115th CONGRESS Printed for the use of the 

1st Session Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe 

OLEG SENTSOV AND RUSSIA’S 

HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS 

AGAINST UKRAINIAN CITIZENS 

APRIL 27, 2017 

Briefing of the 

Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe 

Washington: 2017 
(2) 

Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe 

234 Ford House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

202–225–1901 

csce@mail.house.gov 

http://www.csce.gov 

@HelsinkiComm 

Legislative Branch Commissioners 

HOUSE 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, NEW JERSEY

Co-Chairman 

ALCEE L. HASTINGS, FLORIDA

ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, ALABAMA

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, TEXAS

STEVE COHEN, TENNESSEE

RICHARD HUDSON, NORTH CAROLINA

RANDY HULTGREN, ILLINOIS

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, TEXAS

GWEN MOORE, WISCONSIN

SENATE 

ROGER WICKER, MISSISSIPPI, 

Chairman 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN. MARYLAND

JOHN BOOZMAN, ARKANSAS

CORY GARDNER, COLORADO

MARCO RUBIO, FLORIDA

JEANNE SHAHEEN, NEW HAMPSHIRE

THOM TILLIS, NORTH CAROLINA

TOM UDALL, NEW MEXICO

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, RHODE ISLAND

Executive Branch Commissioners 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

[II]
(3) 

ABOUT THE ORGANIZATION FOR SECURITY AND COOPERATION IN EUROPE 

The Helsinki process, formally titled the Conference on Security and Cooperation in 

Europe, traces its origin to the signing of the Helsinki Final Act in Finland on August 

1, 1975, by the leaders of 33 European countries, the United States and Canada. As of 

January 1, 1995, the Helsinki process was renamed the Organization for Security and 

Cooperation in Europe [OSCE]. The membership of the OSCE has expanded to 56 participating States, reflecting the breakup of the Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia, and Yugoslavia. 

The OSCE Secretariat is in Vienna, Austria, where weekly meetings of the participating States’ permanent representatives are held. In addition, specialized seminars and 

meetings are convened in various locations. Periodic consultations are held among Senior 

Officials, Ministers and Heads of State or Government. 

Although the OSCE continues to engage in standard setting in the fields of military 

security, economic and environmental cooperation, and human rights and humanitarian 

concerns, the Organization is primarily focused on initiatives designed to prevent, manage 

and resolve conflict within and among the participating States. The Organization deploys 

numerous missions and field activities located in Southeastern and Eastern Europe, the 

Caucasus, and Central Asia. The website of the OSCE is: <www.osce.org>. 

ABOUT THE COMMISSION ON SECURITY AND COOPERATION IN EUROPE 

The Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, also known as the Helsinki 

Commission, is a U.S. Government agency created in 1976 to monitor and encourage 

compliance by the participating States with their OSCE commitments, with a particular 

emphasis on human rights. 

The Commission consists of nine members from the United States Senate, nine members from the House of Representatives, and one member each from the Departments of 

State, Defense and Commerce. The positions of Chair and Co-Chair rotate between the 

Senate and House every two years, when a new Congress convenes. A professional staff 

assists the Commissioners in their work. 

In fulfilling its mandate, the Commission gathers and disseminates relevant information to the U.S. Congress and the public by convening hearings, issuing reports that 

reflect the views of Members of the Commission and/or its staff, and providing details 

about the activities of the Helsinki process and developments in OSCE participating 

States. 

The Commission also contributes to the formulation and execution of U.S. policy 

regarding the OSCE, including through Member and staff participation on U.S. Delegations to OSCE meetings. Members of the Commission have regular contact with 

parliamentarians, government officials, representatives of non-governmental organizations, and private individuals from participating States. The website of the Commission 

is: <www.csce.gov>. 

