Serhiy Kyslytsya - ukrinform.com · Arsen Zhumadilov, a Task Force expert and Advisor to the Chairman of Crimean Tatar People’s Mejlis. – ‘What are the proposals developed by

IN THE CENTER OF ATTENTION

The US Declared Non-Recognition

Policy on Occupied Crimea

page 3

THE TRUTH ABOUT THE CRIMEA

Expropriation of Ukrainian property in

Crimeapages 8-9

HISTORY AND CULTURE

Serhiy Hromenko: Russia has nether

legal nor historical rights to Crimea

page 14

Serhiy Kyslytsya:‘Solution lies in the realm of law

and diplomacy. This, however, takes routine and painstaking work.’

#4 (12) • 2018

Crimea Inform Magazine, No. 4 (12). Certificate of State Registration КВ №22665-12565 Р of 04.05.2017.Founder: Ukrinform Ukrainian National News Agency.

Publisher: PE “Company ”Apollon“, 79054, Lviv, Yavornitskogo, 8/82, tel .: +38 (032) 290-15-80, +38 (067) 671-15-80, e-mail: [email protected] in Chief: Kazdobina Y.

Address of the editorial office: B. Khmelnytskoho, str. 8/16, Kiev, 01001, tel .: (044) 299-00-10; fax: (044) 279-86-65, e-mail: [email protected] only with written permission of the editorial office.

Published by: Imperial Group Company LLC. Address: 79056, Lviv, Haiduchka, str. 1, tel. +38 (032) 290-15-80, +38 (063) 122-26-25, e-mail: [email protected] no. КА-00020-3 from 10.08.2018. Circulation: 2695 copies. Distributed free of charge.

The EU slaps sanctions on the companies involved in the construction of the Kerch Strait BridgeThe European Union has expanded its sanction list against Russia by adding re-strictive measures against six Russian businesses involved in the construction of the Kerch Strait Bridge. This decision appeared in the Official Journal of the EU on 30 July 2018. Included in the sanction list are: Institute Giprostroy-most-Saint-Petersburg and VAD (Saint Petersburg) joint-stock companies, Zaliv Shipyard based in Kerch, and three Moscow companies: PJSC Mostotrest, Stroygazmontazh Corporation (SGM Group), and Stroygazmontazh-Most Ltd.

The Russian Prime again visits Crimea in contempt for the International Law

Ukraine’s Foreign Ministry has protested strongly at the visit of Dmitriy Medvedev, Prime Minister of Russia, to the temporarily occupied territory of Ukraine on 28-29 July 2018.‘The visit by D. Medvedev to the Autonomous Republic of Crimea is a flagrant violation of the State sovereignty and territorial in-tegrity of Ukraine, and an outright and cynical contempt shown by the Russian party for the rules and obligations of Internation-al Law under bilateral and multilateral international treaties to which Ukraine and Russia are parties, the Declaration by the For-eign Ministry states.

Russia is compelled to suspend its Decree banning the Mejlis in Crimea

The UN International Court has forwarded its demand to the Russian Federation for the implementation of a mandatory clause of its Order concerning the reinstatement of the Mejlis in Crimea. Ukraine’s Foreign Ministry received this informa-tion in a letter from the UN Court.On 19 April 2018, the Foreign Ministry of Ukraine requested the UN ICJ to confirm Russia’s obligation to lift its ban on the activ-ities of the Mejlis pursuant to the Order issued by the UN Inter-national Court on 19 April 2017. In its letter, the Court fulfilled this request, indicating to Russia that the Order is of a binding nature, and the demand for the resumption of activities of the Mejlis is explicit and requires concrete measures to be taken. Russia must bring about these actions and inform the Court accordingly, the Foreign Ministry of Ukraine reports.

TV reports transmitted on the situation in Crimea over a period of one week. Such is the outcome of the monitoring conducted by the National Coun-

cil of Television and Radio Broadcasting of Ukraine with a view to learn how various matters relating to Crimea are covered by Ukrainian TV channels. Among the ongoing issues reported are the current situation in Crimea, the persecution of Ukrainian na-tionals, and the cases of political prisoners.

302

I welcome the decision of the Coun-cil of the European Union to impose sanctions against six legal persons involved in the illegal construction of the Kerch Bridge!Combined with the June decision of the EU Council to extend the en-tire “Crimean package” of sanctions against Russia until June 23, 2019, and the historic Pompeo’s “Crimea Declaration”, the Kremlin received a rigid and powerful answer to the ques-tion of Crimean belonging and status.I instructed the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to intensify their work on the further tightening of sanctions against the Rus-sian aggressor and any individuals or legal persons involved in the attempt of annexation and temporary occupation of the Ukrainian Crimea.

President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko

FACTS

On July 25 the US Secretary of State Michael Pompeo declared the policy of non-recognition of Russia’s attempted annexation of Crimea. A number of western countries and international organizations followed suite. Ukraine reiterated that its sovereignty over Crimea was non-negotiable. Russia was defiant.

The US Crimea Declaration stressed that by the attempted annexation of Crimea, Russia “sought to undermine a bed-rock international principle shared by democratic states: that no country can change the borders of another by force.” The document called on Russia “to end its occupation of Crimea” and stated that from then on the US was going to pursue the non-recognition policy sim-ilar to that proclaimed in the Welles Declaration of 1940, which refused to recognize the Soviet invasion of the Baltic states. The non-recognition pol-icy would stay in place until Ukraine’s territorial integrity is restored. The Ukrainian President Petro Poro-shenko welcomed the declaration and thanked Donald Trump’s Administra-tion for its “uncompromising position” and support of Ukraine’s territorial integrity. “Crimea belongs to Ukraine and it is not negotiable - it wasn’t, isn’t and can’t be compromised”, Poroshenko stressed. He said he hoped the declara-tion would “finally deprive Kremlin of its imperial illusions.” Great Britain, Poland, the European Union, Germany and Canada came out in support of Michael Pompeo’s statement.In his statement, the spokesperson of the British Foreign Office said “we con-demn Russia’s continued breach of in-ternational law; Crimea is Ukrainian territory.” He also expressed his con-cern over the human rights situation in Crimea, persecution of minorities and called on Russia to release political prisoners.

