Crimea field mission review june 2015 en

Crimean Field Mission on Human Rights

Brief Review of the Situation in Crimea

(June 2015) Analytical Review TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ....................................................................................................................................................... 1 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................................ 2 2. CIVIC AND POLITICAL RIGHTS................................................................................................................................... 3 RIGHT TO LIFE ................................................................................................................................................................... 3 THE RIGHT TO LIBERTY AND PERSONAL SECURITY, THE RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL ............................................. 3 DEVELOPMENTS IN HIGH-PROFILE CRIMINAL CASES ............................................................................................ 4 FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION ...................................................................................................................... 9 FREEDOM OF PEACEFUL ASSEMBLY ............................................................................................................................. 10 FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE AND RELIGION ............................................................................................................... 11 FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT AND MATTERS OF CHECKPOINT CROSSING ................................................................ 13 LEGAL PROCEEDINGS ..................................................................................................................................................... 15 3. 3. PROBLEMS OF CRIMEAN RESIDENTS, WHO HAD TO LEAVE THE PENINSULA AND RELOCATE TO THE MAINLAND UKRAINE (INTERNALLY DISPLACED PERSONS) ..................................................................................... 18 REGISTRATION AND SOCIAL RIGHTS .......................................................................................................................... 18 ANNEXES ........................................................................................................................................................................... 20

1

1. INTRODUCTION The present Monitoring Review has been prepared by the Crimean Field Mission on Human Rights and is based on the materials collected by the Mission in June 2015 during its work in the Crimea, as well as in Russia and Ukraine.

The Crimean Field Mission (“the CFM”) commenced its work on March 5, 2014.

The aims of the Mission are as follows: 

provision of information about the developments in the Crimea;



mitigation of threats to all parties to the conflict;



maintenance of proper legal guaranties in the region, strengthening and promotion of human rights standards and effective protection mechanisms through the monitoring of the situation and verification of incoming messages about different human rights violations;



provision of comprehensive assistance to the initiatives aimed at the protection of human rights of all participants of the conflict.

Emphasizing that human rights remain to be a direct and legitimate concern of the international civil society while implementing the abovementioned aims, the Mission shall: 

perform monitoring of the general situation concerning compliance with the provisions of international humanitarian law and fundamental human rights in the Crimea, issues of protection of human rights defenders, journalists, lawyers, as well as public figures and ensuring their professional activities;



pay special attention to the monitoring of inter-ethnic and inter-religious relations;



conduct monitoring of the activities of law enforcement agencies and state authorities;



call on all parties of the confrontation to abide by the rules of international humanitarian law and obligations in the field of the protection of human rights, as well as call on international organizations and their members and participants to control the observance of such obligations.

The Mission unconditionally refuses to resort to violence or discrimination in its activities and is guided by the principles of political neutrality and adherence to law.

The conclusions of the paper have been made on the basis of the first-hand information (observation of the situation and developments in the Crimea, interviewing the representatives of key target groups), mass media monitoring, analysis of the developments and legal basis, as well as on the basis of official statistic data.

The review is prepared monthly and includes the chapters on the situation with civil and political, socio-economic rights in the Crimea, as well as deals with the issues of the status of vulnerable groups and manifestations of xenophobia in the Peninsula.

In addition, the Review features the issues of the residents of the Crimea who had to escape from the peninsula and move to Ukraine’s mainland (internally displaced persons).

The CFM is grateful to everyone who assisted with the preparation of the present Review.

2

2. CIVIC AND POLITICAL RIGHTS RIGHT TO LIFE Timur Shaimardanov and Seyran Zinedinov, the Crimean Tatar activists who disappeared in May 2014 with signs of abduction, are still missing.

On June 9, 2015, the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation informed their relatives about suspension of the preliminary investigation in the criminal case opened on grounds of a crime envisaged by Part 1 of Article 105 of the RF Criminal Code (intentional killing of another human) following the disappearances of S.S. Zinedinov and T.D. Shaimardanov1.

The criminal investigations into the disappearance of T.D. Shaimardanov and S.S. Zinedinov were combined, which makes it possible to re-qualify the crime from Part 1 of Art. 105 of the Criminal Code “intentional killing of another human” to para. “a” in Part 2 of Article 105 of the Criminal Code murder of two or more persons. According to the decree, the criminal cases qualify for Part 1 of Article 105 of the Criminal Code “intentional killing of another human”.

The investigator's order reads: “From the information provided by the Federal Migration Service for

the Republic of Crimea it follows T.D. Shaimardanov and S.S. Zinedinov of did not cross the border of the Russian Federation after their disappearance”.

Therefore, ensuring the right to life of Timur Shaimardanov and Seyran Zinedinov, and conducting an effective investigation are the responsibility of the Russian authorities. But the suspension of the investigation into those cases cannot be conducive to an effective investigation.

As was reported earlier, Timur Shaimardanov and Seyran Zinedinov disappeared in May 2014. T. Shaimardanov, one of the initiators of the "Ukrainian People's House" group, coordinated search of Leonid Korzh, another activist of the association. S. Zinedinov argued that both activists were abducted by representatives of the so-called “Crimean self-defense”. According to Seyran Zinedinov's relatives, they are in possession (or they were shown) a recording from a video surveillance camera at a gas station, which clearly shows a car stopping near the gas station an activist (the license plate and the car make cannot be determined because of the distance) and a man being forced into the car. In both cases, there are sufficient reasons to assert the forceful nature of the disappearance.

THE RIGHT TO LIBERTY AND PERSONAL SECURITY, THE RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL On June 4, at 5:30 am, 8 to 10 unknown persons wearing uniforms without insignia and masks broke into the house of Riza Izetov in the village of Strohanivka, Simferopol District. He was tied up and then served a search warrant. The search revealed the book “Fortress of a Muslim”, an Al-wayi magazine, a USB medium with audio recordings of lectures by Said Buryatsky, a members of terrorist groups, Islamic preacher and one of the ideologists of the North Caucasian underground armed resistance, who was killed in March 2010 in Ingushetia in the North Caucasus. After the search Reza Izetov was delivered to the FSB for questioning.

According to Izetov's lawyer, his client was interrogated as a witness. The investigators had information that Izetov was acquainted a suspect under criminal charges for participation in an armed 1

Order on suspension of the preliminary investigation http://crimeahr.org/wpcontent/uploads/2015/07/Postanovlenie-SHeymardanov.pdf 3

conflict on the side of the Syrian opposition. After Izetov declared that he did not know such a person, the questioning was finished and the witness was released.