[III]
(4) 

OLEG SENTSOV AND RUSSIA’S 

HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS 

AGAINST UKRAINIAN CITIZENS 

APRIL 27, 2017 

Page 

PARTICIPANTS 

Ambassador David T. Killion, Chief of Staff, Commission on Security and Cooperation in 

Europe .......................................................................................................................................... 1 

Alex Tiersky, Policy Advisor, Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe ................. 8 

A. Paul Massaro III, Policy Advisor, Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe ..... 11 

Natalya Kaplan, Cousin of Oleg Sentsov and Journalist in Kiev ............................................... 2 

Mustafa Nayyam, Member of the Ukrainian Parliament ........................................................... 2 

Halya Coynash, Spokesperson, Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group ............................... 3 

Alexei Sobchenko, Interpreter, Human Touch Translations ....................................................... 8 

[IV]
(1) 

OLEG SENTSOV AND RUSSIA’S 

HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS 

AGAINST UKRAINIAN CITIZENS 

APRIL 27, 2017 

Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe 

Washington, DC 

The briefing was held at 3:00 p.m. in room SVC 210, U.S. Capitol Visitor Center, 

Washington, DC, Ambassador David T. Killion, Chief of Staff, Commission on Security 

and Cooperation in Europe, moderating. 

Panelists present: Ambassador David T. Killion, Chief of Staff, Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe; Alex Tiersky, Policy Advisor, Commission on Security and 

Cooperation in Europe; A. Paul Massaro III, Policy Advisor, Commission on Security and 

Cooperation in Europe; Natalya Kaplan, Cousin of Oleg Sentsov and journalist in Kiev; 

Mustafa Nayyem, Member of the Ukrainian Parliament; Halya Coynash, Spokesperson, 

Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group; and Alexei Sobchenko, Interpreter, Human 

Touch Translations. 

Amb. KILLION. Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you so much for coming and welcome 

to today’s briefing on Oleg Sentsov and Russia’s human rights violations against 

Ukrainian citizens. My name is David Killion, and I am the chief of staff of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, also known as the Helsinki Commission. As 

some of you may or may not know, the Helsinki Commission was created to monitor 

compliance with the principles of democracy and human rights enshrined in the Helsinki 

Final Act. 

When Russia invaded Crimea, it violated every one of these principles. This is the 

context that brings Oleg Sentsov’s case before us today. Oleg Sentsov, a filmmaker and 

outspoken opponent of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, disappeared from Crimea following 

a May 2014 demonstration, only to resurface in Russian custody in Moscow. He was 

declared, quote/unquote, ‘‘Russian,’’ and convicted on false charges of terrorism. Sentsov 

is now serving a 20-year sentence in Siberian prison where he has been subject to torture 

and simply inhumane conditions. Two appeals of the verdict have been rejected, as has 

a request for Sentsov to be extradited to Ukraine. 

As disturbing as his case is, Oleg Sentsov will be the first to say that his story is 

not unique. It’s only one of many grave injustices committed against the Ukrainian people 
2 

by the Russian Government. Olexandr Kolchenko, Roman Sushchenko, and Mykola 

Semena are just a few names on the long list of Ukrainians wrongfully persecuted for 

simply exercising basic rights. It’s our hope that by highlighting Sentsov’s case, we will 

bring attention to these other egregious cases and incite discussion on broader issues of 

Russia’s illegal occupation of Crimea and aggression in eastern Ukraine. 

PEN America is honoring Sentsov’s bravery this week with the 2017 PEN Freedom 

to Write Award, which is the reason this distinguished group of panelists from Ukraine 

are able to join us today. 

To my left, we have Natalya Kaplan. Ms. Kaplan is the cousin of Oleg Sentsov, a 

journalist by profession, and a forceful advocate for Sentsov and other political prisoners 

in Russia. We’re very lucky to have her here in Capitol Hill with us today to help inform 

us of Sentsov’s nightmare and recommend what Congress can do. 

Next, we have Mustafa Nayyem, a member of the Ukrainian Parliament since 2014, 

a journalist and early organizer of the 2013 Euromaidan protests. As an advocate for 

European integration and an active voice for a new generation of Ukrainians, Mr. 

Nayyem’s perspective will be extremely valuable to our discussion. 

Finally, Halya Coynash is a member of the Ukrainian Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group and can provide us with greater context surrounding Sentsov’s ordeal and 

other human rights abuses committed by Russia in Ukraine. 

Let me just make everybody aware that Natalya is going to be speaking in Russian 

today. And her spoken words will be translated, as will any responses to questions. The 

other two panelists will speak in English. 

So, first, Natalya, let me give the floor to you. 

[Note: Ms. Kaplan’s remarks are made through an interpreter.] 

Ms. KAPLAN. Good afternoon. My name is Natalya. 