“We are fully introducing our non-rec-ognition policy, in particular by the re-strictive measures”, a spokesperson for the European Union said. He stressed that the Russian occupation was a direct defiance of the international security and posed a threat to the international order which protects unity and sovereignty of all states.In a statement placed on the website of the Canadian government on July 28, Canada also condemned the actions of the Russian Federation and reaffirmed “its enduring commitment” to Ukraine’s territorial integrity. It called for the re-lease of all illegally detained Ukrainian

citizens, including Oleh Sentsov and stressed that Russia also targeted the Crimean cultural heritage and mistreat-ed the Crimean Tatar population and their historic sites. The tone of the Russian MFA was mock-ing. Citing the recent changes in the US foreign policy on the Iranian nuclear pro-gram and climate change, the spokes-woman of the Russian Foreign Ministry Maria Zakharova insinuated “We know the value of these ‘fateful declarations’.” The Russian embassy to the United States wrote on its Facebook page that the dec-laration convinced them that “our part-ners live in a different reality.”

The US Declared Non-Recognition Policy on Occupied Crimea

3# 4 (12) • 2018 / CRIMEA INFORM

IN THE CENTER OF ATTENTION

The drafting of proposed amendments to Chapter X of the Constitution of Ukraine (‘Autonomous Republic of Crimea’) as or-dered by the President is in progress. The Task Force recently adopted the final ver-sion of these proposals, and forwarded it to the Constitutional Committee Sec-retariat. Once finalized, the President of Ukraine will submit the Draft document to the Verkhovna Rada. We are talking about changes pending in the Constitution with Arsen Zhumadilov, a Task Force expert and Advisor to the Chairman of Crimean Tatar People’s Mejlis.

– ‘What are the proposals developed by the Task Force?’– ‘The first and principal provision states that the right to self-determination of the Crimean Tatar People is the source of the special status of the Crimean Autonomy. We suggest that this proviso is added to Article 134 of the Constitution of Ukraine, stating that Crimea is an integral part of Ukraine. In this way we switch from a territorial to a national-and-territorial approach behind the establishment of the autonomy.Another key amendment aims at protect-ing and promoting the development of the Crimean Tatar language in Crimea. We suggest that a provision on the use of the Crimean Tatar language in the pen-insula alongside the State language, i.e. Ukrainian with some exceptions, obtains a Constitutional status. We are actually laying down the foundation for the de-velopment of the language that was being exterminated throughout centuries, sim-ilarly to Ukrainian.’

– ‘Will the Kurultai and Mejlis of Crime-an Tatar people also obtain a Constitu-tional status?’– ‘Yes of course. The Kurultai and Mejlis will be given the status of representative bodies of the Crimean Tatar people, as laid down in the Constitution. Why is this of such significance? Primarily, because this will allow us to avoid any manipu-lation as to who really should represent the Crimean Tatars in their relationships with the authorities.

– ‘What powers will the Kurultai and Me-jlis have?– ‘Article 135 will read that the Consti-tution of Crimea shall be approved by the Verkhovna Rada of Crimea and ad-opted by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine in coordination with the Kurultai of the Crimean Tatar people.The Kurultai and Mejlis will also be au-thorised to decide, together with the of-ficial authorities and local governments, on those matters directly related to the Crimean Tatar people. The range of these issues cannot be set out in full in the Con-stitution, therefore the authorities as-signed to the Kurultai and Mejlis will be laid down in the laws of Ukraine.’

– ‘Does it mean that the Verkhovna Rada has to examine and approve such authorities?’– ‘Yes, and the relevant documents are already being drafted. Most importantly one has to understand the idea behind the proposed amendments to the Constitu-tion: neither the Kurultai, nor the Mejlis will replace the authorities or local gov-ernments. However, these amendments

will introduce such mechanisms that will allow the representative bodies of the Crimean Tatar people to interact and cooperate with the authorities and local governments on a wider basis, as regards any matters related to Crimean Tatars.Finally, another key amendment is to re-store historic justice with regard to the representation of the Crimean Tatar peo-ple in the legislative branch in Crimea. The amendment provides that 34 out of the 100 Deputies of the Verkhovna Rada of Crimea, ie slightly more than one-third, will be elected as part of the Crimean Ta-tar people’s quota.In addition, the concept of ‘a Special Ad-ministration’ is added to the Constitu-tion. This administration is to be intro-duced by the President of Ukraine in the event of any real danger to either the territorial integrity or the State sover-eignty of Ukraine, arising in Crimea. This will serve as a precautionary instrument, something that was absent in 2014, and that has to ensure that in the future the repeat of any similar occurrences will be impossible.’

Arsen Zhumadilov: ‘The Right to Self-determination of the Crimean Tatar People is the Source of a Special Status of the Crimean Autonomy.’

4 CRIMEA INFORM / # 4 (12) • 2018

RESONANCE

– ‘What efforts is Ukraine making inter-nationally to liberate Crimea?’– ‘Most significant and comprehensive is the decision approved by the UN General Assembly on 27 March 2014, supporting the territorial integrity of Ukraine with-in the borders recognized by the interna-tional law and international community.This decision serves as our guidelines with regard to Crimea and the East of Ukraine alike. Resulting from our daily work at the UN General Assembly level, two more res-olutions on Crimea were adopted in 2016 and 2017. They have principal significance, because they introduce Russia’s status as the occupying country at the UN gov-erning body’s level. This means that the

requirement to comply with the humani-tarian law comes into force with regard to Russia. Consequently, among other things, the Russian Federation must enforce Ukrainian law in Crimea.The work has also been carried out in oth-er International organisations. The Baku Declaration and other documents adopted by the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly ac-knowledged that Russia, having invaded Crimea, has violated all the basic princi-ples of the OSCE. The Committee of Min-isters of the European Council and PACE adopted several decisions concerning the occupation of Crimea. Also a number of Resolutions were adopted in Geneva, in particular by the Human Rights Coun-

cil. UNESCO took decisions on the direct monitoring of the situation in Crimea, which UNESCO views as a part of the Ukrainian territory.However, the problem is that the Russian Federation neglects the decisions of In-ternational organisations, despite a whole chunk of them adopted as of today.It does this whilst being a permanent member of the UN Security Council, and it is the Security Council that, according to the UN Charter, bears the main responsi-bility for maintaining International peace and security. I would dare say that we are talking about outcomes that are not just a failure to implement the decisions per-taining to the Russian/Ukrainian conflict, but display the disregard shown by Russia to the complete system of International relations built up after WWII.’

