The routine of Russian propaganda: the Kremlin blames Ukrainians for what it is usually doing. Everything is according to Orwell.
The Investigative Committee of Russia opened a criminal case on the “genocide” of Russian-speaking population of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts of Ukraine. Russian investigators allegedly found out that starting from April 12, unidentified representatives of the Ukrainian government, National Guard, and Right Sector movement leaders supposedly ordered their inferiors to kill Russian-speaking citizens who live in eastern Ukraine. The murders allegedly were performed by firing Grad and Uragan missile launchers, air-to-surface unguided missiles which have cassette bomb dispensers, Tochka-U tactical missiles, and other kinds of heavy “non-selective target” weapons.
Moscow is on the offensive: Crimea, Donbas, economic and information wars... The question is how the Ukrainian side will respond. Indeed, the Prosecutor General’s Office opens criminal cases against Russian officials and military. For example, the last case of such kind was opened against the officials of the Investigative Committee of Russia. But often such steps are a reaction in response, but not preemptive actions, let alone the international aspect.
We have often heard from the government’s spokespersons that Kyiv is preparing lawsuits against the Kremlin’s criminal actions to be submitted to international courts, for example, to the Hague Tribunal. We know about the lawsuit on gas issues at the Stockholm Court of Arbitration, but what about the rest?
Instead, big business is taking action. Head of the Dnipropetrovsk Oblast State Administration Ihor Kolomoisky said he would start a lawsuit on the compensation of assets in Crimea and Russia at the Hague Tribunal. He does not intend to defend the rights to the existing assets in Crimea and Russia, but he will file a suit on compensation at the Hague Tribunal. As of today, one suit concerning the Belbek Airport has already been prepared. Kolomoisky plans to receive two billion dollars of compensation.
Why does the state delay initiating lawsuits at the international institutions?
“Except for the lawsuit at the European Court on Human Rights (ECtHR), there are no suits filed by Ukraine today,” comments the spokesperson of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine to The Day. “But this does not mean work in this area is not carried out. If we study any conventions closely, we can see that the period of ‘pre-trial settlement of disputes’ is obligatory, and lawsuits are not filed before this period runs out because this is a mandatory procedure. There is a decree of the Cabinet of Ministers No. 1371 adopted in 2002. According to it, central executive bodies are responsible for cooperation with each of the international organizations. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is the first body responsible for the cooperation with the International Court of Justice, and the Ministry of Justice is the second one.
“THE STATE, JOINTLY WITH THE COMMUNITY, MUST RECORD EACH AND EVERY FACT OF HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATION IN UKRAINE, WHICH IS A RESULT OF EXTERNAL AGGRESSION,” SAYS MYKOLA SIRY. SIGN READS: “DANGER, MINES” / Photo by Serhii KHARCHENKO
“If we take a look at any legal mechanisms, the international court considers only lawsuits regarding the countries’ violations of their international legal obligations, agreements or conventions. Each one of these conventions stipulates that the parties have to try to settle the dispute before the trial ‘during a reasonable period of time,’ which traditionally equals to about six months. If we look at the key case ‘Georgia against the Russian Federation’ at the International Court of Justice, Georgia was turned down because the court declared that there had been no proper attempt at a pre-trial settlement by Georgia.
“In general, this is confidential information. Considering its legal peculiarities, Russia provided a warning in almost all basic conventions on its immunity from jurisdiction in the majority of international institutions. There is a very small number of conventions in which Russia did not give such a warning. And if it does exist, it is very hard to try a state in these circumstances.”
COMMENTARY
“RUSSIA’S DECISION ON THE ‘GENOCIDE’ IS NOT OF LEGAL, BUT OF POLITICAL NATURE; IT IS PART OF THE INFORMATION WAR AGAINST UKRAINE”
Mykola SIRY, Doctor of Law, senior researcher at Koretsky Institute of State and Law, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine:
“Obviously, the decision of the Investigative Committee of Russia on the ‘genocide’ is not of legal, but of political nature; it is part of the information war against Ukraine. The goal is to create an appearance of the illegitimacy of the position of Ukraine and its people. This is legal fiction, because jurisdiction of Russia is enforced only on the official territory of Russia, and not on Ukraine’s Donbas. Secondly, there is no ‘Russian-speaking population’ in Ukraine, there are Ukrainian people, who speak Ukrainian, and a certain part speaks Russian.
“Undoubtedly, this case has no legal prospects, but from the point of view of a political irritant, such statements do influence some Russians and Ukrainians.
“I share concerns over the last of Ukraine’s activity in matters of international lawsuits against Russia and Ukraine’s actions in response instead of preemptive steps. As for the events that take place in Ukraine, starting from November last year, profoundly strong external influence can be traced in them absolutely clearly. As a result, we see mass violations of human rights in Ukraine. Therefore, our country’s duty is to use its resources: law-enforcement agencies, diplomatic structures, jointly with the community’s resources and record each and every fact of human rights violation in Ukraine, which is a result of external aggression against it. Some facts are of individual importance, but the majority of them is nothing but a reflection of systemic and deliberate actions of the aggressor. In particular, we are talking about systemic tortures of people in Luhansk and Donetsk oblasts, intentional murders. It was a form of intimidation of the whole population, influence on the consciousness of the whole Ukrainian nation in order to spread panic and the feeling of self-doubt. Also, facts of abduction of Ukrainians and their illegal transportation to Russia, facts of detention of Ukrainians who were in Russia for various purposes can be added to this. All these systemic actions require a proper legal evaluation, and the duty of the state of Ukraine is not to leave any of these facts overlooked.
“Now we can hear a number of statements made by the Ministry of Justice, which is preparing specific international lawsuits against Russia. We also remember letters of the Ukrainian parliament to the Hague Tribunal with recognition of the possibility of its jurisdiction. Such separate steps were taken, but we cannot talk about systemic work in this area. In relation to this, we must remember the nature of the investigation of the crimes on Maidan in Kyiv and in other regions of Ukraine. It is a part of a comprehensive war against Ukraine. And when all these cases are not being actively investigated, when emphasis in these cases is shifted from various types of aggression against protesting Ukrainians to ordinary hooliganism, there are grounds for anxiety and the necessity to direct attention of the government structures and the need to increase the level of quality in the work in this direction.
“Right after the Maidan events, on February 22, I stressed that an extremely complicated task is set before the law-enforcement system of Ukraine, that we do not have experts in investigation of such complex crimes which have national and international legal compounds: crimes against humanity. I also pointed out the fact that the crime scene where the killings took place should have been locked down immediately, investigative actions should have been carried out, and evidence should have been gathered. Now we can only note that this work was not done on a sufficient level.
“As for the Crimean issue in this regard, the adoption of the Law ‘On Temporarily Occupied Territory’ was important. But more systemic action is desirable in the legal aspect, in relation to numerous crimes against Crimean Tatars, ethnic Ukrainians, as well as in relation to property that was taken away or plundered. All these actions demanded organization and systemacy on the state’s behalf. Unfortunately, this was not the case and not all resources were involved in the process.
“Ihor Kolomoisky’s suit against Russia, filed at the Hague Tribunal, is an absolutely correct standpoint in the legal aspect. This lawsuit is about redressing of investment losses in opportunities that were taken from assets owners. And this is a serious basis for a lawsuit. A large number of other property owners should join it, and this process should be carried out in coordination with the standpoint of the state of Ukraine.”
By Ivan KAPSAMUN, Dmytro KRYVTSUN, The Day