During Riza Izetov's interrogation, about 10:30 near the FSB building in Simferopol police officers detained 12 Crimean Tatars (including those seated in their cars). Most of them were Riza Izetov's relatives and neighbors. All detainees were delivered to the district police station, where officers of the Centre for Counteraction to Extremism demanded that they provide explanations about the purposes of their staying near the FSB building and the intentions of the unauthorized mass event. Before that all the detainees were fingerprinted and photographed; some had samples for DNA analysis taken. No reports of administrative offense were written; law enforcement officers refused to issue statements of detention or other formal documents about the reasons for detention.

DEVELOPMENTS IN HIGH-PROFILE CRIMINAL CASES “The May 3 Case” On June 5, the investigation was completed in three criminal cases on the events that took place on May 3, 2014, during a meeting of Crimean Tatars with their leader Mustafa Dzhemilev, who was denied entry to the Crimea.

The Investigative Committee of Russia informs that the Department for Investigation of Particularly Important Cases under the Main Investigation Department of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation in the Republic of Crimea completed the investigation of criminal cases against three residents of the Republic of Crimea. They are accused of committing a crime envisaged by Part 1 of Article 318 of the Criminal Code (application of violence, dangerous for health, against a representative of authorities in connection with the performance of his duties).

According to investigators, during the daytime on May 3, 2014, on the road near the Armyansk (“Turetsky Val”) border checkpoint, the defendants resorted to violence against officers of the “Berkut” special purpose police units, inflicting bodily injuries to them.

“The February 26 Case” In that case, Crimean residents are deprived of freedom for acts committed prior to the establishment of the Russian control over the Peninsula.

Earlier, the term of arrest of the Deputy Chairperson of the Medzhlis of the Crimean Tatar People Ahmet Chiygoz was extended until July 29. On June 8, another court hearing was held in Simferopol, which extended the term of the arrest for another defendant in the case, Ali Asanov, until August 15. On June 18, one of the defendants in the case Eskender Nebiev was released from custody. According to the detainee's lawyer, the investigator changed the measure of restraint two days before the expiration of his arrest and released him on bail by the Crimean Mufti Emirali Ablayev.

“The Hizb-ut-Tahrir Case” This criminal case was opened against persons suspected of committing a crime under Article 205.5 of the RF Criminal Code (organization of activities of a terrorist organization and participation in the activities of such an organization). In May, an investigator in the case issued an order to challenge the lawyer as the defense attorney in the criminal proceedings. On June 4, 2015, the investigators refused 4

to provide copies of procedural decisions on dismissal of the defense attorney. Thus, the defendants were denied the right to defense and do not even have a possibility to familiarize themselves with the substantiated decision by which their lawyer was dismissed from participation in the case.

“The Kostenko Case” On June 30, with a two-hour delay, judge of the Crimean Supreme Court Sergey Nikolayevich Pogrebnyak began consideration of the appeal on the case of Oleksandr Kostenko, who was sentenced to four years and two months of liberty deprivation in a penal colony of general regime.

The Court considered three defense motions.

The Court yet another time refused to call witnesses who are citizens of Ukraine. The judge explained his refusal as follows: “In view of the fact that the execution of the said order is impossible, since

Ukraine does not recognize the state authorities of the Republic of Crimea, the court declines your motion.” Counsel Dmitry Sotnikov believes that in doing so the court deviates from the Russian law, specifically, Articles 453 and 456 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Convention on legal assistance and legal relations in civil, family and criminal cases.

Also declined was the petition to adjourn a court hearing to identify the persons who caused the medium-gravity harm to O.F. Kostenko. The judge also declined the questioning of witnesses for the detention and battery of Oleksandr Kostenko, while recognizing that there is information in the case materials about the detention of O.F. Kostenko by FSB officers on February 5, 2015, which puts to doubt his confession on February 6, 2015.

In the course of the inquiry, the judge S.N. Pogrebnyak found that Oleksandr Kostenko received a notice of the date of the court session three days in advance, instead of the seven; besides, the defendant did not receive the prosecutor's objections to the appeal, which was grounds for adjournment of the court hearing until July 8, 2015.

May 25, 2015 was the last day for an appeal. By that day both Oleksandr Kostenko and his counsel Dmitry Sotnikov had filed complaints. On June 4, 2015, the case was received by the court. Courts are obligated to announce the date of hearing at least seven days before the hearing, and before the June 30 court session 26 days had passed, which was sufficient to comply with that procedure. The counsel suggests that it was a way to artificially create legal grounds to delay consideration of the appeal on the merits.

Apart from the appeal against the sentence, counsel Dmitry Sotnikov continues to try to prosecute the FSB officers who tortured the defendant, Oleksandr Kostenko: Captain A.R. Shambazov and Major A.V. Tishenin. He filed complaints against the refusal of senior forensic investigator D.S. Kukasov to initiate criminal proceedings on the fact of torture to the head of the Military Investigation Department of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Black Sea Fleet; to the military prosecutor of the 309th Military Prosecutor's Office of the garrison; to the Crimea Garrison Court2.

The grounds for the complaint was the fact that the crime report verification was not carried out by the investigator D.S. Kukasov. For example, the investigator refers to the fact that, according to a copy of the report on arrest of Oleksandr Kostenko, dated February 6, Russian FSB officers were not 2

The counsel's petitions against the investigator's denial of opening criminal proceedings on the fact of tortures of O. Kostenko http://crimeahr.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/ZHalobyi-Sotnikova.pdf 5

involved in his detention. At the same time, however, the investigator D.S. Kukasov failed to take into account that on February 14, the police department â„–2 of the Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs for the City of Simferopol in the decision to dismiss opening a criminal investigation into Kostenko's abduction on February 5, stated that it was FSB officers who arrested Kostenko.

Also, the investigator did not question Kostenko himself and witnesses of his battery and detention.

On June 25, 2015, the order on the complete refusal to satisfy the complaint was issued by the head of the 534th Military Investigation Department of the Russian CID of the IC for the Black Sea Fleet Colonel of Justice M.S. Kudlaev.3 The order was signed personally by the head of the 534th Military Investigation Department of the Russian CID of the IC for the Black Sea Fleet Colonel of Justice M.S. Kudlaev, but the same resolution explains the counsel that “it may be appealed to the head of the 534th Military Investigation Department , that is, that very same Colonel M.S. Kudlaev. However, according to the Russian legislation, acts of the head of an investigative body are to be appealed to the head of a superior investigative authority.