– ‘Of what significance are the adopted Resolutions, if Russia ignores them?’

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

5# 4 (12) • 2018 / CRIMEA INFORM

POSITION

– ‘Firstly, we are dealing with a situation that will not be resolved either today or tomorrow. It requires daily painstaking work that often provides no spectacular photo opportunities. Without this work, however, it would be a daunting task to bring home Ukraine’s po-sition for example in The Hague. The decisions made by the UN General Assembly, and govern-ing bodies of other Internation-al organisations, are part of the overall legal position, and even sometimes pillars on which Ukraine’s position in the courts is based.Even if we take the environmental issues, just imagine the size of environmental damage inflicted by the aggressors, the way they extract mineral resources and the coastal foreshore is being ruined. Let us recall how many billions have been spent in order to overcome the environmental damage after the GDR reunited with Ger-many… Similar processes will take place in the presently occupied territories of Ukraine. However, the above-mentioned decisions will become part of our claims to receive compensation from the aggressor towards the renovation of Crimea and oth-er territories.Also, the Crimean issue is raised at all in-ternational events involving different gov-ernment agencies. Take, for instance, the International Telecommunication Union.

Where should Crimea belong when we talk of phone communications, satellite communications or the allocation of fre-quencies? The UN General Assembly Reso-lutions are very important in this respect,

providing guidance for all organisations: they recognize Russia as an occupying power.’

– ‘What has Ukraine achieved during the period of its membership in the UN Secu-

rity Council?’– ‘Our delegations have continuously, and in various formats, raised the issue of Rus-sian aggression against Ukraine. Apart from the Security Council we continued working with other UN bodies. Unfortu-nately, due to the specific nature of these procedures, we could not avoid the fact, that Russia has the right of veto. By the way, it has, to some degree, been forgot-ten that in 2014, before Ukraine tabled a Resolution at the General Assembly on the territorial integrity, Russia had blocked a similar decision in the Security Council. It also vetoed the resolution on the investi-gation of the tragedy with the Malaysian MH17 plane in July 2015.Given the obstruction by the aggressor country of issues related to its actions in Ukraine, the Security Council is limited to producing only watered-down documents and decisions concerning the Russian ag-gression.

Take, for instance a Press state-ment issued on 31 January 2017 in relation to the aggravation of the situation around Avdiyivka, or a recent statement by the Se-curity Council President on the situation in Donbas. Such doc-

uments are not voted on, but adopted by consensus. Unfortunately, their wording is not as strong as we would wish them to be. Russia absolutely would not allow this. To-day, it is practically impossible to influence this. Nevertheless, of course politicians

‘I would like to emphasise strongly that there is no military solution to the Crimea issue. Solution lies in the realm

of law and diplomacy. This, however, takes routine and painstaking work...’

6 CRIMEA INFORM / # 4 (12) • 2018

POSITION

and experts do exist who think that Russia should be deprived of the right of veto, but this issue is not going to be resolved in the immediate future. However, little strokes fell great oaks! We should not stop, or give up, since everything that is done today will stand us in good stead tomorrow.’

– ‘Does Ukraine have any vision regarding the veto power?’– ‘Different visions exist. A radical ap-proach suggests that Russia should not even be a member of the UN Security Council, because it received its member-ship under dubious circumstances, at the time when the Soviet Union dissolved. Ukraine is one of the initiators of propos-als related to the curtailment of this veto power, in particular when large-scale crimes against humanity, or genocide, are considered, and also to the actual curtail-ment of the rights of a Security Council member in a conflict situation where this member, as in the case with Russia, is an aggressor. I think this also involves the practical employment of the UN Charter provisions, and in particular Article 27 thereof.Nevertheless, the Security Council is a body that on a daily basis considers issues that jeopardise global security. Let us take the Syrian conflict, for example, where hundreds of thousands people have per-ished. Or the Middle East problem, Iran’s issue, that of maintaining peace in Africa. Russia is wielding its veto power very suc-cessfully. Whether or not we like it, neither the UN, nor individual countries, are able to resolve that same Syrian conflict with-out communicating with Russia.At the same time, despite the regular re-elections to the Security Council, Rus-sia was unable at any time to get decisions adopted re Ukraine that were not support-ed by our partners – both permanent and non-permanent Security Council mem-bers. Even in procedural matters, not cov-ered by the veto power, Russia has repeat-edly failed to achieve the required number of votes. Russia looks forwards to a subtle and im-perceptible erosion with regard to the po-

sition on Crimea in the UN. In one case it will provide its own statistics according to which Crimea ‘belongs’ to Russia, and in another one resort to implementing var-ious other tactics. We will at once retali-ate at any such body or organisation that accepts these statistics and thus fails to comply fully with the decisions of the Gen-eral Assembly.’

– ‘What are the next steps to be taken by Ukraine?’– ‘The President has tasked us with pre-paring a new resolution on Crimea. We will advance it at the next session of the UN General Assembly. It will be based on the two previous resolutions, however it will take into account the situation as of today. It is important that the UN is drafting Re-ports on Crimea to implement the previ-ous two Resolutions. A new Report will be

published in September. We will use this, and its provisions, in the drafting of a new Resolution that will contain stronger as-sessments of the failure by Russia to im-plement the relevant decisions.I would like to emphasise strongly that there is no military solution to the Crimea issue. Solution lies in the realm of law and diplomacy. This, however, takes routine and painstaking work. Even just one mem-orandum submitted to the International Court of Justice contains hundreds or even thousands of pages with a huge amount of facts making up the evidence body.It is therefore important to organise the coordinated work of all those involved in it. We are working in close cooperation with other ministries and agencies, and enjoy broad support from our colleagues. I am very grateful to Mustafa Dzhemilev. In November 2016, he travelled to New York, despite his very busy schedule, to advocate the first resolution on the Human Rights situation in the occupied Crimea. He was holding meetings morning till night, un-til the Third Committee of the UN Gen-eral Assembly adopted this Resolution. I am also grateful to civil society members, including those based in Crimea, for the work they often do in assisting us in the collection of information required for the evidence body. To conclude, Crimea will be Ukrainian without any doubt. It will return to Ukraine, and this will not be accomplished through military tactics.’

