TrustHLT/LaCour huggingface dataset:
AP2 (Applicant): We invite the Court to confront directly the actions of the illegal administration within the territory of Moldova and fine against the respondent states.
AP2 (Applicant): Not to do so would deny the applicants, including among them some of the most vulnerable members of society, the right to the protection of the Convention.
AP2 (Applicant): This would leave the applicants with no avenue for address, no remedy in face of serious violation of their rights.
Nicolas Bratza (JudgeP): Thank you very much, Mr. Postika.
Nicolas Bratza (JudgeP): And then I give the floor to Mr. Grosu on behalf of the Republic of Moldova.
GR1 (Government): Mr. President, honorable judges of the court,
GR1 (Government): distinguished audience, different representative of the applicants, your excellency, the representative of the government of Russian Federation.
GR1 (Government): Let me at the outset express my gratitude for the distinguished high forum, in face of which I have been appointed to represent the government of Republic of Moldova in this particularly complex case.
GR1 (Government): So, through observations filed at the different stage of procedure, the Moldovan government tried to convey the court and the applicants to a conclusion that they did their best for securing the applicant's rights in the present case.
GR1 (Government): And Moldova still continues doing so.
GR1 (Government): I would not reiterate the general background of the case that was thoroughly described in the Ilashko and Vyatsov cases, which has already assessed by the court from a legal perspective.
GR1 (Government): Nevertheless, the issue of the mind they are still maintaining their actuality, especially for the present case.
GR1 (Government): The chamber adopted the same approach in its admissibility decision, where it examined the events that had been already established in the Ilashko case, and the developments which occurred afterwards.
GR1 (Government): The chamber approach was based on two criteria.
GR1 (Government): The first criteria regards the events of general nature, and that denote the developments of a transnistrian conflict in time, after the findings in the Ilashko case.
GR1 (Government): The second criterion relies on particular events linked with the applicants, which would be appropriate to define as measures of individual nature.
GR1 (Government): The Moldovan government never declined to acknowledge that the population and territory from the transnistrian region belong to Moldova as such.
GR1 (Government): Nor the obligations under the convention the Moldovan government do not reject.
GR1 (Government): So concerning the cases that imply the transnistrian issue, Moldova acknowledged their jurisdiction, but dispute their responsibility under the convention for the potential violations.
GR1 (Government): What the Moldovan government always pleaded for is that they are effectively unable to exercise their powers on their territory and over transnistrian regime.
GR1 (Government): This would include difficult task for Moldova to secure respect for human rights within their territory, which is out of their effective control and legal authority.
GR1 (Government): Long since in the Ilashko case, it was set up that as a consequence of this lack, the Moldovan government actually cannot efficiently exercise their authority over the part of its territory under the effective control of the so-called Moldovan Transnistrian Republic.
GR1 (Government): Therefore, Moldovan responsibility could not be engaged under the Article I of the convention on account of a wrongful act within the meaning of international law, paragraph 105 of events of judgment.
GR1 (Government): In the above-mentioned Ilashko case, the court has also established the principles that shall govern the assessment of the jurisdiction issue in respect of both responded states, Moldova and Russian Federation.
GR1 (Government): In the Ivancso case, the court proceeded to the same approach and noted that in respect of Moldova, it should be assessed only one aspect concerning the jurisdiction, namely the question whether or not the Moldovan government has discharged their positive obligations.
GR1 (Government): The court reiterated that this question should be examined on the following two aspects.
GR1 (Government): First, general, and the second, individual measures which Moldova has to undertake in order to fulfill its requirements set up in the Ilashko case.
GR1 (Government): That is to say, I would emphasize the wording of both judgments.
GR1 (Government): The applicants are within the jurisdiction of the Republic of Moldova, but that its responsibility for the acts complained of committed in the territory of the so-called Moldovan Transnistrian Republic, of which it's exercised no effective authority, is to be assessed in the light of its positive obligations under the convention.
GR1 (Government): Moldova's positive obligations relate both to the measures needed to reestablish its control over Transnistrian territory as an expression of its jurisdiction, and second, to measures to ensure respect for the applicant's rights.
GR1 (Government): As to general measures needed, it's not for the court to indicate precisely what kind of measures Moldova must take.
GR1 (Government): However, the court distinguished that, firstly, Moldova has to refrain from supporting the separatist regime of the so-called Moldovan Transnistrian Republic, and secondly, to act by taking all the political, judicial, and other measures at its disposal to reestablish its control over that territory.
GR1 (Government): Therefore, the government moving forward in the present pleadings would start at first by the following statement.
GR1 (Government): They fully discharged their positive obligations under the both aspects, taken generally and individually, having done what was their best for ensuring effective resolution of the Transnistrian situation or for securing the applicant's rights under the convention.