On June 4, Oleksandr Kostenko's mother received a reply to her appeal to the Human Rights Commissioner in the Crimea regarding inaction of the law enforcement officers in connection with the search for Oleksandr Kostenko's father, Fedir, missing since March 2, 2015. It says that in order to check the appeal enquiries were made with the Ministry of the Interior of the Crimea, who replied that investigation aimed at establishing Fedir Kostenko's location are underway (Appendix 1).

On June 19, the Chairperson of the Investigative Committee of Russia A.I. Bastrykin received a message from counsel Dmitry Sotnikov reporting a crime committed by the prosecutor of the Crimea Natalia Poklonskaya. Sotnikov reports that in the course of proceedings on the Oleksandr Kostenko case, the prosecutor systematically humiliated the defendant's human dignity, which is prohibited by Part 1 of Article 9 of the RF Code of Criminal Procedure. The counsel asked to initiate criminal proceedings against the prosecutor Poklonskaya for inciting hatred or hostility, and humiliation of human dignity with the abuse of her official post (Art. 2, Art. 282).4.

On June 11, the Russian Investigative Committee opened criminal proceedings against Oleksandr Kostenko's friend, Ukrainian activist Stanislav Krasnov. Oleksandr Kostenko reported that torture was also applied to him, with the purpose of making him testify against his friends and colleagues.

Krasnov is suspected of committing a crime under Part 1 of Article 282 (inciting hatred or enmity on grounds of belonging to a social group, committed with the use of mass media).

Same as in the Kostenko case, the criminal proceedings have been initiated against a Ukrainian citizen in connection with events that took place outside of the Crimea, in the mainland Ukraine. It is noteworthy that while the Kostenko case occurred in relation to events outside the Crimea and in time before Russia established control over the Crimean Peninsula, the Krasnov case was also initiated in connection with events outside of the Crimea, but which occurred after the establishment of the Russian control over the Crimean Peninsula.

3

Order on dismissal of petition of Kostenko's counsel http://crimeahr.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Otvet-nazhalobu-ot-13.06.2015-okonchatelnyiy.pdf

4

Report by counsel Dmitry Sotnikov on commission of crime by prosecutor N. Poklonskaya http://crimeahr.org/wpcontent/uploads/2015/07/Zayavlenie-Sotnikova.pdf 6

The RF IC web site reports: “According to the investigation, from April 2014 to January 2015 the

suspect, while in the territory of Ukraine, in the course of a public appearance attended by representatives of the mass media — journalists of the “Chernomorskaya Teleradiokompaniya” and “Socialna Krayina” TV channels – expressed calls, aimed at inciting hatred and enmity against former citizens of Ukraine who, until March 2014, resided in the territory of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and expressed their readiness to take Russian citizenship”.

At present, Stanislav Krasnov himself does not reside in the Crimea, but his mother has repeatedly been visited by FSB officers and unknown persons to find information about her son.

“The Cherkasy case” In June, a new criminal case against the Crimean pro-Ukrainian activists became known as the “Cherkasy case”. Same as the “Kostenko case” and “the February 26 case”, it was opened against citizens of Ukraine in connection with events that took place before the establishment of the Russian control over the Crimean Peninsula, and not even on the Crimean territory.

On June 2, web site of the Russian Prosecutor's Office posted information that “the Crimean prosecutor initiates investigation into the right-wing radicals' attack on the bus with Crimeans near Cherkasy”. Crimeans in this case are officers of the former Ukrainian Interior Ministry “Berkut” special unit, the Crimean department, who were involved in the forceful dispersal of Euromaidan in Kyiv in winter 2014.

On June 4, it became known that the Central Investigation Department of the Investigative Committee of Russia in the Crimea initiated criminal proceedings on signs of a crime envisaged by Part 3 in Article “a, b, f, g, j” 105 of the RF Criminal Code (attempt to intentional killing of death to two or more persons in connection with the performance of formal duties by those persons; committed in a socially dangerous way; by a group of individuals; on grounds political and ideological hatred or enmity).

According to investigators, in the evening on February 19, 2014, a group of supporters of the Ukrainian right-wing movements “Tryzub” (Trident), “Pravy Sektor” (The Right Sector) and “Svoboda” (Freedom), at the road Kyiv — Odessa highway near the village of Podibne in Mankivsky District, Cherkasy Oblast of Ukraine, with the purpose of killing with the use of stones, sticks, crowbars and incendiary mixtures as weapons, stopped a passenger bus where there 17 officers of the Crimean “Berkut”. Knowing that they were bound for the city of Kyiv for the performance of their formal functions of protection of public order, they broke the bus windows and began throwing bottles with incendiary mixtures inside the bus, causing the victims injuries of different severity. At the same time, according to the investigation, they were unable to complete their criminal intent aimed at killing the victims, due to the fact that the victims actively resisted and could leave the scene.

Thus, even the investigators' version confirms that the events occurred outside of the Crimea and involved Ukrainian citizens; the “Berkut” officers were citizens of Ukraine since foreigners may not serve in the bodies under the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine. However, the Russian investigation authorities refer to the fact that the victims are Russian citizens and criminal proceedings on the fact have not been initiated on the territory of Ukraine; therefore, in accordance with Part 3 of Article 12 of the RF Criminal Code, persons who committed a crime outside the Russian Federation shall be subject to criminal liability in connection with the fact that they have committed a crime 7

against citizens of the Russian Federation. However, former “Berkut” officers, who are regarded by the investigation authorities as the victims, became citizens of the Russian Federation after the establishment of the jurisdiction of the Russian Federation in the Crimea, and consequently, at that time they could not be citizens of the Russian Federation.

Now the investigation establishes the persons allegedly involved in the commission of that crime.

However, it is impossible to carry out investigation actions at the scene of the accident, because the place is located on the territory of Ukraine. The investigation authorities began to make lists of the Euromaidan participants who had gone the Crimea boundaries to participate in the Euromaidan events, alleging that they could be involved in the events near Cherkasy as well.