I would like briefly to describe the place where Oleg is currently detained. The place 

is called Yakutsk, which is northern Siberia. The trees do not grow there. Due to poor 

infrastructure, sometimes when you turn on the faucet oil comes out. And anthrax is a 

popular disease over there. Oleg in his letters describes his life as a ‘‘Groundhog Day’’ 

movie. Every day is repetition of the previous one. And the only positive difference in his 

life is that this doctor treats him. Soon we’re going to have a third anniversary of him 

being in jail. And if nothing is going to be changed, he’s going to spend another 17 years 

there. 

Thank you for your interest in his case. 

Amb. KILLION. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. 

And now we turn to Mustafa. 

Mr. NAYYEM. First of all, thank you for your interest to this story—I could say, this 

absurd story about our citizen, about Ukrainian filmmaker Oleg. 

I would stress for today’s discussion that Oleg has never been member of some state 

agencies. He never took a weapon. He never was involved in any action of government. 

He was just filmmaker who, in the moment of annexation of Crimea, protested against 

occupation of our territory of Ukraine. Now, he was forced to be a citizen of Russian Federation. Actually, Russian agencies they recognized him as a citizen of Russian Federation, which is against every legislation and human rights. And today, he is sitting on a 

colony in north Siberia. 
3 

Actually, what we want to discuss regarding this issue is that now we feel that all 

judicial tools are, and we could not nothing to do with that, because our appeal was— 

you know, we failed. And only one to now is to put a pressure on Russia, not on the 

judicial issues but publicly, as an artist who is jailed now for his convictions, and who 

is jailed just because of his protest. And I think that the Congress and that those bodies 

who are in Washington, who can help us to build up this coalition of political bodies of 

international institutions, international human rights agencies and also NGOs, who can 

help us to warn about this situation, to say again and again it’s not the issue of Ukraine 

and Russia. It’s not the issue between two presidents or two governments. It’s the issue 

of Mr. Putin himself and humanity. And the world, and all those people who are for 

freedom of expression. 

And I think that the PEN Center who awarded Oleg for his courage will take a 

leadership in this protest. And we’ll be actually honored if someday we will see Oleg in 

this building and he will describe his story himself. 

Amb. KILLION. Oh, I’m sorry. Thank you very much, Mustafa. 

And now, Halya. 

Ms. COYNASH. I think I’ll, first of all, say that Oleg’s case was one of the first where 

the courts, the prosecutors, the entire Russian so-called justice system was used to—the 

first Ukrainian person to be imprisoned brazenly and openly in front of the world community, to some extent, used for complete repression. A very famous Russian human rights 

activist, Zoya Svetova, she called it an ‘‘absolutely Stalinist’’ trial. What I think I would 

like to say as well, and one of the reasons for the Magnitsky List, which we are hoping 

can be extended to cover this case, is because a very clear message has to be sent to 

Russia, but also to the specific individuals who take part in such a repressive process that 

there can be no impunity for that. So we would very much like to see that happen. 

I think the other point that I’d like to bring up on this subject is that Oleg is one 

of the first, together with Olexandr Kolchenko, they were tried together, and both obviously must be released. There are a very large number of other people, and the number 

is growing, especially with people in Crimea—though, it has to be said that, I mean, one 

of the prisoners, Roman Sushchenko, was actually simply imprisoned after he arrived to 

visit relatives in Moscow. So they are showing a degree of brazen lawlessness that we desperately need awareness of it. 

And I could give particular examples. There are a number of people who are imprisoned for roughly the same amount of time, including one person, by the way, whose 

mental state causes immense concern. Urgent intervention is needed now. Stanislav 

Klykh, his name is. He’s also been sentenced to 20 years for nothing. 

Amb. KILLION. Thank you. 

Halya, let me ask you a follow-up question to your testimony here. It’s now been 

three years since Russia took control over Crimea. Can you tell us a little bit more about 

how life has changed for people in that peninsula since then? You know, we hear about 

the appalling—in general—the appalling human rights situation. And you’ve talked about 

some specific cases. But can you give us some more—some update on the general situation 

there? 

Ms. COYNASH. It depends what you mean by the—I can talk about the general human 

rights situation. I mean, it is basically dire. The arrests of Crimean Tartars or arrests 

of Crimean Muslims—most of whom are Crimean Tartar, though not all—has become one 
4 

of the weapons that Russia is using. There are, at the moment, 19 people who have either 

been convicted—one of them just two days ago—of ludicrous charges of involvement— 

unproven involvement in an organization called Hizb ut-Tahrir, which is legal in Ukraine. 