GR1 (Government): First of all, the government note that they do not challenge the facts established by the admissibility decision.
GR1 (Government): Moreover, in the government's opinion, since the present case involves the assessment of Moldova's positive obligations, such a legal test would be partial if it would be limited in time.
GR1 (Government): Therefore, they insist on the inclusion of new facts and recent developments incurred after the serving of the chamber's decision as well.
GR1 (Government): Also, the jurisdiction issue in this case involves not only the question concerning Moldova's solitary positive obligations.
GR1 (Government): The case involves another question, whether the applicants fall into the jurisdiction of the second responded state.
GR1 (Government): In our opinion, this question is also closely related to the assessment of the Moldova's correlative positive obligations.
GR1 (Government): This is because of the court's previous legal assessment that concerns Moldovan government's obligation to refrain from supporting the separatist regime of the so-called Moldovan Transnistrian Republic.
GR1 (Government): Since Moldova still abstains from supporting the Transnistrian regime, then someone might reasonably ask, how and why this regime subsists, however?
GR1 (Government): In this sense, it would be reasonable to take into consideration the second responded party's actions concerning the resolution of the same Transnistrian issue.
GR1 (Government): It would be also fair to assess the extent of interference by the second responded party's action and Moldova's positive obligations exercise.
GR1 (Government): How these actions or omissions, which would belong exclusively to the second responded state, would contribute, delay, or impede Moldova in reaching a positive resolution of the conflict and therefore finding a redress for the applicant's rights?
GR1 (Government): First of all, as it might be concluded from readmissibility decision reasoning, the assessment of the general measures which Moldovan government have to undertake as positive obligations imposes an examination of the military, economic, political, diplomatic, and other aspects.
GR1 (Government): Not least, we bear in mind the sustainability of the Transnistrian regime and its dependence from either or both responded states.
GR1 (Government): So now I will proceed to the assessment of the above aspects.
GR1 (Government): The government noted in their previous submissions that they do not have even a clear image about the bulk of arms store within the Transnistrian territory.
GR1 (Government): Nevertheless, Moldova can declare undoubtedly that there is still military presence of the Russian Federation in Transnistria.
GR1 (Government): Neither of the parties in the present proceedings would dissent on this point.
GR1 (Government): For the Moldovan government, all data in this respect are scrappy, and the image of real situation is disjointed.
GR1 (Government): It might be about 19,000 tons of ammunition that still stand within the Transnistrian territory.
GR1 (Government): However, it cannot be counted properly.
GR1 (Government): Moldovan authorities are not admitted to visit the Russian military stores in Transnistria.
GR1 (Government): The second responded state would be in a better position to provide the court with real information about their military presence.
GR1 (Government): And in their last submitted documentary, the second responded state confirmed the information about the presence of military equipment.
GR1 (Government): The last known significant amount of military equipment was withdrawn in 2004.
GR1 (Government): Since then, what would prevent to leave such ammunition in possession of so-called Transnistrian officials, as it happened to be in the Ilashko case?
GR1 (Government): In this sense, the Russian ambassador to Moldova declared of several occasions the military equipment removal from Moldova's territory was stopped because of the Moldova's refusal to sign the Cossack memorandum.
GR1 (Government): From the other side, Russia claimed that the removal was temporarily stopped because of the strong opposition from so-called Transnistrian authorities.
GR1 (Government): This could be interpreted by a neutral observer as a kind of political influence casted on Moldova and a kind of implicit support for the so-called Transnistrian authorities.
GR1 (Government): It's rather questionable how the Transnistrian opposition would prevent such a power as Russian Federation from removal of its own military goods from the territory of internationally non-recognized and non-constitutional entities such as Transnistria.
GR1 (Government): Although the government would recall that they always pleaded for removal of that military presence.
GR1 (Government): Moreover, they are in favor of replacement of the existing peacekeeping military forces by a civil mission of international observers.
GR1 (Government): This lack of real information and prohibition to have access to military stores would lead any objective observer to a conclusion that a part of Moldova's territory is under the military control of another foreign state.
GR1 (Government): For example, this idea was expressed by Lord Justice Brooke when he assessed the jurisdiction issue in the Altskene case.
GR1 (Government): It was stated that the situation in Altskene's case contrasts starkly with the situation in northern Cyprus and in the Russian-occupied part of Moldova, which feature in Strasbourg case law.
GR1 (Government): In each of those cases, part of the territory of a contracting state was occupied by another contracting state, which had every intention of exercising its control on a long-term basis.
GR1 (Government): The civilian administration of those territories was under the control of an occupying state, and it deployed sufficient troops to ensure that its control of the area was effective.
GR1 (Government): Paragraph 80 of Altskene judgment.
