Ukraine and human rights in Crimea

Vitaly Portnikov: Human Rights in the Crimea – is it possible to protect them from the Ukraine? And another question: is it possible to protect them from Russia? In Kiev studio of Radio Liberty – coordinator of the human rights group of the Crimean Olga Skrypnyk .

You can probably tell, that in the Russian Federation itself, there are subjects with a very special legal status. It Chechnya, for example – there is the possibility of ending the federal government, they are inferior to regional authorities. Here the question arises: Crimea became Chechnya or, on the contrary, is an area of ​​direct control from Moscow?

Olga Skrypnyk: Crimea became really special territory. Russia itself finding out there – it is a violation of human rights. And while it may be there, the violation of human rights to speak basically useless, because the very presence of Russian violate them.

Of course, with the Federal District of Russian point of view, to regard it not worth it, because then it would be the legalization of the Russian Federation. We evaluate the situation from the point of view of international law: it is obvious that it is the territory of Ukraine, but it is occupied. Another issue is that Russia does not regard it as occupied territory – this complicates the protection of people. If Russia were to regard it as occupied, then it could stick to the Geneva Conventions, and many others, but it will not do. If it is generally accepted by the international standards, then there would be the capture of the Crimea.

I would not compare Crimea with Chechnya, it is fundamentally different stories. If we talk about specific areas, such as South Ossetia, Nagorno Karabakh and so on, then there really was attended by an ethnic dimension, there is a history of conflict. This “Russian world”, which enforces and promotes Russia, including in support of their actions in the Donbass – In contrast to these areas, including Chechnya, in the Crimea, there were no inter-ethnic conflicts. Crimea and Donbass are fundamentally different in that there was no ethnic overtones – it is entirely a scenario of provocation on the part of the Russian Federation and, in fact, the capture of the territory of an independent state. From the point of view of human rights is so.

Vitaly Portnikov: If we see that this area is perceived by Russia so that it can make even Ukrainian human rights activist for the Ukrainian citizen who lives in this area and considers that his rights have been violated?

Olga Skrypnyk: To do something, you can, and we do, because we work for the third year. Of course, it’s not as easy as in the territory, which is under the control of the Ukrainian government, however, there are examples of assistance. At least this campaign in support of political prisoners. The second – is to help those people who are victims of human rights violations.

Help is different, ranging from consultations and ending with various forms of support – this evacuation, removal of these people, on-site assistance. Why do we continue his work, despite all the difficulties? In our view, it is essential that it is the Ukrainian organizations in various ways promote and protect human rights in the Crimea, and it’s real. And it is through this relationship with the Ukrainian human rights activists, with any other Ukrainian public organizations we keep not the de jure and de facto declaration that the Crimea – it is Ukraine.

People need to feel in Crimea Ukrainian support – not only by governments but also by civil society. And we like the opportunities of civil society is much larger than that of the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry. Ukraine’s Foreign Ministry could not come to the Crimea and visit the courts, or he recognizes the territory of Crimea Russia. But we can in the face of observers and human rights activists to attend these meetings, it can do and Ukrainians, such examples of mass.

Various Ukrainian organization travel, help, and this is not something supernatural – is the norm. But, of course, is quite different risks and very different forms of work organization.

Putin last ten years just destroys civil society, and human rights as well. In Crimea, of course, try to use the Russian experience, so the first thing done – destroyed civil society, first of all – human rights organizations. Talk about the existence of a human rights movement in the Crimea is not necessary. Human rights activists almost all left, even before the March.

We – human rights organization from Yalta, a small provincial town resort value. But even we have felt the pressure, which did not begin during the occupation, but much earlier. For example, an important signal in September 2013 was the year for us. We have since 2006 conducted an annual documentary film festival on human rights, which were presented films from all over the world. And, for the first time since 2006, in 2013 we are faced with a certain closure of the Special Security Service and the letter of the Ministry of Interior in the Crimea that banned three films that criticized the Yanukovych and some of the events in Russia. For the first time, we felt real pressure.

So that the civil society in the face of human rights organizations, in my opinion, the beginning squeezed since 2013. During the occupation, it reached its peak: it was the physical destruction could kidnap, beat. And now the minimum level of the human rights community, many are beginning just from scratch, and basically it exists in the form of local associations in connection with any tragedy, such as “the solidarity of the Crimean”. There are other groups that are united by the fact that there was: the disappearance of people, for example, bans some peaceful demonstrations and so on. People are starting to react to what is happening and get their experience in protecting human rights. It is crucial to support from the Ukrainian side that the local communities, who are willing, in spite of everything, still defend their interests in the Crimea.