Serhiy Kyslytsia and Mustafa Dzhemilev

7# 4 (12) • 2018 / CRIMEA INFORM

POSITION

The annexation of Crimea by Russia has brought about massive and continual violations of the right to property – one of the most fundamental rights in the democratic world. Such violations are not limited to the State-owned national property and cultural heritage sites that were ‘nationalized’ by the de facto Crimean ‘authorities’. This right is also being breached with regard to land, minerals, water and other natural resources that, according to the Constitution of Ukraine (Article 13), fall under the right of ownership of the Ukrainian peoples. Also reported are numerous violations of private property rights in the peninsula.

How the property was appropriated

Yulia Tyschenko, an expert at the Ukrainian Independent Centre for Politi-cal Research, singles out several stages in the appropriation by the occupation au-thorities of public and private property in Crimea. The first stage – which occurred almost immediately upon the annexation of Crimea – resulted in the ‘national-ization’ of public property. On 17 March the self-appointed ‘Verkhovna Rada’ of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea ap-proved a Resolution ‘Re the Independence of Crimea’. It reassigned all Ukrainian property to the ‘Republic of Crimea’ or those relevant organisations operating at

that time in the peninsula. On the same day, Chornomornaftogaz PJSC, a compa-ny engaged in the extraction and trans-portation of gas and oil, was nationalized together with other State-owned com-panies. The self-proclaimed regime took control over seventeen oil-and-gas de-posits in the Black Sea shelf. Subsequent-ly, de facto authorities issued a number of ‘documents’ concerning the ‘nationaliza-tion’ of property in various sectors.The second stage was the ‘nationalization’ or the so-called ‘buy-out’ of large pri-vate companies. In this way, the assets of Ukrtelecom PJSC, together with its sub-sidiary 3Mob, Krymenergo DTEK, Krym-khlib PJSC, etc. were nationalized.Yulia Tyschenko states: ‘The expropri-ation of Ukrainian public and private

property actually took place in Crimea, and this ‘nationalization/privatization’ procedure violated even Russian laws, let alone the International law.‘With regard to private assets, this is a direct breach by Russia of the ‘Agreement between the Governments of the Rus-sian Federation and Ukraine of 1998 on the Promotion and Mutual Protection of Investment’. The Agreement, ratified by both countries, provides for a protection mechanism for investment from unlawful expropriation, nationalization, etc,’ the expert says.

Reallocation of stolen assets

The next stage in Ukraine’s property appropriation was the ‘reallocation’ of seized businesses. Some of them, such as Krymska Zaliznytsia (Crimean Railway), were transferred into Russia’s federal ownership, the relevant decision being approved in Moscow at government level. Back in 2014, the self-appointed Crime-an authorities turned over the facilities of Yusupov’s Palace and Park Array, the Crimean natural reserves and Masandra national concern, etc. for the use of the Of-fice of the President. These were followed by the assets of the Artek International Children’s Centre, universities, and the Academy of Science of Ukraine.

Expropriation of Ukrainian property in Crimea

Illegally nationalized property of the production and agrarian association “Massandra”

8 CRIMEA INFORM / # 4 (12) • 2018

THE TRUTH ABOUT THE CRIMEA

So-called ‘privatization’ started concur-rently. In 2016, the ‘nationalized’ health resort of Foros was sold to the Tatarstan Trade Union Federation at auction for 1.429 bln roubles (around USD 18.3 mln at the then exchange rate). In July 2018, the Ai-Petri, Miskhor, and Dulber health re-sorts were sold.‘In terms of the national law, all assets in Crimea are currently in the ownership of those same persons to whom they be-longed before the occupation. This provi-sion is set out in the Law “Re Securing the Rights and Freedoms of Citizens and the Legal Regime in the Temporarily Occu-pied Territory of Ukraine” enacted in April 2014,’ says Yuriy Smelianskyy, an expert on issues related to the temporarily occupied territories at the Maidan of Foreign Affair, and co-founder of the Institute of Black Sea Strategic Research, a charity organi-sation. ‘Any agreement signed or fulfilled in Crimea is null and void from the stand-point of the Ukrainian National Law.’

Protection of property rights by lawful ownersUkraine is employing all available le-gal mechanisms to protect its property rights in the occupied territory. Yuriy Lutsenko, the Prosecutor General, re-ported that Ukraine has forwarded a let-ter to the International Criminal Court of Justice concerning ten facts of the breach of individual property rights in Crimea, that are being investigated within seven criminal proceedings.Previously, Ukraine had brought several actions before the European Court of Hu-man Rights. In May 2018, The Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights re-

linquished jurisdiction over four ‘Ukraine v. Russia’ cases in favour of the Grand Chamber. The EUHR has also received hundreds of appeals from legal persons and individuals concerning the events in Crimea. Such appeals have also been filed in international arbitration bodies. ‘Article 1 of the First Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fun-damental Freedoms states that every natu-ral or legal person is entitled to the peace-ful enjoyment of his possessions, and that no one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law,’ says Serhiy Zaets, a lawyer and expert at the Regional Centre for Human Rights. He further adds that, as a rule, any applicant would have previously exhausted all other possible means of protecting his rights in those courts whose decisions Russia rec-ognizes and is willing to fulfil, before pro-ceeding with invoking the above article in the ECHR. ‘I mean Russian courts, and among them those in occupied Crimea. No other way exists,’ Serhiy Zaets contends.He believes that the award of the ECHR Grand Chamber in the ‘Ukraine v. Russia’ case will be of great importance to pro-

ceedings in appeals filed in the ECHR by individual persons. ‘The experts agree that the Grand Chamber has to lay down valid principles on which other awards will be based. We fully anticipate that the award will include a statement to the effect that occupation has taken place and that Russia is fully responsible for all outcomes result-ing from this occupation,’ the lawyer states. It should be mentioned that the Inter-national Arbitration Court in The Hague decided a case brought by eighteen com-panies and one individual regarding the breach of the ‘Investment Protection Agreement’ by Russia. According to Ole-na Zerkal, the Deputy Foreign Minister of Ukraine, the Court ruled that the Russian ‘nationalization’ in Crimea is a breach of the Investment Agreement. Russia has to pay out USD 159,000,000 as compensation to the claimants.

