is not being carried out. A lot of money is allocated to organizations such as Rossotrudnichestvo. It would be better if instead Russian journalists abroad were organized and supported, Russians were supported human rights organizations. Human rights activities should be core. The rights of Russians are being infringed throughout the former Soviet Union: in Kazakhstan, and in Kyrgyzstan, and in Tajikistan... And claims should have been filed against the Baltic countries a long time ago. Ukraine filed a lawsuit in defense of the Tatars, who are not really oppressed in Crimea. But it is completely unclear why Russia does not file similar lawsuits against the Baltic countries in connection with such a phenomenon as “non-citizens” living in these countries - our compatriots?

At one time, within the framework of the parliament of Novorossiya, I carried out such activities when we prepared claims from injured people in international courts. But now this activity has been curtailed. It has its own problems related to the fact that in order to apply to international courts, you must first go through the entire vertical of Ukrainian courts. But experience South Ossetia showed that in the event of military conflicts - and there is a military conflict in Ukraine - you can immediately turn to international courts, and they can make decisions. This is a common problem for the Russian Federation, which does not protect itself. There are a lot of international, European mechanisms, we need to integrate into them, work on this and protect Russians, Russian-speaking people and our interests. After all, when they protect Russians in Ukraine or Tajikistan, this is not just helping them from a universal human standpoint, it is supporting the strongest lobby in these territories - the lobby of the Russian Federation. Such as the Ukrainian lobby in Canada. We see what a tough anti-Russian position Canada takes on the issue of Ukraine. Why? Because there is the most powerful Ukrainian diaspora. And Russia needs to carry out this work."

Subscribe to NOVO24

on Tuesday, November 14, a report on the activities of the preliminary investigation into the conflict in Ukraine. “According to the information received, the situation in the territory of Crimea and Sevastopol is tantamount to an international armed conflict between Ukraine and the Russian Federation,” the document says. The text specifies that the international armed conflict began “no later than February 26” 2014, at the moment when Russia “used the personnel of its armed forces to gain control over parts of the territory of Ukraine without the consent of the Ukrainian government.”

Context

According to the ICC, the law of international armed conflicts also applies to the situation that arose after March 18, 2014, when the inclusion of Crimea and Sevastopol into the Russian Federation was announced. “To the extent that the situation on the territory of Crimea and Sevastopol will be equivalent to a continuing state of occupation,” the report specifies. The Court emphasizes that in this case it is not necessary to establish the lawfulness of the original intervention that led to the occupation.

For the purposes of the Rome Statute, an armed conflict can be international in nature if one or more states partially or completely occupy the territory of another state, regardless of whether armed resistance is offered to the occupation, the document emphasizes.

The referendum held by Russia on the territory of the Ukrainian peninsula of Crimea on March 16 was declared invalid by the Ukrainian government and the majority of member countries General Assembly UN.

The International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague has published a report containing the results of a preliminary investigation into the events that took place in Crimea and eastern Ukraine since November 2013. According to these data, the events in Crimea preceding the referendum on the annexation of the peninsula to Russia contain signs of an international conflict. The crisis in eastern Ukraine, according to ICC prosecutors, in turn, should be assessed in two ways: how internal conflict, but with international elements.

The document was compiled on behalf of ICC prosecutor Fatou Bensouda and covers investigations that prosecutors conducted between November 1, 2015 and October 31, 2016 into ten potential court cases. Among them are events in Ukraine since 2014, which contain signs of war crimes.

"Maidan" is clean

The ICC investigation divides these events into three processes: the events on Independence Square, as well as the situation in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine since February 20, 2014.

The “Euromaidan” revolution raised the fewest questions among the Hague justice system. The events at Independence Square, as the ICC calls them, are not accompanied by a list of possible crimes. However, the authors of the document warn that clashes between law enforcement officers and protesters on the Maidan have been recorded. Thus, the ICC may qualify these events as “attacks against civilians” if more detailed information about collisions.