Vitaly Portnikov: When you talk about the occupation regime and at the same time remember 2013, the question arises: regime change or not at all? The same Konstantinov , who led the Supreme Council of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, – the chairman of the State Council of the Republic of Crimea, the same Aksenov , who was a deputy of the Supreme Council of Crimea, – the head of the Government of the Republic of Crimea. Most people who are sitting in the State Council, – it’s all the same members of the Supreme Council of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, and those who were in the ARC outsiders, even from the point of view of some pro-government sympathies, were outsiders and annexed Crimea. Is it possible to speak of a real change of regime?

Olga Skrypnyk: From the point of view of protection features, jurisdiction and so on, great changes have taken place. If we talk about the legislative changes that have taken place there, then in fact used repressive legislation, and it is fundamentally different from the Ukrainian, although Ukraine is, of course, it is not the best example of the rule of law.

Yes, the same person … In principle, it is not surprising, it is no secret that the occupation did not take place in two months – this scenario unfolded for years, just so happened that it was going to peak in 2014. We are the same person, because they were agents of the regime. Of course, we always felt that pressure in the Crimea, especially with the advent of Yanukovych: it was immediately clear under whose real effect is Crimea. It is not surprising that those who resisted or were simply beyond the control of people who represent the interests of the Kremlin began to outsiders, either generally left or left is now no real resources and leverage.

At the level of ordinary people underwent major changes. A banal example of this: in 2014, as soon as the occupation happened, we as a monitoring group recorded dispersal and persecution of people only for pro-Ukrainian rallies and in 2016 only for the summer was three acceleration absolutely loyal Kremlin regime rallies. In 2016, we see a new trend: now the persecuted and subjected to reprisals not only Ukrainians, including those with different political views, but also those who are simply trying to express their discontent.

Vitaly Portnikov: Can we say that in the Crimea, a different political culture is still excellent from the Russian, there is still people used to go out, express their opinion? They may even maintain supremacy, Moscow, Putin, but they do not like some local leaders, some decisions, and they believe that they have the right to protest? After all, the majority of Russians protest instinct for the last 16 years atrophied …

Olga Skrypnyk: When was the complete jurisdiction of the Ukraine, the Crimea, too, was different because of the resort status affects some mental things. And even now, the Crimea is still different. Ukrainian mentality, which was inherent in the Crimea, is that if something is not satisfied, then we must try to change it, to overthrow, to clean, to go to the rally to express their protest, somehow resist. The mentality of many other regions of the Russian Federation: Yes, we do not like something, but we will adapt.

In Crimea, very clearly it shows that, even though not all of these repressions and pressure, many people are trying to resist. I think this is the mentality that has developed in the 25 years of Ukraine’s independence.

Vitaly Portnikov: In Crimea, over the 25 years has grown a new, no longer the Soviet generation of people. In Russia, especially in the provinces, it was not so. What is happening with this non-Soviet generation – it adapts sovetiziruetsya or leaves from there?

Olga Skrypnyk: I taught students the first and second course. These are people who were born in Ukraine, they have, in principle, there was no Soviet heritage. It is clear that many of them feel confused. Someone showed his position out. Another part of the people was in limbo, and it is here needed the respective active actions of Ukraine, which was not followed.

For example, in March, we in Yalta with the teachers wrote a collective letter to the Ministry of Education, asked to evacuate the first scientific and technical base and scientific staff, but this did not happen. Only now we see that there was Taurian National University – two years later, and only one. And it was a cardinal error, because the youth was ready to leave – not all, but a substantial part of it. Only for the month of May, my colleagues were able to help in the translation of 300 people from our Crimean University of Humanities in Yalta.

In response, Russia is a huge attention to the younger generation, it is the schools. We wrote several analytical articles – such as militarization. This is not only a huge amount of the Crimean self-defense, Cossacks and other militarnyh public organizations. This militarization and brainwashing at all levels. Immediately, even in 2014 there were the so-called military-patriotic camp: young people from the Crimea began to export to Russia ostensibly in the summer camp, but it is clear that this training “Russian patriots” very militarnogo character.

We, the teachers, were shocked by the fact that in “Artek” in one of the changes is also made entirely military camp, that is, the international children’s camp opened one of patriotic camps. This is an example of what the emphasis of the Russian Federation. It works with the younger generation, and the problem is that in two, three, four years will really change because militarnost policy in education is enormous. When Ukraine we had never sang hymns in the morning, and now even in Yalta, a small town not one school takes the children in the morning to sing the Russian national anthem. This is nonsense! In our university, I never hung a portrait of the president, but the first thing that happened with the arrival of Russian representatives to education – hung a portrait of Putin.

Vitaly Portnikov: Do you cooperate with Russian human rights activists, when it comes to the Crimea, or their opportunities too limited?

