![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
v_s_chttps://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fhudoc.echr.coe.int%2Fapp%2Fconversion%2Fpdf%2F%3Flibrary%3DECHR%26id%3D003-6904972-9271650%26filename%3DGrand%2520Chamber%2520decision%2520Ukraine%2520v.%2520Russia%2520(re%2520Crimea)%2520-%2520complaints%2520concerning%2520pattern%2520of%2520human-rights%2520violations%2520partly%2520admissible.pdf%26fbclid%3DIwAR00trmfQF5RQ5_KOy4m3vcesYRiYmhCnpJi6i6K386OHBMlYBTJlZDqBY8&h=AT1ND8zRdArTKngxqbgZ2BWv5vPUGCjpkmBOaTSjbWMN6Xh_lSmemDtLB104NkFRgvhxtDN8ABiuhXSQCwa-dJHoIpzQTXZ-DUcq3gB_-KrwynY_l7CGSae_KS5_ck8nWg&__tn__=H-y-R&c[0]=AT1CjQGCBpnv4yg2MEub6rnAbif4KPViluJzqoG9GCTPmWcjxL3mvchBxd-rc4n_m1J24jFKMT-Yna1nO5JgyXJzveLSpUX9fCrDDkPiLxKUXon6KEWM-zyyr8nnhgzAlxjW-MOwXD-_4RGEUQmul-VvADmLQmoP0jDNolBiDlD8gKYvtg
В частности:
"...
From 27 February to 18 March 2014
The Court found that there was sufficient evidence for it to conclude that Russia had exercised
effective control over Crimea in the period in dispute between the parties, namely from 27 February
to 18 March 2014.
In particular, although Russian troops on the peninsula had not exceeded the limit of 25,000 set out
in the relevant bilateral agreements, the figures demonstrated that they had nearly doubled within a
short space of time, increasing from some 10,000 in late January 2014 to around 20,000 in mid-March
2014. In the Court’s view, the increased military presence of Russia in Crimea during that period was,
at the very least, significant.
It also noted that the Russian Government had not contested the assertion that the Russian military
forces stationed in Crimea had been superior to the Ukrainian troops in technical, tactical, military and
qualitative terms.
The Russian Government had not justified such an increase in the Russian military presence by any
concrete evidence showing that there had been a threat to the troops stationed in Crimea at the time.
Furthermore, the increase had taken place without the consent or cooperation of the Ukrainian
authorities, as evidenced by diplomatic communiqués objecting to the deployments and movements
in question.
Moreover, contrary to the Russian Government’s arguments that their soldiers deployed in Crimea at
the time had been passive bystanders, the Ukrainian Government had provided highly detailed,
chronological and specific information, as well as sufficient evidence, showing active participation of
Russian service personnel in the immobilisation of Ukrainian forces.
The Ukrainian Government’s account had remained coherent throughout the proceedings before the
Court, with consistent information regarding the manner, place and time of the alleged events leading
to the transfer of power to the new local authorities, which had then organised the “referendum”,
declared the independence of Crimea and taken active steps towards its integration into Russia.
Lastly, the Court had particular regard to two uncontested statements by President Putin. The first
had been made in a meeting with heads of security agencies during the night of 22 to 23 February
2014, saying that he had taken the decision to “start working on the return of Crimea to the Russian
Federation”, while in the second, during a television interview given on 17 April 2014, he had expressly
acknowledged that Russia had “disarm[ed] military units of the Ukrainian army and law-enforcement
agencies” and that “Russian servicemen [had] back[ed] the Crimean self-defence forces”.
..."
В частности:
"...
From 27 February to 18 March 2014
The Court found that there was sufficient evidence for it to conclude that Russia had exercised
effective control over Crimea in the period in dispute between the parties, namely from 27 February
to 18 March 2014.
In particular, although Russian troops on the peninsula had not exceeded the limit of 25,000 set out
in the relevant bilateral agreements, the figures demonstrated that they had nearly doubled within a
short space of time, increasing from some 10,000 in late January 2014 to around 20,000 in mid-March
2014. In the Court’s view, the increased military presence of Russia in Crimea during that period was,
at the very least, significant.
It also noted that the Russian Government had not contested the assertion that the Russian military
forces stationed in Crimea had been superior to the Ukrainian troops in technical, tactical, military and
qualitative terms.
The Russian Government had not justified such an increase in the Russian military presence by any
concrete evidence showing that there had been a threat to the troops stationed in Crimea at the time.
Furthermore, the increase had taken place without the consent or cooperation of the Ukrainian
authorities, as evidenced by diplomatic communiqués objecting to the deployments and movements
in question.
Moreover, contrary to the Russian Government’s arguments that their soldiers deployed in Crimea at
the time had been passive bystanders, the Ukrainian Government had provided highly detailed,
chronological and specific information, as well as sufficient evidence, showing active participation of
Russian service personnel in the immobilisation of Ukrainian forces.
The Ukrainian Government’s account had remained coherent throughout the proceedings before the
Court, with consistent information regarding the manner, place and time of the alleged events leading
to the transfer of power to the new local authorities, which had then organised the “referendum”,
declared the independence of Crimea and taken active steps towards its integration into Russia.
Lastly, the Court had particular regard to two uncontested statements by President Putin. The first
had been made in a meeting with heads of security agencies during the night of 22 to 23 February
2014, saying that he had taken the decision to “start working on the return of Crimea to the Russian
Federation”, while in the second, during a television interview given on 17 April 2014, he had expressly
acknowledged that Russia had “disarm[ed] military units of the Ukrainian army and law-enforcement
agencies” and that “Russian servicemen [had] back[ed] the Crimean self-defence forces”.
..."