The situation in Crimea and eastern Ukraine, on the contrary, is accompanied by a list of probable crimes.

The report states that international conflict in Crimea began no later than February 26, 2014, when Russia used its troops to establish control over certain parts Ukraine. “The assumption of control of Crimea by the Russian Federation as a whole took place without fire,” the text of the document reads. — Russian military personnel were used to establish control over territory, including Ukrainian military bases and government buildings, and the Ukrainian government began a recall in mid-March military units and units located at Crimean bases."

After March 18, 2014, when Crimea officially became part of Russia following the results of an illegal referendum, the law of international armed conflicts may be applied to Russia, the ICC report states.

According to investigators, the situation in Crimea and Sevastopol amounts to occupation.

The report also reports that after Russia accepted Crimea into the country, about 19 thousand Crimean Tatars were oppressed. The document notes that these people were intimidated, their freedom of speech was limited, their homes were searched, and some were completely banned from entering the territory of Crimea.

In addition, according to ICC investigators, there are signs of other serious crimes in Crimea: murders and kidnappings, ill-treatment with people, unfair judicial trial and forced military service. The latter accusation is explained by the fact that Russian legislation with mandatory conscription into the armed forces began to take effect on the peninsula.

In eastern Ukraine, the Hague's preliminary investigation found evidence of the following crimes: murder, destruction of civilian objects, detention, kidnapping, torture and sexual crimes. They are suspected of involving both representatives of the Ukrainian special services and armed forces, as well as members of militant groups of the self-proclaimed Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics (DPR and LPR).

“By 30 April 2014, hostilities between Ukrainian government forces and anti-government armed elements in eastern Ukraine had reached a level that would trigger the application of the law of armed conflict,” the ICC report reads.

“The level of organization of armed groups operating in Eastern Ukraine, including the LPR and DPR, had by that time reached a degree sufficient to consider these groups parties to a non-international armed conflict,” the document states.

No later than July 14, as ICC experts write, the Eastern Ukrainian conflict received international content. " additional information indicate a direct military confrontation between the Russian armed forces and the forces of the Ukrainian government, which suggests the existence of an international armed conflict,” explain the authors of the Hague report.

Another option for developing the investigation is to classify the conflict in Donbass as completely international. The fact is that the ICC received “statements that the Russian Federation as a whole exercised control over armed groups in eastern Ukraine.”

This information remains to be verified.

Russia, like Ukraine, has not ratified the European Rome Statute. This means that countries are not subject to the jurisdiction of the ICC. However, Ukraine agreed to become a subject of this right when the country’s authorities adopted declarations on April 17, 2014 and September 8, 2015.

Without Minsk the guilty ones

“We cannot expect rapid developments here,” says lawyer Ilya Novikov, who previously represented the interests of captive Ukrainian citizen Nadezhda Savchenko in a Russian court. — ICC investigations work differently. This is a long game. The accusations gradually accumulate and sooner or later they come out.

According to Gazeta.Ru’s interlocutor, the current preliminary investigation “does not look positive for a number of Russian politicians” and could result in formal charges with ICC arrest warrants.

This will give countries where the Rome Statute is in force (and this is the overwhelming number of European and South American countries, as well as some states in Africa and Asia, a total of 123 countries), the right to detain these Russian citizens and send them to The Hague for trial.

According to the leading researcher at the Institute of Problems international security RAS Alexey Fenenko, this is precisely the goal of the ICC, which follows in the wake of American politics.

However, according to Paul Kalinichenko, professor of the Department of Integration and European law Moscow Law University named after O.E. Kutafina, Russian politicians senior officials, if they come to the attention of the ICC, will be at the later stages of this already long process.

"The Hague Process this moment does not promise big problems for the top leadership of Russia and Ukraine. Typically, these trials first seek to identify those who carried out and gave the orders that led to the war crimes. They go from the bottom up the chain of command,” the expert told Gazeta.Ru. “For those who are now part of the structure of the self-proclaimed people’s republics in Donbass, the ICC investigation could have much more serious consequences.”