Eight pages of the case materials suggest that the Russian Prosecutor's Office of Crimea intends to prosecute about 50 persons who, in its opinion, were involved in the organization of Euromaidan on the Peninsula5, which poses a serious threat to unsubstantiated criminal prosecutions. The list includes well-known human rights activists, politicians and ordinary citizens. In particular, it includes Refat Chubarov, Ahtem Chiygoz, Zair Smedlyaev, Andriy Schekun, the Kovalsky family, Eduard Leonov, Sergiy Yurchenko, Sergiy Mokrenyuk and other Crimeans, including Oleksandr Kostenko.

Those people, however, have no involvement in the Cherkasy events; they were not present there; many took part in the Euromaidan movement but did not commit any illegal actions. At present, only eight pages of the case materials are available for familiarization (containing about 50 names). The full volume of the materials is not known, and neither is known the full list of the Ukrainian citizens, residents of the Crimea, who may be subject of unsubstantiated and politically motivated criminal persecution.

“The Case of Sentsov and Kolchenko” On June 11, Russian Deputy Prosecutor General Viktor Grin approved the indictment in the criminal case against Crimean residents Oleg Sentsov and Oleksandr Kolchenko. On June 17, the case was accepted by the North Caucasus Military District Court for examining the merits of the case.

Kolchenko's counsel Svetlana Sidorkina reported that the defendants have completed familiarization with the materials of the case, which contains 12 volumes.

The 38-year-old filmmaker and “Avtomaydan” activist Oleg Sentsov was incriminated under Part 1 of Article 205.4 (organization of a terrorist association), two episodes under paragraph “a” of Part 2 of Article 205 (act of terrorism committed by an organized group), one episode of Part 1 of Article 30 paragraph “a” of Part 2 of Article 205 (preparation for a terrorist attack within an organized group) and Part 3 of Article 222 (illegal trafficking of weapons and explosives, committed by an organized group), and Part 3 of Article 30 - Part 3 of Article 222 of the Criminal Code (attempt on the same act).

FSB calls Sentsov the leader of a "Right Sector" terrorist group and imputes to the group the arson of the “Russian Community of Crimea” and the “United Russia” headquarters in Simferopol, committed on April 14 and 18, 2014, and also alleged preparations to the explosions at the monuments to Lenin and Eternal Flame in the Crimean capital. The moviemaker is considered to be involved in all those 5

Copies of the “Cherkasy Case” materials http://crimeahr.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Spisok-uchastnikovmaydana.pdf 8

events. Sentsov faces up to 20 years in prison on charges of terrorism; he has not pleaded guilty on any of the charges against him.

The 25-year-old left-wing activist Oleksandr Kolchenko is charged with only one episode — involvement in the arson at the “United Russia” HQ. The episode is qualified under Part 2 of Article 205.4 (participation in a terrorist association), paragraph “a” of Part 2 of Article 205 of the Criminal Code. The penalty for the former of the charges is up to 10 years in prison, for the latter — up to 20 years. Kolchenko does not plead guilty either. He confirmed his involvement in the arson, but objects to the qualification of those actions on “terrorism” charges.

The Sentsov-Kolchenko case will be considered in court in July in the North Caucasus District Military Court, located in Rostov-on-Don. FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION Due to the systematic persecution in the Crimea, the editorial board of the Crimean Tatar ATR television channel decided to continue their activities in the territory of mainland Ukraine and to resume broadcasting in the Crimea via a satellite. In response, the Crimean authorities pursue a discriminatory policy against the channel.

Thus, on June 18, the Chairperson of the Committee on Information Policy, Communications and Mass Media of the Crimean State Council Sergey Shuvaynikov said that journalists of the ATR TV channel, which had resumed broadcasting via a satellite from Kyiv, will be held responsible if they violate Russian laws when preparing their materials. In addition, Shuvaynikov publicly accused the TV channel of alleged “political provocation and incitement of enmity between Russia and Ukraine, and

among the peoples living in the Crimea”6.

On June 19, the Editor-in-Chief of the “Kryminform” news agency Maksim Nikolaenko said that refuses to grant accreditation to the TV channel reporters for coverage of press conferences held at the “Kryminform” until that medium obtains accreditation with the RF MFA. In that connection, Nikolaenko questioned the legality of documents of the Queen Media company that confirm the ATR staff as mass media employees. He justified his doubts by failing to have found any information in the public domain about the Queen Media being a mass medium, including in the list of Russian media outlets registered by Roskomnadzor. “We are not in court, I do not need legally relevant evidence”, Nikolaenko concluded. In connection with that, management of the ATR television channel made a response statement providing full details of registration of the Queen Media as a mass medium on the territory of the Russian Federation and voiced its demand not to interfere with the legitimate work of its employees.

According to Deputy General Director of the ATR TV channel Lilia Budzhurova, Crimean Tatar cultural institutions refuse the ATR representatives to conduct videotaping. They refer to a letter from the Crimean Ministry of Internal Policy and Information that recommends not granting access to journalists from ATR, “15 Minutes”, “Crimea. Realities” and QHA. In turn, Chairperson of the Committee of the State Council of Crimea on Information Policy, Communications and Mass Media Sergey Shuvaynikov said he did not know about the existence of such a letter.

6

http://crimea.gov.ru/news/19_06_15

9

The CFM continues to record cases of the use of formal constraints to hinder journalistic activity.

Thus, on June 25, a meeting of the Kerch City Council declined objection of the prosecutor to the cancellation of media accreditation, which currently extends to all activities of the Kerch City Council.

The deputies explained their decision by the fact that accreditation matters are governed by Article 48 of the Russian <law> on mass media, which stipulates that only journalists may be granted accreditation. The term “journalist” is defined in Article 2 of the Law. According to it, a journalist is a person engaged in editing, collecting or preparing messages for the editorial board of a registered mass medium. This law does not envisage accreditation of other persons.

On June 4, “The Regulations for entry to the temporarily occupied territory of Ukraine and departure from it” came into force in Ukraine. The Procedure allows entry of foreign nationals into the territory of Crimea, including journalists, only on special permits. (More details on the Procedure are provided in the “Freedom of movement” Section). Thus, on June 13 the Ukrainian border guards refused to allow entry to the Crimea to the crew an Azerbaijani TV channel. That was reported by the editor of the Crimean “Alubika” newspaper Rahim Humbatov.