Ukrainian businesses were seized in Crimea according to the Ukrainian Prosecutor General’s Office.

> 4000

The total sum of losses inflictedon the State of Ukraine exceeds

> UAH 1 trillion (USD 37.7 billion)

is the estimated sum of losses borne by Ukrainian legal persons and individuals due to the annexation of Crimea by Russia. The Ministry of Justice of Ukraine has set up an Inter-departmental Task Force to draw up a method for the estimation of losses. This estimation work is in progress

> UAH 2.4 trillion (USD 90.566 billion)

The Simferopol bakery is illegally nationalized

‘Crimeanenergo’ property illegally nationalized by Russia

9# 4 (12) • 2018 / CRIMEA INFORM

THE TRUTH ABOUT THE CRIMEA

The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) has published its 22nd Report on the situation in Ukraine based on the work of the United Nations Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine and covering the period from 16 February to 15 May 2018. Its Section VIII traditionally highlights Human Rights issues in the occupied Crimea.

During the reporting period, 24 cases were documented, involving 54 human rights violations, the Report says. OHCHR focuses on enforced disappearance of people, criminalisation of free expres-sion, violations of election rights, and in-fringement of property rights.

Enforced disappearance

A Kharkiv resident disappeared at the Russian Federation-controlled side of the Administrative Boundary Line between Crimea and mainland Ukraine on 11 April 2018, the UN Monitoring mission reports.OHCHR received information that the victim was initially detained by the Rus-sian Federation Federal Security Service (FSB) with no official charges. This was followed by a further formal detention of this Kharkiv resident for a period of 12 days, allegedly for committing an admin-istrative offence. On the day when he was supposed to be released, he disappeared again. His whereabouts as of 15 May 2018 were still not known. The Report also details two additional cas-es of abduction that occurred previously.

Freedom of opinion and expression

Two convictions challenging the right to freedom of opinion and expression were issued during the reporting period. On 1 March, a Crimean Tatar man was giv-

en a two-year suspended sentence and forbidden from posting messages on the internet and social media, because of his comments that ‘Crimea is Ukraine, it has always been, it is and it will always be!’ The Court found him guilty of express-ing publicly the violations regarding the territorial integrity of the Russian Feder-ation.On 15 March, the Supreme Court of Crimea upheld the conditional prison sentence of a female resident of Crimea, also for a Facebook post. She received a suspended sentence of 22 months. In both cases, in violation of the presumption of innocence, the names of the accused were added to the so-called State List of Ex-tremists prior to their conviction.

Pressure to voteThe election of the President of the Rus-sian Federation that took place in Crimea on 18 March 2017 is a violation of three con-current United Nations General Assembly Resolutions, ie 68/262 of 27 March 2014,

71/205 of 19 December 2016, and 72/190 of 19 December 2017, the Report says.Simultaneously, a resident of Sevastopol, who had drawn the attention of other cit-izens to their right of refusal to take part in the election, was sentenced to 11 days of administrative detention.‘OHCHR received reports of pressure ap-plied in Crimea on teachers, medical staff and local government employees to vote in order to ensure a high turnout,’ the document also states.

Forcible transfers and deportations persist

On 2 February, 23 Ukrainian citizens who worked at a construction site in Crimea were deported by court order and banned from entering Crimea for a period of five years. They were held in a temporary de-tention facility in Russia’s Krasnodar re-gion before being deported.

Confiscation of property in Crimea

OHCHR points out that under interna-tional humanitarian law, private property cannot be confiscated under any circum-stances. Notwithstanding, crimes by the occupying forces against private proper-ty continue in Crimea. Judicial practices remain inconsistent, with 334 land plot confiscations approved or upheld on ap-peal by the courts throughout the same period, the Report states.

People are abducted and freedom of expression is infringed in Crimea22nd Report by the UN Monitoring Mission in Ukraine

10 CRIMEA INFORM / # 4 (12) • 2018

THE TERRITORY OF DISCRIMINATION

We are talking with his father, Petro Vy-hivskyy, about the arrest, the sentence, and the attempts to free Valentyn.

– ‘How was Valentyn arrested?’– ‘My son has been passionate about avia-tion since his childhood. Over many years he communicated via social networks with similar amateurs and profession-als in different countries. He was work-ing, however, in another field – trading in spare auto parts.Following his arrest, it became clear that one of his acquaintances, a Russian woman, whose hobby was also aviation, was raising funds among her friends towards a cancer surgery for a relative. My son travelled to Crimea which was already occupied to give her some money for the medical treatment. However, as was later revealed, this was a special and covert operation by Russian intelligence services: he was lured out to Crimea so he could be arrested.We spent a great deal of time searching for him in Ukraine and in the occupied Crimea.

Then we received information that he was in prison in Moscow, and was suspected of gathering commercial information…’

– Did Valentyn experience any pressure in the Detention Facility?’– ‘Only if torture could be referred to as pressure… My son is reluctant to talk about this. However, based on what we know – they beat him and on several occasions took him out to a forest for a staged execution. During the investigation, he was asked on many occasions to either take Russian cit-izenship or return to Ukraine and work for Russia. He flatly declined these proposals.’

– ‘Nevertheless, he pled guilty?’– ‘Yes, he did, after 7 months of torture, and under the threat of a 20-year impris-onment. He was not allowed any visits, and the Consul was not granted any access to him. He was promised a shorter term of sentence and improved imprisonment con-ditions in exchange for pleading guilty.’

– ‘In February 2017, the Darnitsky Court in Kyiv acknowledged the verdict brought by the Russian courts…’– ‘It was necessary to commence the procedure of transferring Valentyn to Ukraine under the Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons. At first, Russia seemed to agree – and produced the necessary documents for us. Ukraine held the necessary court hearing. How-ever, they then retracted their promise of extradition, with no reasons given. Since

then, all Ukrainians have been refused extradition under this procedure.’

– ‘What other possibilities to free Valen-tyn are available?’– ‘We are looking forward to an exchange, and expect that Russia will change its po-sition under pressure from the interna-tional community.’

