Illustration copyright RIA Novosti Image caption A monument was erected to the Russian military in Crimea

Russia's actions in 2014, which ended with the annexation of Crimea, led to a situation tantamount to armed conflict, says a report by the International Criminal Court in The Hague, which is conducting a preliminary investigation into the situation in Ukraine.

The court sees the main feature of an interstate armed conflict in the fact that Russia used armed forces personnel to gain control over parts of the territory of Ukraine without the consent of the Ukrainian government, the report says.

"Later Russian Federation"that Russian military personnel participated in the seizure of the Crimean peninsula, justifying the intervention, among other things, by alleged threats to citizens of the Russian Federation, the alleged decision of the residents of Crimea to join the Russian Federation," the report says.

"It is not necessary to establish the lawfulness of the original intervention that gave rise to the occupation. For the purposes of the Rome Statute, an armed conflict may be international in its essence if one or more states occupy part or all of the territory of another state, regardless of whether the occupation is accompanied by armed resistance," the document says.

The main focus of the court's attention in the "Situation in Ukraine" case is the numerous crimes on the territory of Crimea and Eastern Ukraine that followed the intervention.

In the case of Crimea, these are harassment, murder, wrongful arrests and forced military service. The list of crimes is preliminary, the judges made a reservation.

A similar list for Eastern Ukraine also includes disappearances and kidnappings, torture, and destruction of civilian objects.

"Based on information received from large number reliable sources, the Office of the Prosecutor has created a comprehensive database of more than 800 incidents allegedly occurring in the Situation in Ukraine case since February 20, 2014,” the report states.

Russia annexed Crimea in March 2014 after a referendum, the legitimacy of which Ukraine and most UN member states do not recognize. The conflict around the peninsula became one of the reasons for the introduction of sanctions against Russia by Western countries.

As "international armed conflict".

The International Criminal Court (The Hague, the Netherlands) qualified the Russian invasion of Crimea as an international armed conflict between Ukraine and the Russian Federation. Now all the actions of the aggressor in the occupied territory are being studied for crimes against humanity, reports on the social network Prosecutor's Office of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea.

In particular, the Report confirms the qualification of the situation in the temporarily occupied territory Autonomous Republic Crimea and the cities of Sevastopol, which arose no later than February 26, 2014, as an international armed conflict between Ukraine and the Russian Federation.

Accordingly, the law of international armed conflicts (international humanitarian law) will apply to this situation.

In particular, we're talking about on the transfer and expulsion, transfer of convicts, violation of property rights, as well as coercion of Ukrainian citizens - residents of temporarily occupied territory - to serve in the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation.

The information is now being studied by the ICC Prosecutor's Office to determine whether such illegal actions are classified as war crimes and crimes against humanity. The Office of the ICC Prosecutor plans to shortly complete its analysis of subject matter jurisdiction in the Ukrainian case regarding Crimea and issue an opinion on its admissibility for consideration by the ICC.

Let us remind you that . The head of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation said that the famous Ukrainian politician Dmitry Yarosh is to blame for the illegal annexation of the Ukrainian Crimea by Russia. He allegedly called for the destruction or expulsion of all Russian speakers from the territory of the peninsula.

In addition, Lavrov said that “such a position of the Ukrainian side” was the reason that an illegal pseudo-referendum was held in Crimea.

“Russians have nothing to do in Crimea, Russians will never understand Ukrainians. Therefore, the Russian must either be destroyed or expelled from Crimea,” the head of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation “quoted” Yarosh.

Hyser previously reported that . Also, according to him, due to “unfair” sanctions, Crimeans and Sevastopol residents are deprived of Schengen visas.

“I fully support the need to ensure that Crimeans and Sevastopol residents live absolutely comfortably, like all other citizens of the Russian Federation,” said the head of the Russian Foreign Ministry, answering a question from a resident of occupied Crimea at the International Volunteer Forum.

We also informed that . Dalia Grybauskaite also stated that Russia must comply with all international agreements on shipping in the Sea of ​​Azov. She also reported that Lithuania had imposed national sanctions against Russia for an act of aggression in the Azov-Kerch waters, despite the fact that European Union So far there has been no reaction to the actions of the Russian Federation.

The prosecutor of the Hague Tribunal equated the situation in Crimea to “occupation” and “military conflict”

The prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague, Fatou Bensouda, published a report on the preliminary investigation into the situation in Ukraine, in which what happened in Crimea is called a “military conflict” and “occupation.” It also states that Russian authorities, presumably, support “anti-government elements,” that is, the self-proclaimed DPR and LPR.

