Ukraine: European Court highlights Russia’s repression in occupied Crimea

ARTICLE 19 welcomes the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the case brought by Ukraine against Russia's systemic human rights violations in Russia-occupied Crimea. The Court has unanimously found Russia guilty of breaching a number of provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights and its additional Protocols, including the rights to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. We urge the international community to take this decision with utmost seriousness and to increase efforts to ensure better protection and justice for journalists and civil society in Russia-occupied Crimea.

The decision of the European Court in Ukraine vs Russiaissued on 26 June 2024, stems from several complaints that Ukraine has brought over the years since Russia's illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014. Ukraine has argued that Russia has engaged in a pattern ('administrative practice') of violations of the European Convention on Human Rights in the peninsula, claiming that these human rights violations are part of a wider campaign of systemic repression.

The European Court found that there was enough evidence to conclude 'beyond reasonable doubt' that the incidents were numerous and interconnected enough to form a pattern of violations.

ARTICLE 19 appreciates that the European Court confirmed the existence of the pattern of systemic repression of Ukrainian media and journalists, as well as a blanket ban on assemblies expressing loyalty to Ukraine in Russia-occupied Crimea.

In particular, the European Court:

• Cited numerous Russian practices that led to the complete erasure of Ukrainian-speaking media in occupied Crimea, along with a sharp decline in the overall number of media outlets allowed to operate on the peninsula. Discriminatory practices included refusing to grant or withdrawing broadcasting licences, failing to allocate broadcasting frequencies, and issuing 'warnings' to media outlets deemed 'extremist' under Russian legislation for using terms like 'annexation or 'temporary occupation'. Journalists have faced systematic harassment, physical abuse, and have been detained and prosecuted.

• Highlighted a pattern of prohibiting public gatherings and expressions of support for Ukraine or the Crimean Tatar community, as well as the intimidation and arbitrary detention of demonstration organisers. Any action expressing loyalty to Ukraine or advocating for Crimea's return to Ukraine has been effectively outlawed.

The decision marks an important step in breaking the information vacuum on human rights violations in Crimea. ARTICLE 19 previously highlighted cases and patterns of violations against journalistsand civil society actorsin Crimea.

The European Court held that the question of satisfaction will be addressed separately. Hence, we urge the Court to ensure that all individual victims receive just redress and satisfaction for the violations that they suffered.

ARTICLE 19 also calls on the international community to respond strongly to the alarming human rights situation on the peninsula, including to violations of the rights to freedom of expression and assembly. This should include concrete counter-measures, including expanded targeted sanctions, increasing pressure on Russia, and accountability processes against the perpetrators, including on the basis of universal jurisdiction. The international community should also provide urgent and further support to civil society actors in/from Crimea, including journalists, grassroots initiatives, human rights organisations and members of the Crimean Tatar community.

Ensuring that dissenting voices from the Russia-occupied territories of Ukraine are heard by the international community is a must.

Warning: The Russian authorities designated ARTICLE 19 as an 'undesirable organisation' on 8 February 2024. While the 'undesirable' designation can be seen as a marker of recognition of ARTICLE 19's work to promote freedom of expression, we understand that it also carries significant risks for those who engage with our work. Under Russian legislation, an ill-defined and overbroad notion of 'participation in the activities of an undesirable organisation' incurs the risk of administrative and criminal prosecution. We also understand that sharing and storing this statement in Russia can be considered a prosecutable offence and may lead to the imposition of fines and other sanctions.

Public link

Please use the above public link if you want to share this noodl on another website.