– ‘How is your son now?’ ‘Throughout his whole term in the deten-tion facility and in the colony, Valentyn was kept in a single cell. In February he was transferred to another single cell, however this was a solitary confinement cell, as punishment for alleged repeated violations. The question must be asked: what violations are possible in a cell hold-ing just one person? I think he was pun-ished for his obstinacy, and for the letters he sent home, since he is a very straight-forward person, and makes no attempt to hide his negative attitude towards the Russian regime.In the detention facility he is not entitled to any visits, phone calls or packages. He can use a small amount of money in the prison shop, etc. We keep in touch with our son via the Consul who visits him once every three months, and from time to time corresponds with him. It seems that many of his letters are not passed on. Valentyn is holding on in there, manag-ing the best he can, although he is dear-ly missing his family, especially his little son.’

Valentyn Vyhivskyy is one of the Kremlin’s first political prisoners. Also, the first political prisoner that Ukraine attempted to free, based on provisions of the Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons. In November 2017, Russia refused his extradition without providing any explanations, thus violating the Convention.

Petro Vyhivskyy: ‘They beat my son, and on several occasions took him to a forest for a staged execution…’

11# 4 (12) • 2018 / CRIMEA INFORM

THE TERRITORY OF DISCRIMINATION

In March 2018, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) issued a report on the deterioration of the situation with the protection of the cultural heritage of Crimea occupied by Russia. A special emphasis in this report is placed on the state of conservation of the cultural property Khan’s palace in Bakhchisarai, which was submitted to the World Heritage Tentative List in 2003 as a site of the national significance of Ukraine as well as an integral part of the cultural heritage of the Crimean Tatar people.‘The Russian occupying authorities, hav-ing registered the illegal appropriation of the 32 historic buildings of the Bakhchys-arai Crimean Khan’s Palace,… launched the large-scale barbaric “restoration works” in this site in total defiance of international law, in particular of relevant UNESCO Con-ventions,’ the document says.During the removal of tiles and old oak beams from the Big Khan Mosque, the murals of the 18th century were damaged. Cracks appeared on the facade of the build-ing, and plaster crashed due to the applica-tion of cleaning technology that uses high pressure water hosing. Also, a metal can-opy is being built around part of the Main Building of the Khan’s Palace ‘in order to ensure protection of the site during res-toration works on the roofing of the Divan room and the Golden Parlour.’ ‘Due to the heavy load of metalwork there is a threat of destruction of the monument. The most alarming fact is that all these res-toration works are supervised by construc-tion personnel that have neither experience nor qualification in restoration of historic buildings. Such violent and off-hand ac-tions pose a real threat of destruction of this unparalleled historical monument,’ the authors of this report have warned.Edem Dudakov, the former Head of the Committee for Inter-Ethnic Relations and Deported Citizens’ Affairs, contended in February 2018 that the occupiers have vi-olated Article 12 of the Venice Charter of 1964, stating that during the restoration of architectural sites, the elements used to re-place missing parts ‘must integrate harmo-

niously with the whole, but at the same time must be distinguishable from the original so that restoration does not falsify the site as a work of art or a historical document.’Dudakov said that the company engaged in the Palace restoration has destroyed the ancient elements of the building. Archaic solid wood beams, according to him, were replaced by composite beams using OSB technology; hand-made tiles are being replaced with commercial reproductions brought from Spain. In addition, concrete is being used in the restoration work, causing erosion of limestone walls, and increasing the load on the building foundation. Murals

are being destroyed through the incom-petence of the construction workers, and modern materials are constantly used that do not correspond and have no relevance to the historic period.‘The Khan’s Palace, the only Crimean land-mark included in UNESCO’s 2012 Presen-tation Project, is being transformed into a poorly replicated sham. They are destroy-ing the landmark’s identity. They are de-stroying the history and the technology used by ancient builders. By doing this, they are deliberately banishing Bakhchis-arai from the UNESCO Project,’ Dudakov summarized.

The Khan’s Palace, the only Crimean landmark included in the UNESCO’s 2012 Presentation Project, is being transformed into a poorly replicated sham. They are destroying the landmark’s identity. They

are destroying the history and the technology used by ancient builders. By doing this, they are deliberately banishing Bakhchisarai from the UNESCO Project

Barbaric ‘restoration works’ in the Khan’s Palace in Bakhchisarai

12 CRIMEA INFORM / # 4 (12) • 2018

DETAILS AND TRENDS

– ‘What exactly is the Bakhchisarai Khan’s Palace?’– ‘There are more than 180 sites man-aged by the Bakhchisarai Historical and Cultural Reserve. The Khan’s Palace is a large palace cluster comprised of sev-eral dozen buildings; actually covering the whole area of the Bakhchisarai Pal-ace, Khans’ Cemetery, Palace Square, the Main Building, Eagle’s Tower, the Harem and Stable building, Large and Small Khan’s Mosques, Golden Fountain, and the ‘Fountain of Tears’, Ambassador’s Yard, etc. Included is even the sea-front esplanade and three bridges.The Palace dates back to the 16th/18th cc. This was the main residence of the Crimean Khanate rulers of the Giray dynasty that originated as a branch of the Chingizid dynasty. The construction of the Palace began in the 1530s, in the valley of the river Churuk-Su. Through-out several centuries, the cluster was extended, with each khan adding sev-eral elements of his own. This is why it features a complex configuration and a variety of different styles. This cluster is of a great cultural importance to the Crimean Tatars because it represents a complete cultural and historical layer.’

– ‘Why is the Bakhchisarai Palace so im-portant to Crimean Tatars?’– ‘To date, this is probably the only land-mark in Crimea testifying to the nation-hood of the Crimean Tatar people; the

evolution, the devel-opment of our peo-ple in this territory, and the existence of their state.Hence its high spiritual value for Crimean Tatars. It should be noted that it was in the Palace Square of the Khan’s Palace that the first Kurultai of the Crimean Tatars was held in 1917.’