The removal of the fourth president of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych, from power is not called “anti-constitutional” in the report (this version is supported by the Russian side, including Vladimir Putin). “The Parliament of Ukraine voted for the resignation of President Yanukovych, who left the country on the same day, going to the Russian Federation,” the ICC states (paragraph 153).

"157. The assumption of control of Crimea by the Russian Federation generally occurred without fire. Russian military personnel were used to establish control over the territory, including Ukrainian military bases and government buildings, and in mid-March the Ukrainian government began withdrawing military units and units located at Crimean bases, to the main territory of the country.

158. According to the information received, the situation in the territory of Crimea and Sevastopol is tantamount to an international armed conflict between Ukraine and the Russian Federation. This international armed conflict began no later than February 26, when the Russian Federation used its armed forces to gain control over parts of Ukrainian territory without the consent of the Ukrainian government. The law of international armed conflicts is also applicable after March 18, 2014 to the extent that the situation in the territory of Crimea and Sevastopol amounts to a continuing state of occupation. It is not necessary to establish the legality of the original intervention that led to the occupation. For the purposes of the Rome Statute, an armed conflict may be international in nature if one or more States partially or wholly occupies the territory of another State, regardless of whether the occupation is accompanied by armed resistance."

159. Simultaneously with the events in Crimea, anti-government protests continued in other regions of Ukraine, primarily in the east of the country. During April and May 2014, anti-government protesters occupied government buildings in the Kharkiv, Donetsk and Lugansk regions in eastern Ukraine. An anti-government group has formed, calling itself the “People's Militia of Donbass”. Law enforcement attempted to regain control of the buildings, but these attempts were unsuccessful and the buildings were reoccupied by anti-government elements.

162. Following the “referendums” held on May 11, 2014, which were declared invalid by the Ukrainian government, representatives of the self-proclaimed “Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics” made statements declaring “independence” from Ukraine. In addition, the “DPR” and “LPR” published appeals asking to be accepted into the Russian Federation. “DPR” and “LPR” remain unrecognized by almost all states, including the Russian Federation.

166. Clashes of varying degrees of tension continued for more than two years in eastern Ukraine between Ukrainian government forces and anti-government elements allegedly supported by the Russian Federation. Clashes involve the use of military equipment by both sides. Two periods of particularly fierce fighting were reported in Ilovaisk (Donetsk region) at the end of August 2014 and in Debaltsevo (Donetsk) between January and February 2015. The increased severity of fighting during these periods is associated with the alleged influx of personnel, vehicles and military equipment from the Russian Federation in order to strengthen the positions of armed groups."

170. The Office of the Prosecutor is also reviewing allegations that the Russian Federation generally exercised control over armed groups in eastern Ukraine to determine whether this otherwise non-international armed conflict can be considered an international conflict in nature. The existence of a single international armed conflict in eastern Ukraine would entail the application of the articles of the Rome Statute relevant to armed conflicts of an international character during the relevant period. In conducting its analysis, the Office of the Prosecutor must determine whether available information indicates Russian government support for armed groups in the form of equipment, personnel and funding, and whether general management or assistance in planning the activities of armed groups in a manner that would indicate that they [the Russian authorities] are exercising effective control over them. The Office of the Prosecutor is currently conducting a detailed factual and legal analysis of the available information related to this issue.

173. Murders and abductions: Since March 2014, at least 10 people have reportedly disappeared in connection with the situation in Crimea. In most cases, the alleged victims were known to have opposed the occupation of Crimea, and their abductions were linked to the activities of the Crimean Self-Defense paramilitary group. The Office of the Prosecutor is also reviewing two cases of alleged abductions and murders of Crimean Tatar activists in March and September 2014.

178. Killings: According to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, since the beginning of the conflict, approximately 9,578 people have been killed and 22,236 people injured, including members of the armed forces, members of military groups and civilians. Between April 2014 and June 2016, up to 2,000 civilians were killed in combat zones, mostly (85-90%) as a result of artillery shelling of populated areas in both government-controlled and controlled areas military groups. Other incidents have been reported, including the alleged killing or injury of civilians firearms, attributed to both government-supporting military forces and armed groups. It is also alleged that there have been a number of executions without trial of incapacitated Ukrainian military personnel and members of armed groups."