This situation, according to Kalinichenko, may, under certain circumstances, come into conflict with the Minsk agreements, which, among other things, provided for a broad amnesty for representatives of the LPR and DPR.

The amnesty should occur after the process of reunification of Donbass begins and Western Ukraine under the control of Kyiv.

According to lawyer Ilya Novikov, contradictions between the Minsk and Hague processes will most likely be avoided. “If you read the text of the Minsk agreements, they do not specify the rules for holding an amnesty, so Kyiv has a very wide margin for maneuver,” he said. “In addition, it is now premature to talk about the contradictions between the amnesty and the ICC verdict, since there is neither one nor the other.”

Novikov argues that The Hague justice, as a rule, takes into account the verdicts of national courts. “If Ukraine holds an amnesty, the ICC will definitely take into account the opinion of local judicial institutions,” he believes.

However, judging by another process that the ICC is conducting in relation to Russia, the verdict of national courts is taken into account, but is not always taken into account. The investigation is controlled by the same prosecutor Fatou Bensouda, who considered that not all legal trials of those accused of war crimes that took place in Georgia and South Ossetia were satisfactory.

“There is another problem: an amnesty in Ukraine - even if the Kyiv authorities agree to carry it out - is unlikely to apply to everyone,” says Kalinichenko. The process, according to Gazeta.Ru’s interlocutor, will resemble the investigation after the Chechen campaigns in Russia.

“Those militants who will face charges of participation in illegal armed groups may be released from liability. Those who are suspected of war crimes are unlikely,” the expert added.

This fact alone can be interpreted by representatives of the DPR and LPR as a violation of the Minsk agreements.

Annexation of the Crimean Peninsula and administrative center republican subordination- the city of Sevastopol in preliminary assessments of the International Criminal Court (The Hague, the Netherlands) “is tantamount to an international armed conflict between Ukraine and the Russian Federation.”

This is stated in the report of the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Fatou Bensouda, which is devoted to the preliminary investigation of the situation in Ukraine.

“According to the information received, the situation in Crimea and Sevastopol is tantamount to an international armed conflict between Ukraine and the Russian Federation. This international armed conflict began no later than February 26, when the Russian Federation used its armed forces to gain control over parts of Ukrainian territory without the consent of the Ukrainian government. The law of international armed conflicts is also applicable after March 18, 2014 to the extent that the situation in the territory of Crimea and Sevastopol amounts to a continuing state of occupation. Establishing the legality of the initial intervention that led to the occupation is not required,” it is emphasized in paragraph 158 of the report.

Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda reports that “the assumption of control of Crimea by the Russian Federation as a whole took place without fire.”

“Russian military personnel were used to establish control over territory, including Ukrainian military bases and government buildings, and in mid-March the Ukrainian government began withdrawing military units located at Crimean bases to the main territory of the country,” the report says.

The report represents a preliminary analysis of the facts that were provided by Ukrainian non-governmental organizations to the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court.

“The Office of the Prosecutor is currently reviewing materials collected by NGOs operating in Ukraine. The materials run to more than 7,000 pages and consist of several hundred documented interview reports and other information from witnesses and victims. Based on information obtained from large number reliable sources, the Office of the Prosecutor has created a comprehensive database of more than 800 incidents allegedly occurring within the framework of the “Situation in Ukraine” case since February 20, 2014,” the document notes.

Donbass: 400 missing

The press release emphasizes that the report on the preliminary study of the situation in Ukraine is in free access on the website of the International Criminal Court.

The Office of the Attorney General's Actions section states that the office "continues to conduct a thorough factual and legal analysis of information received in connection with the conflict to determine whether there is reasonable cause to believe that the alleged crimes fall within the jurisdiction of the court."