Olga Skrypnyk: Opportunities Russian human rights activists, of course, very limited. There are all sorts of reasons, including formal, which are related to the fact that the last few years Russia has been fighting with the civil society organizations (law on “foreign agents” and many other things). This is one of the problems. The second problem is that there are different approaches, and the Crimea is really in many ways has become an indicator. Many Russian opposition asked the question: “Tell me, whose Crimea?” – and it becomes clear that the opposition it or not. So it is with many organizations that call themselves human rights.

Yes, indeed, such a discussion is. Some believe that the Crimea can help only if we recognize that this is Russia, and then at least to require performance of Russian laws. Of course, from the point of view of human rights and international standards, this approach is unacceptable.

Cooperation with the Russian organizations have on several fronts. One of them, the main thing – it’s lawyers, after all political prisoners, people who were detained in the Crimea, can not get a lawyer. There are examples of good cooperation of the Ukrainian side with the Russian lawyers. It’s really the people who are willing to work as a team on common values, such as, for example, the European Court of Human Rights.

Of course there are some questions which help colleagues from Russia – such as conscription. From the point of view of international standards, the Crimea – occupied territory, and Russia has no right to conduct a call there, but in fact she spends it. Of course, people have asked how you can avoid it. Sometimes actually used the Russian rule of law, but where a person can somehow help using these standards, we can help. Colleagues from Russia often help us advice – for example, on the army, migration, on problems of people who were deported or who have been refused entry.

Such examples of cooperation exist, but not in all matters and, of course, not all organizations. There are different organizations, different values. In addition, each Ukrainian organization has some own experience, because we work in different areas: one – humanitarian, someone – in the field of assistance to political prisoners or a simple direct humanitarian assistance (transfer of money to the account, and so on) . Here, too, there are examples of cooperation. Every time it is your own experience with their individual results.

Vitaly Portnikov: Representatives of international human rights organizations, including senior officials of international organizations also visited the Crimea, they do it. Are you satisfied with the fact that they produce after these trips?

Olga Skrypnyk: For us, there is a difference who goes. For example, when in 2014 he visited Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe. In general, we agree that the report, which he submitted after a visit to the Crimea in 2014, is objective. But it ended for him by the fact that relations with Russia were severed, and he could not travel to Russia more because I wrote all honestly, it is.

There is another relatively recent example – at the suggestion of the Council of Europe Secretary General visited Mr. Stoudmann. His report has been fundamental difference: no matter how he tried to avoid political motives, in fact they were there. We had a criticism of this report, we carried out joint activities with our Ukrainian Ombudsman Valeria Lutkovska and as a result of an open letter to a number of Ukrainian organizations and Mrs Lutkovska that the report Stoudmann there are things that are unacceptable in terms of human rights. They are two-fold: on the one hand, we see that persecute Muslims, especially the Crimean Tatars, but on the other hand, look – built a new mosque. It is not possible to redeem the human rights violations the construction of a new mosque, the improvement of roads or even some things.

Another problem is that most of the structures, which should be neutral, just can not visit Crimea. OSCE mission there and were not included, but now there is talk that the OSCE representatives went there for journalists.

Other examples – when it went international human rights organizations, that is not the OSCE, not the UN, and, for example, “Amnesty International” , “Human Rights Watch” – in fact, it’s just non-governmental organizations, only the international plan. They have more opportunities because they are not tied to the requirements of driving on the Russian RF mandate.

Vitaly Portnikov: When were the elections to the State Duma of Russia, the party “Yabloko” in principle, refused to campaign in the Crimea, and the party Parnas asked the Ukrainian Ministry of Foreign Affairs to allow them to pass through Ukraine in the Crimea, and to campaign there, but was refused, and also not I went. Do you think correctly what Russian democrats, therefore, are limited in their ability to impact on the population of the Crimea?

Olga Skrypnyk: They just went, in fact, to violate international law, because the conduct of the elections in Crimea is illegal, so it is not surprising that in this case the Ministry of Foreign Affairs denied them. This is a purely political goal, rather than a desire to help people. Moreover, of course, this contributes to the annexation of the Crimea. International organizations – the OSCE, the UN – declared that the elections in the Crimea are not recognized and violate the UN General Assembly resolution on the territorial integrity of Ukraine, which was adopted in March 2014.

Vitaly Portnikov: Is the situation is dangerous, when the Ukrainian political forces are not present in the Crimea and Russia’s democratic forces can not be present there? Crimea is thus a perfect springboard for the campaign “United Russia” and its satellites.

Olga Skrypnyk: From the point of view of human rights, political power is rarely helpful. Like it or not, they are political forces, and the goal is the same – get a grip. From the point of view of human rights, of course, more important than the other institutions, it is important to us to allow those same journalists, doctors in case of any emergency need and international human rights organizations.