November 16, 13:20 Today, November 16, Russia abandoned the agreement on the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague, such an order was signed by Russian President Vladimir Putin. It was published on the official legal information portal. The document says:

"1. Accept the proposal of the Ministry of Justice of Russia, agreed upon with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia and other interested federal executive authorities, with Supreme Court Russian Federation, Prosecutor General's Office Russian Federation and Investigative Committee Russian Federation, about the direction Secretary General UN notification of the intention of the Russian Federation not to become a party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, adopted by the Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries under the auspices of the UN in Rome on July 17, 1998 and signed on behalf of the Russian Federation on September 13, 2000.

2. The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs shall send a corresponding notification to the UN Secretary General.

3. This order comes into force from the date of its signing."

In September 2000, Russia signed the Rome Statute but did not ratify it, so it did not become a state party to the ICC. Russia cooperated with the ICC as an observer.

November 16, 14:36 The International Criminal Court (ICC) did not live up to the hopes placed on it and did not become a truly independent body of international justice, the Russian Foreign Ministry said:

“Russia consistently advocates bringing to justice those responsible for the most serious international crimes. Our country was at the forefront of the creation of the Nuremberg and Tokyo Tribunals, and participated in the development of fundamental documents to combat such serious international crimes as genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. It was for these fundamental reasons that Russia voted for the adoption of the Rome Statute and signed it on September 13, 2000.

The ICC, the first permanent body of international criminal justice, was closely linked to the expectations of the international community in the fight against impunity in the context of overall efforts to maintain international peace and security, resolve existing conflicts and prevent new sources of tension.

Unfortunately, the Court did not live up to the hopes placed on it and did not become a truly independent, authoritative body of international justice. Fundamentally, at various venues, including the General Assembly and the UN Security Council, the ineffective and one-sided work of the Court in the cases it investigates was noted. An indicative fact is that during the 14 years of its work, the ICC issued only 4 verdicts, spending more than $1 billion.

In this regard, the demarche of the African Union, which decided to develop measures for a coordinated withdrawal of the states of the African continent from the Rome Statute, is understandable. In some participating States such procedures are already in place.

Russia cannot but be concerned about the ICC’s attitude towards the events of August 2008. The attack of M. Saakashvili's regime on peaceful Tskhinvali and the murder of Russian peacekeepers gave rise to accusations by the ICC against South Ossetian militias and Russian military personnel. The eventual investigation into the actions and orders of the Georgian officials purposefully left to the discretion of Georgian justice and remains outside the focus of attention of the ICC prosecutor's office. Such a reversal speaks for itself. In such conditions, one can hardly talk about confidence in the International Criminal Court.

The decision taken by the Russian Federation not to become a party to the ICC Statute, or, in other words, to withdraw its signature on this document, entails legal consequences provided for by the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969."

We have created a chat in Telegram for the rapid exchange of news. If you witnessed any event or simply discovered important news, send it here as soon as possible:

The International Criminal Court in The Hague, as reported in European media, equated the annexation of Crimea with military action. The aggressor country, of course, is you and me.

The report of the preliminary investigation of ICC prosecutor Fatou Bensouda, in particular, states: “according to the information received, the situation in the territory of Crimea and Sevastopol is tantamount to an international armed conflict between Ukraine and the Russian Federation. This international armed conflict began no later than February 26, when the Russian Federation used the personnel of its armed forces to gain control over parts of the territory of Ukraine without the consent of the Ukrainian government.”

In general, it is clear that the first question about this “military conflict” for the average person is: where and when were they shooting, blowing up and actively marching through the central streets? military equipment? And is it possible to identify at least one separate battle within the framework of this “military conflict”? Well, is there the battle for Sevastopol, or the siege of Koktebel, or the Yalta Cauldron?

The second question that the average person will ask is, well, okay, let’s say there was a great military confrontation in Crimea, and then what is happening in Donbass? And why then, within the framework of the “ATO”, which is carried out at the instigation of the Ukrainian authorities, victims are already, as in a full-fledged military conflict, but the ICC is in no hurry to give its assessment of this situation?

However, these are philistine questions. Much more interesting legal aspects this decision. About these nuances wrote head of the Pravda.ru holding, Vadim Gorshenin: “what is interesting in this context: the investigation is being carried out at the request of the government of Ukraine, which, like Russia, has not yet ratified the ICC statute. Moreover, the Constitutional Court of Ukraine recognized the statute of the International Criminal Court as inconsistent with the Constitution of Ukraine.