– ‘Today’s situation with the Bakhchis-arai Khan’s Palace evokes parallels with its history. During the first annexation of Crimea, the Russian authorities also, almost immediately, began work on the Palace “restoration”.’ – ‘Yes indeed… three or four years fol-lowing the first annexation, a recon-struction of the Khan’s Palace was start-ed, prior to the visit of Catherine II. The same has happened now: four years after the annexation the so-called “recon-struction” began. By and large, this can be viewed as much more than only as a huge disrespect to the Crimean Tatar culture and history. To my mind, this is an element of the systematic political actions aimed at the extermination of Crimean Tatars as Crimea’s indigenous people.Leaving aside the subject of the Bakh-chisarai Palace – I have studied several publications by the Archaeology Insti-tute of the Russian Academy of Sciences,

and have noticed this trend: they exclude the word “Crimean” from the “Crime-an Tatar” collocation, simply stating: “Tatar burials”, “Tatars of Crimea”, etc. They have brought in the idea of renam-ing Crimea as “Tavrida”, planting it into the public consciousness. Constant pres-sure is exerted: criminal cases, deten-tions, arrest of Crimean Tatar activists. All these facts bring us to the conclusion that a targeted policy of extermination of the Crimean Tatars in Crimea is be-ing consistently pursued; a policy aimed at forcing the Crimean Tatar people to leave their native land.The explanation is simple: the very exis-tence of Crimean Tatars in Crimea, our historiography and ethnography shat-ter the ideological paradigm that Russia is introducing in the peninsula – that Crimea always was, is, and will be Rus-sian. This is why, both during the first annexation, and also today, long-term plans are constantly implemented in or-der to destroy the historical memories, and to change the mentality of our peo-ple. Rewriting history and destroying monuments – these are links of the same chain.’

Elmira Ablialimova: The Khan’s Palace in Bakhchisarai is of a special deep cerebral and spiritual significance to the Crimean Tatars

The Khan’s Palace in Bakhchisarai is much more than just a historical landmark for the Crimean Tatars. We are discussing this with Elmira Ablialimova, a former Director of the ‘Khan’s Palace’ Museum and Reserve.

13# 4 (12) • 2018 / CRIMEA INFORM

DETAILS AND TRENDS

The book, #Crimea is Ours. History of the Russian Myth by the Ukrainian historian Serhiy Hromenko, has surely become a significant phenomenon in Ukraine and was very positively received abroad. The book makes the first attempt to organ-ise the propagandistic mythology Russia has created with relation to Crimea, and refutes the propaganda spread by the ag-gressor country.How and for whom this book was written, and the myths it combats – these are the topics of our conversation with its author Serhiy Hromenko, a History Ph.D. and staff member of the Ukrainian Institute of National Memory.

– ‘How did you come up with the concept of this book?’– ‘Following the annexation of Crimea, a huge tide of fiction and fantasy came into being. All of this was allegedly meant to substantiate the relationship of Crimea to Russia. So, in order to provide Ukrainian society with the necessary instruments to combat the aggressor country’s propa-ganda, I and my like-minded colleagues from the public initiative ‘Likbez. Histori-cal Front’ (Likbez refers to the Soviet cam-paign to combat illiteracy in the early 20th c. Here: combating historical illiteracy is meant –Translator’s note) came together and began refuting the most popular myths about Crimea, Donbas, etc. at our website.I was in charge of the Crimean sub-ject-matter. Russian myths kept appear-ing on our website, and after some time it became clear that the Russian propa-gandistic mythology goes way beyond just an unorganised collection of nonsense. This is a very well-thought out system. Also, sometime in the winter 2015 we re-alized that a book on the subject is needed

to systemize the Russian propagandistic mythology, and also to debunk it using a systematic approach.’

– ‘What myths of the Russian propaganda are debunked in the book?’– ‘The book deals with a total of around twenty myths. I will tell you about the three most popular ones. Myth #1 sug-gests that Crimea was always historically Russian. In reality, Russians did not reach a relative majority there before the early 20th century. They only became an abso-lute majority following the deportation of Crimean Tatars in 1944. The current eth-nical and demographic map of the pen-insula is an outcome of Russia’s imperial policy during the past 300 years.Myth #2: Crimea always belonged to Rus-sia. This is also a direct lie. Crimea first came under Russia’s rule in 1783, escap-ing from it in 1954. However, the Ottoman period was even longer, to say nothing of the period when Crimea was under the authority of the Byzantine Empire. Allega-tions that Old Russian princes once owned lands in Crimea are completely unfound-ed. Russia therefore has no archival his-torical rights to Crimea.Myth #3 asserts that Crimean Greeks, not Tatars are the indigenous Crimean people. The truth is that the process of setting the

peninsula by the Greeks took place in four waves.The ancient Hellenic colonists who founded Crimean towns were assimilated by the lo-cal population, and integrated with the lat-ter during the great transmigration of peo-ples. The second wave, ie Crimean Greeks of the Middle Ages era, was either assimi-lated by the Crimean Tatars or deported in 1778 by the Russian government to the Azov Sea. The third wave, ie Albanians, reset-tled from Greece in the late 18th/early 19th cc., lived in Crimea until 1944. only then to be deported to Central Asia following the deportation of Crimean Tatars. Today’s Crimean Greeks are the fourth wave. How-ever, Crimean Tatars instead are the direct successors of the local Crimean Cumans, and thus are surely an indigenous people.

– ‘What do you consider is the reason for these present-day myth-creating activities by Russia concerning Crimea?’‘Explanations are simple: Historical rights are called upon only when there is a lack of legal rights. Russia simply has no legal rights to Crimea, therefore they are at-tempting to substantiate its annexation with the alleged historical rights. The latter, however, are also missing. That is why they resort to rewriting history and inventing these myths.’

Serhiy Hromenko: Russia has nether legal nor historical rights to Crimea

14 CRIMEA INFORM / # 4 (12) • 2018

HISTORY AND CULTURE

Status-related problems of the Crimean Tatar people

9 August: International Day of the World’s Indigenous Peoples

Crimean Tatars meet all criteria of an ‘indig-enous people’ set in the International law and practices of the world’s democratic countries.

