International Court of Justice Rulings on Ukraine's Claims

Russia’s Foreign Ministry released two media notices dealing with these ICJ rulings the West hoped would mitigate the big defeat levied by the ICJ against Occupied Palestine and its Western sponsors on the issue of Genocide occurring there. The West got nothing while it continues to violate the Genocide Convention daily and the Zionists continue their Genocidal behavior. Here’s the header for the first release:

The International Court of Justice recognises that there is no discrimination against Crimean Tatars and Ukrainians in Russia and that Ukraine is completely denied any compensation for its claims:

On January 31, the International Court of Justice issued a final decision on the proceedings initiated by Ukraine in January 2017 with Russia on the basis of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD). The Court rejected almost all of Ukraine's claims and found that Russia's policy was in line with its obligations under the Convention. There is no discrimination against Crimean Tatars and Ukrainians in Crimea.

The main of the false accusations against Russia is that Kiev tried to extradite law enforcement measures against members of the terrorist organization Hizb ut-Tahrir and the extremist organizations Tablighi Jamaat and the Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People for allegedly persecuting Crimean Tatars on ethnic grounds. The International Court of Justice did not agree with this assessment. The court did not find any elements of discrimination in the norms of Russian anti-extremist legislation, nor did it find any signs of racial discrimination in the application of these norms by Russian law enforcement agencies.

The court did not find a violation of the Convention with regard to the ban on the so-called Mejlis, which is recognized as an extremist organization in Russia. The decision emphasizes that the representative body of the Crimean Tatars is the Kurultai, which has not been banned and continues to perform its functions in Crimea.

Accusations of Ukraine's alleged involvement of Russia in the targeted "killings" and "abductions" of Crimean Tatars and Ukrainians in Crimea were rejected.

The court rejected all of Ukraine's claims on citizenship issues, finding no racial discrimination in Russia's legal regime for granting citizenship on the peninsula since 2014.

Accusations of Ukraine allegedly infringing on the rights of Crimean Tatars and Ukrainians in Crimea to access the national media, to assemblies and rallies, as well as to preserve cultural heritage sites were also not considered justified.

Russia's restoration of the Khan's Palace in Bakhchisarai turned out to be not a "cultural catastrophe" at all, as it was presented by Ukrainian representatives, but a necessary measure to eliminate the consequences of the negligence of the Ukrainian authorities, who brought this historical and cultural monument to a dilapidated state.

The International Court of Justice has recognized that residents of Crimea have access to education in the Crimean Tatar and Ukrainian languages. At the same time, it decided by a majority that the sharp reduction in the number of schools with education in Ukrainian after the transfer of the Crimean peninsula to the jurisdiction of the Russian Federation in 2014 constitutes a violation of obligations under ICERD in terms of the right to education.

A rather controversial judgment, especially given the Court's conclusion that the choice of Crimeans to study in Russian was purely voluntary. Did the Russian authorities have to forcibly "drag" children to Ukrainian schools? One way or another, everyone will continue to be given the opportunity to study in Ukrainian in accordance with the current legislation.

The case has been completed, Russia is not required to take any special actions within the framework of the implementation of this decision, all compensation claims of Ukraine have been rejected. [My Emphasis]

Note that the complaint was filed seven years ago and its judgment finally announced. Here’s the header for the far more important, second, court decision:

The International Court of Justice's refusal to recognise Russia as an "aggressor state" and the Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics as "terrorist organisations" on the basis of Ukraine's accusations:

On January 31, the International Court of Justice issued a final decision on the proceedings initiated by Ukraine in January 2017 with Russia on the basis of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism (ICBFT). The arguments of the Russian side about the groundlessness of Ukrainian insinuations were heard in The Hague: out of more than 20 claims made by Kiev during the seven-year proceedings, the Court rejected almost all of them and left Ukraine without any compensation.

The International Court of Justice did not follow Kiev's lead and refused to recognize Russia as an "aggressor state" on principle. The court also rejected Ukrainian insinuations that the DPR and LPR are allegedly "terrorist organizations."

These conclusions are of particular importance in light of the fact that with the Court's verdict Kiev hoped to strengthen its demands for the transfer of Russian assets stolen from the West and the introduction of international restrictions against Russia.

In addition, the Court rejected Ukraine's claim under the ICFBT to hold Russia responsible for the crash of Boeing flight MH17 and did not accept the claims of Ukrainians about the involvement of the DPR in the crash. During the hearings, Russia presented convincing evidence of fatal flaws in the pseudo-international investigation of the incident by a "joint investigation team" under the umbrella of Dutch justice.

Regarding the events of 2014-2017, the International Court of Justice did not consider it possible to support Ukraine's arguments about the alleged involvement of Russia and the guilt of the Donetsk militia in the shelling of the Bugas military checkpoint near Volnovakha, the military airfield in Kramatorsk, where the headquarters of the so-called ATO was located, and the positions of the Armed Forces of Ukraine in Mariupol and Avdiivka, indicating that these incidents do not fall under the ICBFT.

The Russian side highlighted the particular cynicism of the Ukrainian accusations: Kiev tried to present strikes on military targets as "acts of terror", although the Armed Forces of Ukraine have been shelling the cities of Donbass with heavy weapons for many years, striking precisely at civilian targets, including an airstrike on the building of the Luhansk regional administration on June 2, 2014, the killing of civilians as a result of an artillery strike on a public transport stop in Donetsk on January 22, 2015, and many other bloody Crime.

No less cynical is the way in which the Kiev regime tried to declare humanitarian aid to the residents of Donbass, who suffered from Ukrainian shelling and economic blockade, "financing terrorism."

The International Court of Justice has indicated that Russia has faithfully fulfilled its obligations to cooperate in the field of terrorist financing, including the obligation to identify and freeze funds used for the financing of terrorism; extradite or try persons who have committed terrorist offences; to provide mutual criminal legal assistance; cooperate in the prevention of terrorist crimes. This is fully in line with the FATF's earlier conclusions on Russia's high level of compliance with its obligations in this area; The FATF assessed Ukraine's claims as purely political in nature.

Against this background, we were perplexed by the Court's conclusion that Russia allegedly failed to properly investigate the activities of individuals who, according to Ukraine, collected funds in Russia to help the people of Donbass. The Court had to go against its own practice and set an all-time low standard of proof for the applicability of the Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism in the complete absence of any evidence of either "terrorism" or "financing".

As a result of the proceedings, Ukraine was completely denied all claims for compensation or other forms of satisfaction. [My Emphasis]

Despite evidence of trying to do its best to bend its own rules to find something to tag on Russia, the ICJ seems to have come up rather empty aside from a few items that seem to be no more than footnotes. IMO, there’s a very large differential gap between last Friday’s decision and those announced today. There’s another article in the queue dealing with starkly different treatments of last Friday’s decision between the West and the Rest that will be included into a larger forthcoming essay. That the ICJ repudiated the MH-17 show trial is also a defeat for the West, which will say nothing about them as they didn’t really happen—Cancel Culture at work.

*
*
*
Like what you’ve been reading at Karlof1’s Substack? Then please consider subscribing and choosing to make a monthly/yearly pledge to enable my efforts in this challenging realm. Thank You!