On the Russian border, actions by the Russian border guards that violate the procedural rules are registered. Thus, on June 11, at the Armyansk checkpoint, Russian border guards detained a Crimean journalist and his family, who were bound for Ukraine, without explaining the reasons. Three hours later, after interrogation and inspection of their belongings, all were released, and the reasons for the detention were never provided.

FREEDOM OF PEACEFUL ASSEMBLY Penalties for organization of, or participation in events to commemorate the deportation of the Crimean Tatar people In June, a number of court decisions were passed on bringing to administrative responsibility the organizers and participants of the May 18 peaceful assembly in memory of the deportation of the Crimean Tatar people.

On June 25, the Krasnoperekopsky District Court issued a decision on imposing a fine of 10,000 rubles on the Imam of the village Dolinka (in Krasnoperekopsky District) Yunus Nemetullaev for violating the order of organizing or holding a meeting, rally, demonstration, march or picket, namely, participation in the rally dedicated to the anniversary of the deportation of the Crimean Tatars.

On June 26, 2015, the Krasnoperekopsky District Court passed a judgment in the case of an administrative offense by Head of the Krasnoperekopsky District Medzhlis Saniye Ametova, namely, violation of the established order of organizing or holding a meeting, rally, demonstration, march or picket (Article 20.2 of the RF Administrative Code). The rally was authorized by the administration of the Voinka village, namely: holding a rally from 15.00 to 17.00 in the village center at the memorial sign to the victims of the deportation. The authorized nature of the rally is also confirmed by order of the Voinka village administration №109, dated May 13, 2015, (Annex 2). However, the court ruled to impose an administrative penalty in the form of a fine of 10,000 rubles on Saniye Ametova for organization of the rally.

On June 30, judge of the Krasnoperekopsky District Court O.V. Shevchenko considered a case of an administrative offense against Zeynep Aydogan. On May 26, 2015, a report was drawn up, according 10

to which it she organized and conducted a picket in the village of Voinka, without notifying the authorities, also demonstrated posters dedicated to returning official status to the Crimean Tatar language. Zeynep Aydogan objected to the report, and confirmed that had no intent to violate the law. The court changed the case classification deciding to bring Zeynep Aydogan to justice as a participant in the rally but not an organizer. The court found Zeynep Aydogan guilty of violation of the established order of organizing or holding meetings, rallies, demonstrations, marches or pickets (Article 20.2 of the Administrative Code) and imposed on her a fine of 10,000 rubles7.

Banning and restrictions of peaceful assemblies In early June, representatives of youth organizations that every year took part in the organization of the Day of the Crimean Tatar national flag, established an organizing committee to organize events to mark the day. The Organizing Committee filed a notice to the Simferopol City Administration to hold a public event on June 26, 2015, in the Simferopol Fountains area to mark the Day of the Crimean Tatar flag.

However, the notice was dismissed. The reason for the refusal to allow a peaceful assembly was the fact that other organizations had filed their notices on holding mass events on 26 June and received approvals. After that, the Organizing Committee served the notice two times more, with a change in venues and dates. Nevertheless, the responses were similar to the first one. Also, a negative response was received to the notice on holding a motor rally.

On June 25, office of prosecution issued warnings about the inadmissibility of the unauthorized mass events. The warnings were served to members of the Medzhlis Dilyaver Akiev, Ilmi Umerov, Nariman Dzhelal and a Ukrainian activist Leonid Kuzmin (Annex 3). The Crimean prosecutor's office believes that the Medzhlis members and Ukrainian and Crimean Tatar activists intended to hold â&#x20AC;&#x153;unsanctioned protest eventsâ&#x20AC;? dedicated to the Day of the Crimean Tatar flag and the Constitution Day of Ukraine. The prosecutor's office did not provide any evidence of those suspicions.

FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE AND RELIGION In connection with to the continuing discrimination and restrictions on freedom of conscience and religion in relation to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, Kyiv Patriarchate (UOC-KP), Archbishop of Simferopol and Crimea of the UOC-KP Klyment made a public appeal. He appealed to the UN Secretary General, OSCE Chairperson, the countries of the Budapest Memorandum (the President of Ukraine, the President of the Russian Federation, the US President, the British Prime Minister, as well as parties to the Memorandum: the President of France, Chairperson of the People's Republic of China) and to the Delegation of the European Union8.

Archbishop substantiated his appeal by his year-long observations of the systemic restrictions on the Ukrainian church, Ukrainian education, Ukrainian culture. No investigation has been conducted into the seizure of the church of the priestly martyr Klyment in Sevastopol and the St. Andrew church in

7

Resolution of the Krasnoperekopsk District Court in the case of Z. Aydogan http://crimeahr.org/wpcontent/uploads/2015/07/Postanovlenie-Aydogan.pdf

8

http://almenda.org/zvernennya-arxiyepiskopa-krimskogo-klimenta/ 11

the village of Perevalnoye; arson of the summer house of the Diocese manager in the village of Mramornoye in Simferopol district.

The Archbishop says that, due to various threats, parishes were closed in premises provided by the Ukrainian entrepreneurs in the cities of Saky, Krasnoperekopsk, Kerch. The auction, held on May 29 to rent the 112.6 sq. m premises, is regarded by the Archbishop as an organized raider seizure of part of the premises belonging to the Crimean Diocese of the UOC-KP in Simferopol. That space is leased by the Crimean Diocese of the UOC-KP. The auction was held without notice to the tenants of the premises.

Besides, in his address the Archbishop says about inadmissibility of persecution of the “EuromaidanCrimea” activists and the Crimean Ukrainians who are citizens of Ukraine and are the bearers of the Ukrainian language and the Ukrainian culture; closing classes with the Ukrainian language of instruction; the destruction of the Ukrainian grammar school in Simferopol and seven other Ukrainianlanguage schools; the destruction of Ukrainian publications and the “Krymskaya Svetlitsa” newspaper, the premises of which were confiscated by local authorities; renaming of the Ukrainian institutions: houses, theaters, libraries and schools; ban on peaceful demonstrations and gatherings at place or memorial value for Ukrainians, particularly near the monument to Taras Shevchenko in Simferopol on his birth anniversary.

Difficulties in conducting religious activities are also faced by Jehovah's Witnesses community.

One of the traditional forms of activities carried out by members of the religious Jehovah's Witnesses community placing stands with religious literature, with two members of the religious association offering people to get acquainted with their teachings. In that way the religious association attracts new members.