In any case, the main question is to Crimea back under the jurisdiction of Ukraine, there would have got the international structures and would go reintegration process, the restoration of violated human rights. But Russia’s political forces are ready for it, including the so-called opposition forces – if they are talking about the Crimea, it is proposed to re-hold a referendum. If you could still hear the unequivocal statement in 2014 that Crimea should return to Ukraine, now they are minimized, substantially all of the leaves in a dual – “have yet to see what people say.” This again is a dangerous moment, because human rights are either reduced or not reduced to a half-hearted decision here is impossible.

Vitaly Portnikov: Can we say that there was a significant change in the structure of the Crimean media? After all, before most of them – it was the media, controlled by the local authority.

Olga Skrypnyk: A lot of the media in the CIS space are largely dependent on financial resources. This is a problem for the media post-Soviet period as a whole. It is clear that many local media depended on local finances, but still before they have been more free. For example, now in the Crimea is no longer journalists who were investigating – it’s one of the signals, which shows that actually happened. They are all under the control of not only local authorities but also a particular subject, which is in the Kremlin. Local finances, which control the media, continue a policy that comes from the top. Therefore, diversity, pluralism is now in the Crimea is still not seen.

Talk about freedom of speech is not necessary, we fix its monthly infringements on different levels, from the blocking of specific sites – in particular, has repeatedly blocked the site “Crimea realities.” . And all this is very negative for most of the local population.

What is the value of freedom of speech? In particular, to have access to information. To date, people have access is mainly only to information that is sanctioned by the Russian, and they do not have access to alternative information. And this is the main goal – to close the information available to the Crimea, there to spread only the information that Russia is fully prepared. If the jurisdiction of Ukraine a dark area in the media was not exact. Maybe somewhere there were restrictions, but not like today. The existence of Article 282.1 of about extremism that exists in the Criminal Code of Russia – is a clear confirmation of the fact that there are fundamental differences between the Ukrainian and Russian freedom of speech. Already there are several criminal cases it is for freedom of expression.

Vitaly Portnikov: You mentioned about ethnic cleansing. In your opinion, what is happening around the Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar people – it is still ethnic cleansing in the classic form?

Olga Skrypnyk: I was not talking about ethnic cleansing and about the persecution of specific groups – it does exist. There are several groups that purposefully pursued, including the Crimean Tatars. What is the purpose of Russia? We can not fully know what’s in the minds of the Russian leadership, but at least Majlis – one of the most organized groups, which, at first, could resist, and secondly, an organized voice their opinions. Third, that always scares Russia – a group of people who can come out and say that “we do not agree, we would like to order something.” Russia in the past ten years, always trying to prevent such things.

In addition, there is previous experience – the same Palagin, who now heads the Crimean branch of the FSB, formerly had extensive experience in Bashkiria and just chasing the Muslims. His task was – to search for the extremists, to prove and so on. It is absolutely not interested in the Crimean realities Crimean specificity: for example, the same “Hizb ut-Tahrir”I not have been banned in Ukraine, but it has the maximum objective – to persecute Muslims, and so the case “Hizb ut-Tahrir” – this is the most massive case has imprisoned 14 people. From this perspective, the Crimean Tatars – a separate group that is pursued, including, for the fact that it was in the month of February, because they came to demonstrate peacefully on the anti-war campaign. Also persecuted many Ukrainian groups from a specific group of the Kiev Patriarchate and ending with such individual small organizations, such as the same Ukrainian cultural center – there are several administrative decisions against them, they are regularly called in for questioning. Any group that can organize to oppose the policy of Russia in one way or another administrative or criminally prosecuted is now in the Crimea.

Vitaly Portnikov: Important for me to understand whether people can pay for the loyalty of the security, or is there any specific criteria that simply brings them outside the legal field, and allows you to do with them anything?

Olga Skrypnyk: You can not pay for anything. On that and there are fundamental rights of a person, in fact, can survive as a living being, and if not – it does not matter, you pay loyalty, money or something else, but you’re nothing is guaranteed. Today it is possible at some point to pay allegiance and go to the Russian side, but in any case it does not guarantee that you will not become a victim of torture, that you will not be arrested unlawfully, that will not come to you from unauthorized searches. In this horror.

There is a fundamental right – the right to liberty and security. It is completely disrupted by the Russian Federation in Crimea. Today you have paid allegiance, and today do not come to you, but it may come tomorrow. Who pursue the Crimean Tatars, Ukrainians pursuing tomorrow, the day after tomorrow can pursue anyone.

I’m not vain recalled meeting “Deceived Crimea”, which tried to hold in Sevastopol – as if people have paid for their loyalty, but they just suffered a violation of fundamental rights. It does not matter in respect of which the group violated the fundamental rights – if they are violated, then the victim can be anyone tomorrow. It always begins with a particular group, and with this all agree, but in respect of whom either have violated the rights of the victim can be any tomorrow.

Sourse, 29/10/2016