European Top Human Rights Court to Investigate Ukraine’s Complaint against Russia

The leading European human rights court announced on Thursday that it has partially allowed the Ukrainian government’s case regarding its allegations against Russia’s potential violation of human rights in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol.

The leading European human rights court announced on Thursday that it has partially allowed the Ukrainian government’s case regarding its allegations against Russia’s potential violation of human rights in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol.

The European Court of Human Rights said the case concerns the complaints submitted by Ukraine, indicating that the Russian Federation displayed “a pattern of violations” of the European Convention on Human Rights in the Crimean Peninsula.

The court said that it has accepted the case filed by Ukraine, citing that the complaint has been backed by sufficient pieces of evidence that made it admissible for consideration.

The Ukrainian government handed substantial evidence, asserting that Russia had exercise “effective control” over Crimea from January to March 2014.

The Russian Federation has increased the strength and size of its military presence in the peninsula without the consent of Ukrainian authorities.

The court also found that Russia had not been able to provide evidence to “prove that there was a threat to Russian Troops” stationed in Crimea under the bilateral agreements between the two nations that were still valid and relevant at the time.

Ukraine maintains that since Feb. 27, 2014, Russia has been exercising “extraterritorial jurisdiction over the situation which has resulted in an administrative practice of human rights violations.”

However, the court noted that Ukraine was not able to provide sufficient evidence to support its accusation that Russia instigated killings and shootings in Crimea.

“As to the allegations of an administrative practice of killing and shooting, the Court found that the incidents referred to had not amounted to a pattern of violations,” the court said.


© Fourth Estate® — All Rights Reserved.
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.