On June 2, the Simferopol police officers drew up 8 administrative reports against members of the Jehovah's Witnesses religious community for violation of the procedures for holding rallies, demonstrations or picketing. Those reports were drawn up in relation to persons who offered literature for familiarization near four Jehovah's Witnesses stands. Such actions do not fall under the definition of a rally, demonstration or picket. The report, however, were drawn up for violation of the established order of organizing or holding meetings, rallies, demonstrations, marches and pickets (Article 20.2 of the RF Administrative Code). The said Article envisages penalty in the form of an administrative fine in the amount of 10 to 20 thousand rubles, or community service for up to 40 hours.

Among Muslims, particular concern is evoked by the so-called “Hizb-ut-Tahrir Case”, on charges of involvement in which four Crimean Tatars were detained. Since, in the local residents' opinion, the process is biased and politicized, anyone who very closely adheres to the rules of Islam, may be suspected of having links with Hizb-ut-Tahrir.

The local authorities' control over religious associations and their exercise of the right to freedom of faith continues to strengthen. Thus, the Council of the Crimea received a draft law on freedom of conscience and religious associations, which is expected to extend the state authority in that area.

The draft law envisages creation of a Department for Religious Affairs under the Ministry of Culture of the Crimea, to which religious organizations will be required to report arrival of foreign preachers in the territory of the Crimea.

12

On June 11, a meeting was held at the Crimean Prosecutor's Office, presided by prosecutor Natalia Poklonskaya, on matters if interdenominational and interethnic relations, and the inadmissibility of manifestations of extremism in the youth environment. A proposal was put forward to introduce in educational institutions special courses on the basics of religious culture and secular ethics aimed at formation of certain attitudes in the area of religion, which was supported by the prosecutor.

FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT AND MATTERS OF CHECKPOINT CROSSING In July, facts of the Russian border guards hindering transit at the administrative border between the Crimea and the mainland Ukraine were registered.

On June 11, at the Armyansk checkpoint, officers of the Border Service of the Russian Federation stopped a Geely car with the Crimean license plates. The Crimean Tatar family, who were traveling in the car, were divided — the children and the elderly woman were let go but the spouses were detained without explanation. During the inspection of the car, the Russian border guards disrupted the integrity of the vehicle, ripped the upholstery and caused material damage to it. The border guards refused to explain their actions. The inspection failed to reveal any prohibited items in the car.

In mid-June, at the Armyansk checkpoint, officers of the Border Service of the Russian Federation also decided not to allow part of the commercial goods to the Peninsula. According to the driver of one of the trucks, the goods were carried across the border in a pedestrian manner, while officers of the Border Service of the Russian Federation restricted the passage of goods — to cross the checkpoint no more than 3 times a day.

On June 26, the FSB Directorate in the Crimea stated that the Ukrainian government had unilaterally banned the movement of trucks with goods across the border with the Crimea. On June 28, the Russian FSB Border Department in the Crimea announced the resumption of freight traffic. However, the Acting Deputy Head of the Kherson Customs of Ukraine Yury Tavozhnyansky denied the information about the ban and explained the situation with the transport delays by the Ukrainian Security Service inspections at all checkpoints.

The main change at the Ukrainian checkpoints was the entry into force of the “The Regulations for entry to the temporarily occupied territory of Ukraine and departure from it” (Resolution by the Cabinet of Ministers No. 367, dated June 4, 2015)9. According to the Regulations, entry to the territory of the Crimea and departure from it through checkpoints by citizens of Ukraine, as before, is done on the basis of an identity document, but foreigners and persons without citizenship are required to possess passport documents and special permits issued by the territorial body of the State Migration Service Ukraine.

Practical application of this procedure has resulted in significant restriction on freedom of movement for the two main categories: 1. Citizens of Ukraine who have not reached the age of 16, that is children, must cross the administrative border with the Crimea in accordance with the Rules of crossing of the state border of

by Ukrainian citizens. Therefore, a contradiction emerges when an administrative border is crossed by

9

http://www.kmu.gov.ua/control/uk/cardnpd?docid=248222450 13

regulations applicable to the state border. Besides, parents or guardians who have reached the age of 16, cross <the border> by the rules of the administrative border.

As a result, the entry and exit of minors is done by a travel document or foreign-travel passport, and with the both parents' consent to the departure. Preparation of such documents takes a considerable amount of time. In addition, for the Ukrainian citizens it is not possible to obtain such documents in the Crimea. In late June, the Border Service of Ukraine reported that refused entry and exit to and from the Crimea for about 300 minors. This does not only violate the right to travel, but also significantly limits and violates the rights of children, namely the child's right to family life (since the majority of children travel to the Crimea to maintain family ties), the right to maintain regular personal relations and direct contacts with both parents (since quite common are cases when one of the parents stayed in the Crimea after the Russian Federation had taken control over the Peninsula, and the other one relocated to mainland Ukraine).

2. Foreigners and stateless persons are obligated to obtain a special permit issued in Ukraine by the nearest department of the State Migration Service (SMS) in Ukraine within 5 working days. Entry is allowed only for the reasons stated in the Regulations. That list is very short and only contains seven reasons.

Foreigners and stateless persons may appeal the denial of issuance of the special permit with the bodies of the SMS or at court. The CFM has documented cases where not all members of one family were able to obtain a special permit for entry. For example, a married couple, citizens of Moldova, applied for a special permit to enter the Crimea with the aim to attend funeral of one of the spouses' father. In the end, the son of the deceased received such a permit, but his wife was denied the special permit.

The list of grounds for issuance of a special permit for foreigners is exhaustive and, apart from relations and property matters, and the need to visit the burial site, envisages only the following: “5) the need to participate in the protection of national interests of Ukraine for the purposes of peaceful settlement of the conflict, liberation of Ukraine's territory from occupation, or humanitarian policy matters (exclusively at the request of, or upon consent of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs); 6) the need to carry out diplomatic and consular functions, in particular, within the framework of international organizations that Ukraine is a member of (exclusively at the request of, or upon consent of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs).”

This means that, in order to legally visit the Crimea, foreign journalists, lawyers and human rights activists require: 1) a request and approval of the Ministry of Foreign Affair of Ukraine, 2) substantiation for a special permit - “protection of national interests of Ukraine, de-occupation or “humanitarian policy”. Protection of human rights, or journalistic or advocacy activities as legitimate purposes for a visit to the Peninsula are not considered.