Context

Through Crimea to The Hague in transit

Day 11/16/2016

The Baltics are not threatened by the fate of Crimea

Dagbladet 11/16/2016

Is Trump sabotaging the strategy for returning Crimea?

Observer 11/12/2016
The report reports cases of oppression of Crimean Tatars, murders and disappearances in Crimea and Donbass, arrests and lack of fair trials.

“About 179 persons deprived of their liberty were forcibly transferred from places of detention in Crimea to places of detention on the territory of the Russian Federation.<…>In connection with the conflict in eastern Ukraine, more than 400 people have been registered as “missing”, although it is unclear how many of this number have disappeared through violence,” the document emphasizes.

The fact of annexation, but not good will Crimeans

Expert of the “Ukrainian Political Consulting Group” Dmitry Razumkov calls the possibility of collecting information for transfer to the International Criminal Court with the subsequent possibility of consideration within the framework of the creation of a great achievement trial against Russia.

“The key aspect in this report is the point that the annexation of Crimea is actually recognized and equated to military occupation. Despite being led Russian troops, and then was prepared the legislative framework and a screen was created that Crimea came under the jurisdiction of Russia out of “good will”, the International Criminal Court in its preliminary report actually notes the opposite,” says Dmitry Razumkov to a correspondent of the Russian service of the Voice of America.

Declaration of the investigation process on " Ukrainian issue" on international level, according to Dmitry Razumkov, lays down a good prospect of being brought to completion.

“This is not a Ukrainian or Russian court whose decisions can be influenced. The creation of an international legal framework is one of the mechanisms of Ukraine’s struggle for independence and an unpleasant precedent for Russia,” notes Dmitry Razumkov.

However, he believes that the trial Russian actions in Ukraine is a matter of perspective, not the immediate future.

“We must not delude ourselves, but be realistic. As long as Vladimir Putin remains in power, any statements by international authorities will be of a diplomatic nature and will not be applied in full. The precedent with Yugoslavia, considered at the International Criminal Court, is very similar to the situation in Ukraine: torture, abductions, murders, violence, internal migration“,” emphasizes Dmitry Razumkov.

Evidence base for upcoming processes

Political scientist Mikhail Basarab believes that the evidence base in the case of Russian armed aggression against the sovereign Ukrainian state can be used not only in the International Criminal Court.

“And where it will be used - during meetings and resolutions of the UN Security Council, in the International Criminal Court, to conduct trials to bring Vladimir Putin and his supporters to justice in Ukrainian courts - it does not matter. The famous Ukrainian diplomat and judge of the Hague Tribunal Vladimir Vasilenko spoke about the need for Ukraine to form a consolidated claim, to prepare a basic document that would take into account absolutely all the evidence of Russia’s external aggression against Ukraine,” says Mikhail Basarab to a correspondent of the Russian service of the Voice of America.

At the same time, Mikhail Basarab believes that today it is quite difficult to predict the prospects for the development of a criminal case against Russia in international courts. He calls it a "conditional statement" that there are no exceptions when leaders Western world trying to criticize Russia's actions.

“We often see how Western politicians, frankly speaking, give in to Putin and are afraid to qualify the actions of the Kremlin regime. We need to rely only on ourselves. Much for future decisions in international courts will depend on the current work and position of Ukraine - the main burden in the matter of collecting evidence Russian aggression against the country lies on our shoulders,” notes Mikhail Basarab.

Mikhail Basarab emphasizes that it is equally important for the Ukrainian nation not only to reveal the crimes and circumstances of Russia’s armed aggression against Ukraine, but also to punish those responsible for committing crimes during the Revolution of Dignity.

“This concerns the puppet regime of Yanukovych during the Revolution of Dignity - the “Maidan case” also needs to be completed and fair decisions made, including in international courts, which previously made statements about the lack of evidence to proceed to the trial procedure in cases related to events during the “Revolution of Dignity,” emphasizes Mikhail Basarab.