GR1 (Government): There are a lot of other aspects of military nature that could be addressed in the present case.
GR1 (Government): For example, the issue of Taraspo airport, or an eventual enrollment of the so-called Transnistrian nationals and the Russian army due to their Russian citizenship.
GR1 (Government): The Russian government in their last submitted documentary have expressly acknowledged that they used the Taraspo airport for displacing their special equipment in the Transnistrian territory after a trolleybus explosion occurred in Taraspo in August 2006.
GR1 (Government): The airport was used without consent from the Moldovan authorities.
GR1 (Government): Also, for a proper examination of a present case, some recent events cannot be neglected.
GR1 (Government): For example, there was a killing of a Moldovan civil national by a peacekeeping soldier at the very beginning of January this year.
GR1 (Government): This event was widely commented and strongly condemned by the Moldovan government.
GR1 (Government): It must be noted that the peacekeeping soldier has a so-called Transnistrian citizenship.
GR1 (Government): Simultaneously, that soldier is a Russian national as well, who after the killing had left Transnistria and apparently, according to mass media, set himself in Russia.
GR1 (Government): These facts do not advance the resolution of the tragic incident.
GR1 (Government): At the present moment, the consequences of the foreign military presence and the peacekeeping forces within the Moldovan territory raise many questions concerning the sovereignty, the possibility to control the region, and to ensure the respect for human rights.
GR1 (Government): It's practically impossible for Moldova in this situation to impose their rule of law on that territory.
GR1 (Government): Moldova was considered, since the Ilashko case, as being under the positive obligation to ensure the rule of law and respect for human rights and the territory concerned.
GR1 (Government): But it will be very difficult to discharge such obligations because of that foreign military presence.
GR1 (Government): Also, as the court concluded in the Ilashko case and continued most recently in both Al-Skhinian and Al-Jaddah cases, a foreign military presence within territory of another state creates a clear jurisdictional link.
GR1 (Government): Despite the fact that the reasons of the Judge Bonello expressed in his concurring opinion to Al-Skhinian judgment have not been shared by the majority of the court, the Moldovan government consider relevant his statements that once a state is acknowledged by international law to be an occupying power, a rebuttable presumption ought to arise that the occupying power has authority and control over the occupied territory, with all the consequences that fall from a legal presumption.
GR1 (Government): In the present case, this link is between the Transnistrian territory and the Russian Federation.
GR1 (Government): Moreover, the military presence might develop in time and become a kind of designation of a foreign authority on another territory, or even in a kind of partial substitution thereof.
GR1 (Government): This logic is derived from the Al-Skhinian judgment, when the court stated that the UK assumed the exercise of some of the public powers normally to be exercised by a sovereign government, and soldiers engaged in security operations exercised authority and control over individuals killed in the course of such security operations so as to establish a jurisdictional link.
GR1 (Government): Paragraph 149 of the Al-Skhinian judgment.
GR1 (Government): In time, the military presence would threaten any peaceful resolution, and it might be used as a trump card in political disputes.
GR1 (Government): For example, this was the case when Moldova refused to sign the Cossack Memorandum.
GR1 (Government): The withdrawal of the military presence from their territory would create more chances for successful settlement of Transnistrian dispute.
GR1 (Government): The entire European and international community would benefit from this.
GR1 (Government): With due diligence, all difficulties which appeared in such removal process would be surmounted.
GR1 (Government): At least due diligence is merely on the part of the Russian government that assumes such responsibility for military removal.
GR1 (Government): Another condition imposed by Alashko judgment was that Moldova should abstain from supporting the Transnistrian regime.
GR1 (Government): This means that no political or economic assistance would come from Moldova, so the regime would be unable to resist.
GR1 (Government): The government declared that they approached very carefully this standard.
GR1 (Government): However, the regime still exists and continues to cast its influence on people on that territory.
GR1 (Government): Therefore, as the Russian government acknowledged in their written observations, they still support financially the Transnistrian regime.
GR1 (Government): This financial support is provided either by means of waiving of debts for gas consumed, which actually amounts to a sum of about $2.9 billion
GR1 (Government): US dollars, or by affording Transnistria with non-refundable money aid.
GR1 (Government): The financial humanitarian aid usually takes form of non-refundable credits and investments in the Transnistrian economy.
GR1 (Government): The examples of such financial support were produced by all parties in the present case.
GR1 (Government): Moreover, the second responded state, in their finally submitted documentary, had acknowledged expressly that Russian commercial entities made investments in Transnistria, and therefore Russia has clear economic interests there.
GR1 (Government): In this sense, the government note that the financial aid provided by the Russian Federation for the Transnistrian region are subjected to vote for supervision from the Russian authorities.
GR1 (Government): For example, the Russian prosecution authorities initiated a number of criminal proceedings against the son of a former leader of Transnistria and against several officials from the Transnistria financial institutions.