According to international obligations, these regulations cannot contribute to the work of human rights activists (including cross-border), as is envisaged in the OSCE and the UN documents.

This Regulations created problems not only for human rights activists, but also for journalists and lawyers (primarily Russian, because only Russian lawyers can normally operate in today's realities there) who comply with the legislation of Ukraine.

Besides, the Regulations do not specify a procedure to obtain a special permit by foreigners and stateless persons who want to leave the territory of Crimea, or who entered Crimea before the entry into force of the Procedures. The procedure to appeal the denial of a special permit to foreigners and stateless persons who are in the Crimea is absent, since they cannot address the state authorities of Ukraine while being there. The Regulations do not settle the issue of departure from the Crimea by citizens of Ukraine who are currently in the Peninsula with invalid or expired passport documents (the 14

photo in the passport is missing; the document is damaged or lost; obtaining a passport by citizens upon reaching the age of 16, etc.). Therefore, this makes it virtually impossible for certain categories of persons to leave the territory of the Crimea.

Lawyers of the Crimea-SOS initiative also note that a number of rules in the Regulations contradict the provisions of international humanitarian law10.

In order to stop groundless restrictions and obstruction in the movement of people who abide by the laws of Ukraine across the administrative border with the Crimea, these Regulations require urgent amendment or cancellation.

Several non-governmental organizations have criticized the Regulations and came up with 11 proposals ; human rights organizations have stated the need to improve the document as well12.

LEGAL PROCEEDINGS In June, the CFM monitors conducted monitoring of the Crimean courts, having visited 10 courts in the peninsula, which is one third of their total number (of 29 courts). For more information about visits to court sessions, see â&#x20AC;&#x153;Additional Materialsâ&#x20AC;? Section. (Below are the preliminary findings of the monitoring; a detailed monitoring report will be provided later).

In the territory of the Crimea, there are 29 city and district courts, a military garrison court and the Supreme Court. City and district courts employ 196 judges. According to official reports for January through March 2015, posted on the courts' website, the district and city courts in the Peninsula received 19,756 cases: 1,968 criminal, 9,624 civil, and 8,164 administrative.

Accessibility of most courts in the Crimea is low; access ramps and absent; courthouses are located in remote areas. Problems of access to justice also include the high workload of courts, in part, due to the absence of magistrates, which causes delays in consideration of cases.

Openness of the Crimean courts has significantly decreased. The procedure for access to the majority of courts is as follows. At the entrance to the courthouse, there is a post of bailiffs who have metal detectors with them. In 4 out of 10 courthouses (the Kievsky District Court in Simferopol, the Zheleznodorozhny District Court in Simferopol, the Gagarinsky District Court in Sevastopol, the Armyansk City Court) there are walk-through gates; one court has a turnstile (in Nakhimovsky District Court in Sevastopol). But even before the checkup, a visitor has to come to one of the bailiffs to make an entry in the visit log, to present their passport (or another identification document) and call the name of the judge that they want to see.

Access to a session is suggested to be coordinated in the office of the judge or in the office of the Chairperson. Information about the cases to be considered on that day is often located behind the bailiff posts (in presence of the walk-through gates, one may not pass without that information; if 10

International legal analysis of the Regulations for entry to the temporarily occupied territory of Ukraine and departure from it http://krymsos.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/%D0%90%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%9F%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%8F%D0%B4%D0%BA%D0%B0-%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%87%D0%BA%D0%B8-%D0%B7%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%B6%D0%B4%D1%83%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%BE %D0%B3%D0%BE-%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B0.pdf 11

http://ru.krymr.com/content/news/27115146.html

12

http://helsinki.org.ua/index.php?id=1436350851 15

there is no gate, free access for reading is granted). Other reference materials, specimens of documents are present in the courthouses, but the amount of information and its availability differ.

It is much more difficult to attend a court session. It is necessary to introduce oneself to the Secretary or the Assistant Judge in advance, then wait for a decision on the permission to attend the session.

The monitors were allowed to attend seven sessions, and denied attendance of 3 (5 more sessions were not held at the time scheduled).

A special mention must be made of high-profile trials, the attitude towards which is significantly different. Thus, during the proceedings in of the so-called “Hizb-ut-Tahrir case” even relatives were not allowed to attend; neither were Crimean Tatars. A similar situation was observed in the trial of Oleksandr Kostenko. Initially, access was denied for reasons of the preliminary hearing, then — for reasons of the room capacity (the room was artificially filled with the OMON riot police officers and students); access was only permitted for the final meeting.

Cases of legal proceedings after the regular work hours of a court have been observed. Such cases were reported in the Central District Court of Simferopol, in the Saky District Court. According to bailiffs, in one instance a case was considered until 2 am. At the same time, presence of persons in the courthouse after its closure is prohibited, that is, if the person did not come in time for the sessions before the closure, the bailiffs of the court will not let them come in for the session.

It should be noted that not every website of the city and district courts in the Crimea contain information on cases that are considered. Thus, the websites of the Sovetsky and the Krasnogvardeisky District Courts contain no statistics whatsoever on court proceedings for January through March 2015. Also, 5 courts in Sevastopol do not provide any statistical information at all.

Violation of procedural and other rules The CFM monitors visited three criminal trials and 4 civil proceedings. In criminal proceedings, 2 sessions were held in the courtroom, and one session – in the judge's office; in civil proceedings, 2 sessions were held in the courtroom and 2 — in the judge's office.

All sessions were attended by the judge, clerk of the court, the parties in the proceedings (or their representatives). During two sessions, judges were not wearing their mantles (the Armyansk City Court and the Yevpatoria City Court). The court proceedings were not audio-recorded; the parties did not put forth any petitions. In two instances cases were considered in accordance with a special consideration procedure.

The Zheleznodorozhny District Court of Simferopol failed to provide a lawyer for Kasparevich, suspected of committing a crime under Article 319, neither at the stage of the hearing, nor before the session. Moreover, Kasparevich was totally unaware about the necessary presence of a lawyer.

The courts consider cases based on events that occurred before March 18. In those cases, verdicts are pronounced in name of the Russian Federation. Judges do not respond and do not provide explanations to complaints of illegality, contradiction to Article 12 “Spatial application of the Criminal Code”. The courts systematically fail to observe time limits for consideration of appeals to the court. It takes 3 to 4 months from the time when an appeal is received to its consideration in court.