This is reflected in reports issued by International organisations, analytical papers, and Resolutions by the European Parliament adopted in 2016. Crimean Tatars meet all criteria of an ‘in-digenous people’ set in the International law and practices of the world’s demo-cratic countries. This is reflected in re-ports issued by International organisations, analytical pa-pers, and Resolutions by the European Parliament adopt-ed in 2016.The policy pursued by the Russian authorities is how-ever aimed at denying the Crimean Tatars the status of an indigenous people. This is evidenced by persistent attempts of ‘scientific’ sub-stantiation of this position. In 2016, for instance, histori-an Sergei Sokolovskyy, commissioned by the Russian Federation’s Presidential Ad-ministration, published his research en-titled ‘Recognition Policy with Regard to Indigenous Peoples in International Law and in the Legislation of the Russian Fed-eration’. Deliberately manipulating the International Law provisions, the author concludes: ‘The notion of indigenous peo-ple’ cannot be applied to the present-day Crimean Tatar community’ … the specific linguistic and cultural needs of this com-munity may be efficiently protected by the Russian legislation on the protection of national minorities.’The question arises: Why is the Rus-

sian government so concerned about the recognition of Crimean Tatars as an indigenous people? The answer is evi-dent: such a status means their right to self-determination in Crimea, including a requirement to obtain the permission of the indigenous people to military actions or occupation. granted by their supreme self-government body, ie the Mejlis, that was, in addition, labelled by the Russian Federation as an ‘extremist organisation’ and finally banned by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 29 Septem-ber 2016.

Ukraine attaches great importance to adopting the legislation warranting the rights of indigenous peoples, and pri-marily those of the Crimean Tatar people. Such recognition stipulates the adoption of two Bills: ‘On the Status of Crimean Ta-tar People in Ukraine’ and ‘On Indigenous Peoples in Ukraine’.The need to draft two differently worded bills instead of one general bill derives from the considerable difference between the situation of Crimean Tatars and the small number of Karaites and Krymchaks who also meet the internationally rec-ognised criteria of indigenous peoples. However, unlike Crimean Tatars, the lat-

ter two groups have not established their representative bodies with the legitimate right to act on behalf of the whole people, and have never applied for such status in Ukraine (and not in Russia, as the Crime-an Karaimes wish). Therefore, within its ‘framework’ bill, Ukraine will recognize the existence of all these three indige-nous people in Crimea, and confirm its willingness to secure their rights accord-ing to International law. The status-relat-ed Bill contains a detailed account of the rights and obligations of the Crimean Ta-tar people and its representative bodies,

the mechanisms for collabo-rative arrangements with the State authorities and local governments, and guarantees for the protection and devel-opment of their identity, etc.A large section of these provi-sions can only be implement-ed following the liberation of Crimea from the occupa-tion, but nevertheless all of them constitute an import-ant component of the vision of Crimea’s future and the

strategy of its deoccupation. Some of the clauses can now be probed in ‘mainland’ Ukraine.Of no lesser importance are the changes to Section X of the Constitution of Ukraine (The Autonomous Republic of Crimea). When linked in their totality, these im-portant documents will create a sound legal framework by which to secure the rights of indigenous peoples, in line with International law and in full correspon-dence with Ukraine’s national interests.

Natalia BELITSER, Expert at the Pylyp Orlyk

Democracy Institute

15# 4 (12) • 2018 / CRIMEA INFORM

HISTORY AND CULTURE

Crimean Tatars - indigenous people of the Crimea

The integration of the classic Crimean Tatar image into the current fashion has been mainstream since the beginning of the 21st century. This is one

of the brightest examples of the way in which the culture of Ukraine’s indigenous people, the Crimean Tatars, is alive and advancing. Also, this is a specific identity marker, bringing diversity and brilliant colours and emotions into the world surrounding it, whilst also existing in harmony with modernity.

Traditionally, a girl from an early age would start collecting her dowry with the help of her family. This mostly comprised clothing and textiles, and embroidered household items, handmade by the girl herself. The number of such items could reach 200...400. The unique qualities of Crimean Tatar embroidery today still display the specific features of ornamentation and its patterns. The line of em-broidery and the colour are self-sufficient, whereas its visual imagery, with the intermingling and super-imposing of various cultural heritages and eras con-jures up a polyphonic composition.

Kokuşluk, a breast collar, is the focus of a Crimean Tatar woman’s attire, put on before going out into the street, and also worn for festivities, or when re-ceiving guests. The kokuşluk, as a rule, was made of coins given to the bride by her bridegroom as her dowry. Not only did it have to cover up the bodice of her dress to prevent untoward glances from men, but also to protect her from an evil eye. A breast collar made of gold coins and pearls, and jewel-lery fashioned from precious metals, served as a financial ‘insurance’ of a woman in case she was left without a husband.

The clothing of Crimean Tatar women includes numerous types of headscarves placed over the headwear, ie fes. They had different functions. For example, a head coverlet, baş örtüsü, had to cover the woman’s head, ears and neck from the glances of men, the evil eye, and bad weather conditions. Also, a töpelik, a multilayered filigree decoration fashioned from precious materials on top of a fes, served as a kind of reserve capital for a married woman.

Crimean Tatar men used to cover their heads with a black astrakhan cap pulled down low (qalpaq). In summer, a small cap (takja) or a tarboosh (fes) were popular. Men’s tarbooshes had a rigid cone-shaped outline, and were made from felted woollen cloth. A long black or blue silk tassel hung from a central point at the back.

A traditional item of festive attire of Crimean Tatars is a real piece of applied and decorative art, reflect-ing the unique historical, ethnographic, and artistic processes of evolvement of this people’s culture throughout several centuries. This decorative art reached its apex during the Crimean Khanate pe-riod, ie between the second half of the 15th and late 18th centuries. Islamic canons became an im-portant factor influencing the Crimean Tatar wom-en’s clothing: it was required that it must conceal a woman from the eyes of men from head-to-toe. Ornamentation and decorations were arranged above the waist only, so as not to draw attention to the lower part of the body by someone’s prying eyes! Such concealment was compensated for by the accented subtlety and exquisite appearance of the outfit, and also the symbolic language of its or-namentation that allowed a Crimean Tatar woman to communicate with those around her without the need for words.

A belt (quşaq) has always been an essential element of a man’s traditional Crimean Tatar outerwear. Supernatural properties were attributed to it, and therefore it tied around the waist to protect the most sensitive part of the body, ie the stomach.

The belt also indicated the social status of a man, being sewn together from textiles of varying types and colours. Young Crimean Tatars, regarding themselves as rather special and fashionable, used to wear a slim-cut kaftan with long trumpet- shaped sleeves (çekmen).

Leila

Naile

Halide

Nariman

Afize

Aider

PHOTOFACT

CRIMEA INFORM / # 4 (12) • 2018