GR1 (Government): These criminal proceedings concern the alleged embezzlement of the Russian humanitarian aid.
GR1 (Government): The political aspect is the most difficult to describe because of the continuous development thereof.
GR1 (Government): What the government wished to declare in this respect is that they never supported, by no means, so-called Transnistrian politicians and officials.
GR1 (Government): The Moldovan government have even attempted to develop a new diplomatic language for use in discussions with so-called officials.
GR1 (Government): This language must avoid any official acknowledgments of a Transnistrian status, but without affecting the negotiation process either.
GR1 (Government): From another point of view, we can observe that the entire Transnistrian policy is based on opposition towards Moldova, but with strong political commitments to Russian Federation.
GR1 (Government): The latest example would serve as an evidence for a strong political support expressed during the so-called presidential elections held in Transnistria in late 2011.
GR1 (Government): A lot of direct implications were cast in the Transnistrian electoral process from the very powerful Russians politicians and parties.
GR1 (Government): All so-called Transnistrian candidates for elections claim to have strong relations and support from Russia.
GR1 (Government): Also, on the government's opinion, must be mentioned the recent Russian parliamentary elections where certain ballot boxes were opened within the territory of Transnistria.
GR1 (Government): The ballot box of the ballot process was held despite of a strong and official opposition from the Moldovan authorities.
GR1 (Government): The candidates for Russian Duma electoral campaigns had been widely held in Transnistria.
GR1 (Government): These facts are also relevant for the assessment of the jurisdiction and its political aspect.
GR1 (Government): On the same line of ideas, the government rely also on many mutual official visits of different political figures between Russia and Transnistria.
GR1 (Government): This would prove strong political relations among these politicians.
GR1 (Government): As to the Transnistrian conflict resolution, after the end of the 1992 military phase of the conflict, the Moldovan authorities were always committed to the peaceful solution of the dispute.
GR1 (Government): They have unconditionally accepted the assistance and cooperation of international partners like OSCE, European Union, and even from the United States of America.
GR1 (Government): Such international actors always sustain the Moldovan government's effort in a political settlement of the dispute and in country reintegration.
GR1 (Government): The government may assume that because of their approach to the Transnistrian problem, several serious violations have been settled and at least were partly redressed.
GR1 (Government): For example, the Vardanyan and the Kazakh cases have been widely disseminated for the attention of the international community.
GR1 (Government): These cases were basically sated by the Moldovan government's engagements.
GR1 (Government): Both persons were released from custody of the so-called Transnistrian authorities with the support of international community.
GR1 (Government): The government had also afforded Mr. Kazakh
GR1 (Government): a financial redress for medical care in a house in Chisinau, the capital of Moldova.
GR1 (Government): Finally, we conclude and declare that Transnistria regime has never been sustained and it will never be supported, nor directly, nor implicitly, by the Moldovan government.
GR1 (Government): In all political disputes, the Moldovas' only will is to settle the issue and to gain their control over the territory.
GR1 (Government): They wish to serve up the rule of law and respect for human rights within the region.
GR1 (Government): The individual measures performed by Moldova in respect of the applicants must be also taken into account in the present case.
GR1 (Government): The government rely on the facts established in the admissibility decision.
GR1 (Government): There had been noted then the Moldovan government had effectively performed active measures and somehow to redress the applicants.
GR1 (Government): Recalling those findings, the government emphasized they had paid for rent and for refurbishing of school buildings.
GR1 (Government): They still pay the teachers salaries and provide with educational materials, buses, and computers.
GR1 (Government): According to Moldovan law and education, the pupils and graduates from Transnistrian schools have special facilities and applying for domestic universities and higher education system.
GR1 (Government): The government had raised the Transnistrian school issue before the international community of several occasions.
GR1 (Government): They sought the assistance and intervention of international organizations for mediation of the school crisis.
GR1 (Government): Among other things, the school crisis has also been discussed at the high-level conference held in Bad Reichenhall, Germany on 9 September 2011 under the auspices of the OCE and European Union as an example of a recent policy promoted by the Moldovan government for building confidence between the two banks of the Dniester River.
GR1 (Government): As a final point, the government would like to consider a legal assessment which is required for the present case.
GR1 (Government): Among many relevant principles instituted by the Court in respect of jurisdiction concept, the government would note as follows.
GR1 (Government): In the Alskene judgment, the Court surrounded the notion of public powers that were exercised by the state extraterritorially, paragraph 149, Alskene judgment.
GR1 (Government): This led the Court to find a clear link established between an individual and the responding government by exercising their powers throughout their agents.
GR1 (Government): Actually, in the government's opinion, the Court held in the Alskene that the military presence may engage the exercise of public powers.