Advocacy 16

To be able to continue their activities, lawyers were required to re-register. The number of lawyers dropped by half: in early last year there was about 1,400, now â&#x20AC;&#x201D; around 600 to 700. Along with the significant reduction in the number of lawyers, the number of cases requiring qualified legal aid has increased.

Lawyers' access to pre-trial detention facilities has decreased, largely due to the reduction of the working space in the facilities (only 8 rooms out of about 20); visiting time (3 days per week for 5 hours, 2 days a week for 4 hours); access to clients seriously deteriorated, they have to be on the waiting list from early in the morning, and sometimes there is no way to see the client throughout the day. It is also more difficult to gain access to the case file, both in the course of an investigation (for example, to be familiarized with the examinations) and after that (difficulties with making copies).

Many lawyers point out that the judges often feel dependent in making decisions and fear decisions by authorities, which causes distancing from lawyers and an increased attention to the state prosecutors and documents from law enforcement agencies. An example of this inequality of the parties is an attempt of the head of Simferopol diocese of the UOC-KP Klyment to find a lawyer for litigation with the administration of property and land relations. Law firms have refused to execute documents in the dispute.

Existence of politically motivated cases.

The monitoring confirmed existence of politically motivated cases. Such cases primarily include the arrest of Ahtem Chiygoz, â&#x20AC;&#x153;the Case of Hizb-ut-Tahrirâ&#x20AC;?, the case of Oleksandr Kostenko, etc. Typically, in such cases include instances of denying access to sessions for the mass media, relatives and viewers; pressure on the accused (including physical violence and torture), on lawyers or relatives. In passing their resolutions, judges routinely ignore international rules and obligations arising from international agreements signed by Russia.

17

3. 3. PROBLEMS OF CRIMEAN RESIDENTS, WHO HAD TO LEAVE THE PENINSULA AND RELOCATE TO THE MAINLAND UKRAINE (INTERNALLY DISPLACED PERSONS) REGISTRATION AND SOCIAL RIGHTS According to Ukrainian laws, persons who were forced to leave the place of their residence in the Crimea and Donbas and relocate to other territories under the control of Ukraine must be registered, namely, to obtain a certificate of registration as an internally displaced person (IDP). On the basis of that certificate, IDPs can exercise their social rights in the new place of residence (reissue retirement benefits, receive free medical services, etc.) and to receive targeted financial assistance to offset the utility bills.

However, the practice of application of the law of Ukraine â&#x20AC;&#x153;On ensuring the rights and freedoms of IDPsâ&#x20AC;? has caused situations when certain categories of IDPs are denied registration as an IDP. These categories include persons who used to be resident in the territory of Crimea or Donbass, but had no registration of residence there; persons who had left those areas but, in accordance with the Ukrainian legislation on freedom of movement, registered a new place of residence, for example, students in a dormitory (i.e. secured a new residence registration). Such persons are in fact IDPs as they were forced to leave their places of residence as a result of the armed conflict, temporary occupation, generalized violence, massive violations of human rights or an emergency situation.

However, government officials refuse to register such persons, referring to absence of a residence registration stamp in those people's passports confirming residence in occupied territories.

In order to stop these illegal practices, the Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union and the Almenda Center for Civic Education supported a strategically important cause of Ruslan Nechiporuk.

Ruslan Nechiporuk is an internally displaced person from the Crimea. Due to his active pro-Ukrainian position, he was forced to leave the Crimea on April 1, 2014, and move to Kyiv. On December 10, 2014, he came to the Kyiv Administration of Labor and Social Protection (UTSZ) at his place of residence in a student dormitory requesting a certificate of registration as an IDP and receiving targeted financial assistance for IDPs. He was denied registration on the grounds that, at the time of relocation from the temporarily occupied territory, he had no registration there.

The law on IDPs stipulates that the registration serves as grounds for registration of an IDP, but it does not follow from the IDP Law (Part 3, Article 4) that the registration is the only basis for registration. The list of documents attached to the application for registration as an IDP to confirm the fact of relocation does not only specify a passport with the registration stamp, but also other documents, and the list is not exhaustive. In addition, a person acquires the status of an internally displaced person as a result of the fact of relocation itself, address to a social protection authority and entering the data on the person in the electronic register of IDPs. Therefore, the issuance of certificates is only a confirmation of the existing IDP status and all rights of the IDPs. Ruslan Nechiporuk confirmed the fact of his permanent residence in the Crimea by a document, the order of the vice principal of the Kyiv National Taras Shevchenko University about his transfer, beginning on April 1, 2014, to the History Department of the Shevchenko University from the Crimean Humanitarian University, where he had studied full time. The fact of full-time studies is evidence of his permanent residence on the territory of Crimea until April 1, 2014. Therefore, the social security 18

authority is obligated to issue R. Nechiporuk a certificate of registration as an IDP, and the refusal is illegal.

The student appealed to the court with that claim; the first meeting was held on June 9. At the court session, the judge decided to make an additional enquiry to the Department of Labor and Social Protection where the student received a refusal. After the session, however, Ruslan was contacted by representatives of the Administration and told that they are ready to issue the respective certificate 13.

Therefore, the said precedent would eliminate the illegal practice of denial registration for IDPs and accept documents other than passports to attest to the fact of residence in the Crimea or Donbass.

The review was prepared by: Olga Skrypnik, Deputy Head of the Crimean Field Mission on Human Rights; Vissarion Aseev, analyst of the Almenda Center of Civic Education; Dariia Sviridova, lawyer, Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union; Aleksandra Krylenkova, Coordinator of the Crimean Field Mission on Human Rights; Dmitry Makarov, Deputy Head of the Crimean Field Mission on Human Rights, Youth Human Rights Movement; Tetiana Pechonchyk, Chairperson of the Board of the Human Rights Information Centre.

13

http://ru.krymr.com/content/news/27067252.html 19

ANNEXES Annex 1

Reply to the Human Rights Commissioner in the Crimea regarding the case of disappearance of Fedir Kostenko

20

Annex 2

Order of the Voinka Village Administration No. 109, dated May 13, 2015, on the authorization of the rally on May 18, 2015

21

Annex 3

A warning notice of the Crimean Prosecutor's Office to Leonid Kuzmin on the inadmissibility of holding unauthorized mass events

22