It is curious that the current authorities of Ukraine are not going to ratify the agreement on accession of this former republic The USSR about the ICC, because then it can initiate and conduct an investigation into Kyiv’s war crimes in the Donbass.

But today the European media are writing about the ICC investigation, which is being carried out against countries that do not fall under its jurisdiction.” And he also quite logically asks the obvious question: “And tell me, how does both the investigation itself and the reports about it differ from the reference to the opinion of “Baba Glasha”?”

With Russia, we repeat, everything is clear. Within the framework of the current agenda, this political decision is quite expected. And to similar demonstrative gestures of Western international organizations we're used to it. In general, they make us neither cold nor hot.

But now Ukraine is faced with the full question of “two chairs,” on one of which “the stakes are sharpened.” Because in order for this decision to have at least some status in Ukraine itself, they need to recognize the jurisdiction of the ICC. But if such a step is taken, then questions will invariably follow about the already real war crimes in Donbass.

About the killing of civilians, shelling of schools, kindergartens, residential buildings. And there are many more very unpleasant issues for official Kyiv, and for the “progressive European public” as well.

And if we take into account the world political agenda, in which Donald Trump is “deadly tired of the Ukrainian issue” and who is talking constructively with Vladimir Putin on the phone, then it’s not going well at all. For Trump, the ICC decisions on Donbass, and they will have to follow, will be an excellent additional reason to “forget about Ukraine” once and for all.

Because in the Donbass the Ukrainian Armed Forces are carrying out outright terror. It is worth recalling that in the United States there is a “no negotiations with terrorists” rule. It is clear that it was violated more than once by previous White House administrations and State Department employees. But here it will be beneficial for America to remember this rule and use it to the fullest.

As for the decision of the ICC and Europe itself, even without this verdict and the report of Fatou Bensouda, a number of eastern European countries live in a state of permanent paranoia from “potential Russian aggression.” True, ordinary citizens, unlike politicians for the most part, do not trust such paranoia.

So here, too, there is one more argument, one less... There is simply an opinion that very soon a number of European states may radically reconsider their policy towards Russia in general, and Crimea in particular.

And no ICC will stop them from doing this.

The International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague has published a report containing the results of a preliminary investigation into the events that took place in Crimea and eastern Ukraine since November 2013. According to these data, the events in Crimea preceding the referendum on the annexation of the peninsula to Russia contain signs of an international conflict. The crisis in eastern Ukraine, according to ICC prosecutors, in turn, should be assessed in two ways: as an internal conflict, but with elements of an international one.

The document was compiled on behalf of ICC prosecutor Fatou Bensouda and covers investigations that prosecutors conducted between November 1, 2015 and October 31, 2016 into ten potential court cases. Among them are events in Ukraine since 2014, which contain signs of war crimes.

"Maidan" is clean

The ICC investigation divides these events into three processes: the events on Independence Square, as well as the situation in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine since February 20, 2014.

The Euromaidan revolution raised the fewest questions for the Hague justice system. The events at Independence Square, as the ICC calls them, are not accompanied by a list of possible crimes. However, the authors of the document warn that clashes between law enforcement officers and protesters on the Maidan have been recorded. Thus, the ICC may qualify these events as “attacks against civilians” if more detailed information about collisions.

The situation in Crimea and eastern Ukraine, on the contrary, is accompanied by a list of probable crimes.

The report states that international conflict in Crimea began no later than February 26, 2014, when Russia used its troops to establish control over certain parts of Ukraine. “The assumption of control of Crimea by the Russian Federation as a whole took place without fire,” the text of the document reads. “Russian military personnel were used to establish control over territory, including Ukrainian military bases and government buildings, and in mid-March the Ukrainian government began withdrawing military units located at the Crimean bases.”

After March 18, 2014, when Crimea officially became part of Russia following the results of an illegal referendum, the law of international armed conflicts may be applied to Russia, the ICC report states.

According to investigators, the situation in Crimea and Sevastopol amounts to occupation.

The report also reports that after Russia accepted Crimea into the country, about 19 thousand Crimean Tatars were oppressed. The document notes that these people were intimidated, their freedom of speech was limited, their homes were searched, and some were completely banned from entering the territory of Crimea.

In addition, according to ICC investigators, there are signs of other serious crimes in Crimea: murders and kidnappings, ill-treatment of people, unfair trials and forced military service. The latter accusation is explained by the fact that Russian legislation with mandatory conscription into the armed forces began to take effect on the peninsula.

In eastern Ukraine, the Hague's preliminary investigation found evidence of the following crimes: murder, destruction of civilian objects, detention, kidnapping, torture and sexual crimes. They are suspected of involving both representatives of the Ukrainian special services and armed forces, as well as members of militant groups of the self-proclaimed Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics (DPR and LPR).

“By 30 April 2014, hostilities between Ukrainian government forces and anti-government armed elements in eastern Ukraine had reached a level that would trigger the application of the law of armed conflict,” the ICC report reads.

“The level of organization of armed groups operating in Eastern Ukraine, including the LPR and DPR, had by that time reached a degree sufficient to consider these groups parties to a non-international armed conflict,” the document states.

No later than July 14, as ICC experts write, the Eastern Ukrainian conflict received international content. “Additional information indicates a direct military confrontation between the Russian armed forces and the forces of the Ukrainian government, which suggests the existence of an international armed conflict,” explain the authors of the Hague report.

Another option for developing the investigation is to classify the conflict in Donbass as completely international. The fact is that the ICC received “statements that the Russian Federation as a whole exercised control over armed groups in eastern Ukraine.”

This information remains to be verified.

Russia, like Ukraine, has not ratified the European Rome Statute. This means that countries are not subject to the jurisdiction of the ICC. However, Ukraine agreed to become a subject of this right when the country’s authorities adopted declarations on April 17, 2014 and September 8, 2015.

Without Minsk the guilty ones

“We cannot expect rapid developments here,” says lawyer Ilya Novikov, who previously represented the interests of captive Ukrainian citizen Nadezhda Savchenko in a Russian court. — ICC investigations work differently. This is a long game. The accusations gradually accumulate and sooner or later they come out.

According to Gazeta.Ru’s interlocutor, the current preliminary investigation “does not look positive for a number of Russian politicians” and could result in formal charges with ICC arrest warrants.

This will give countries where the Rome Statute is in force (and this is the overwhelming number of European and South American countries, as well as some states in Africa and Asia, a total of 123 countries), the right to detain these Russian citizens and send them to The Hague for trial.

According to the presenter research fellow Institute for International Security Problems of the Russian Academy of Sciences Alexei Fenenko, this is precisely the goal of the ICC, which follows in the wake of American politics.

However, according to Paul Kalinichenko, professor of the Department of Integration and European Law at Moscow Law University named after O.E. Kutafina, Russian politicians senior officials, if they come to the attention of the ICC, will be at the later stages of this already long process.

"The Hague Process this moment does not promise big problems for the top leadership of Russia and Ukraine. Typically, these trials first seek to identify those who carried out and gave the orders that led to the war crimes. They go from the bottom up the chain of command,” the expert told Gazeta.Ru. “For those who are now part of the structure of the self-proclaimed people’s republics in Donbass, the ICC investigation could have much more serious consequences.”

This situation, according to Kalinichenko, may, under certain circumstances, conflict with the Minsk agreements, which, among other things, provided for a broad amnesty for representatives of the LPR and DPR.

The amnesty should occur after the process of reunification of Donbass and Western Ukraine under the control of Kyiv begins.

According to lawyer Ilya Novikov, contradictions between the Minsk and Hague processes will most likely be avoided. “If you read the text of the Minsk agreements, they do not specify the rules for holding an amnesty, so Kyiv has a very wide margin for maneuver,” he said. “In addition, it is now premature to talk about the contradictions between the amnesty and the ICC verdict, since there is neither one nor the other.”

Novikov argues that The Hague justice, as a rule, takes into account the verdicts of national courts. “If Ukraine holds an amnesty, the ICC will definitely take into account the opinion of local judicial institutions,” he believes.

However, judging by another process that the ICC is conducting in relation to Russia, the verdict of national courts is taken into account, but is not always taken into account. The investigation is controlled by the same prosecutor Fatou Bensouda, who considered that not all legal trials of those accused of war crimes that took place in Georgia and South Ossetia, are satisfactory.

“There is another problem: an amnesty in Ukraine - even if the Kyiv authorities agree to carry it out - is unlikely to apply to everyone,” says Kalinichenko. The process, according to Gazeta.Ru’s interlocutor, will resemble the investigation after the Chechen campaigns in Russia.

“Those militants who will face charges of participation in illegal armed groups may be released from liability. Those who are suspected of war crimes are unlikely,” the expert added.

This fact alone can be interpreted by representatives of the DPR and LPR as a violation of the Minsk agreements.