It is completely legal in Ukraine, in the USA, in most countries. And Russia has decided, 

for no reason, to call it terrorist. 

The other ones, 15 of them, are imprisoned in Crimea in shocking conditions. All of 

them have children who will—if Russia has its way, will not see their fathers for 20 years 

even. So you know, we are talking about a very serious level of repression. 

Something that has become more common—at the very beginning there was a law 

that was brought in, in 2014—in May that year—that was feared at the time would be 

used against freedom of speech on Crimea. It has indeed become so. It’s a particular 

article of the criminal code, 280.1, which is being used to either prosecute or to actually 

imprison Ukrainians or Russians for effectively saying that Crimea is Ukrainian. 

This is where freedom of speech has got to anywhere in the Russian Federation, and 

in occupied Crimea, that Ukrainians in Ukrainian Crimea who are saying that, as all 

international organizations do, that Crimea is Ukrainian are actually being prosecuted 

and face mandatory five-year sentences. In general, the freedom of speech situation, the 

press situation is also pretty catastrophic. After Mykola Semena, who was mentioned— 

the journalist—after he was arrested and is facing charges, as I said, of this five-year sentence for saying no more than that Crimea is Ukraine. After he was arrested, some other 

people were searched at the same time, and most of them have left. 

I think the message to most independent journalists is to shut up or leave. And in 

fact, it is possible that that’s really the intention as far as Crimean Tartar are concerned 

as well, that they are hoping that a lot of them will simply leave. Opponents, ethnic 

Ukrainians as well, are constantly harassed. And some of them have actually decided to 

leave simply because the stakes are very high for their whole family. So that’s good 

enough for me. 

Amb. KILLION. Thank you. 

Mustafa, everyone in this room is an individual who wants to be effective in dealing 

with this problem. So let me ask—drill down a little bit on how we might be more effective. Let me start by asking: How closely do you and other Ukrainians MPs work with 

civil society campaigns, like the Let My People Go campaign for the release of political 

prisoners in Crimea and Russia. And how effective are these campaigns in bringing international attention to the case? 

Mr. NAYYEM. I would say that after the revolution, that many people who were in 

the civil society, that they entered parliament. So now we have very good connection with 

the civil society, also with those organizations who work in the Donbas area and Crimea. 

We personally have worked with the organizations Crimea SOS and Donbas SOS, which 

are especially focused on human rights in these territories. And of course, with the Let 

My People Go. 

And what I feel, just frankly speaking, is that sometime it looks like international 

society, international partners, the thought that it’s a real duel of two countries, and there 

is some war, and the Russian and those Ukrainians, and we don’t know what is true and 

what is false, and someone is imprisoned and prisoners are on both sides. So, please, let’s 

be objective. Which is not actually the case. And I think it’s not fair and it’s not the right 

way, because in this situation, first of all, we should come back and look from what actu-
5 

ally started it. It started from the annexation and occupation of Crimea. And actually, in 

discussion—sometimes the discussion on sanctions is the same. Should we lift or should 

we not lift the sanctions? Should we put more sanctions or not? 

It’s not about Ukraine actually, because we know what is going on in our country. 

We know who is Russia. And we doesn’t have any illusions about that. But if sanctions 

would be lifted, all our international partners, in Western countries especially—United 

States—first of all, they will lose leadership on this issue, because for us it would mean 

that it is not about value. It’s not about sovereignty. It’s not about integrity. It’s about 

business. It’s about deals. It’s about money. It’s about relationships. But it’s not about 

human rights. It’s not about those people who died inside of Ukraine, more than 10,000, 

which died under war with specific country. It was not Ukraine who attacked. It was not 

Ukraine who made this so-called referendum in Crimea. This is not our fault. We didn’t 

ask for this war. 

So when we’re coming back to that, we should be very aware that all those people 

who are present and all those people who are in Russia, actually they are hostage of this 

situation. So we cannot discuss support them or not to support them. We cannot discuss 

are they right that they blame them or imprison them or actually imprisoned all those 

people who now are, like, terrorists or those who were involved in some war situation, 

because actually they protected their own country—that’s it. Even if you have this evidence, it’s like Nadiya Savechenko. She protected her own country. That’s why she was 

actually imprisoned. 

Oleg was not involved in any actions. He just protested against annexation of Crimea. 

That’s his whole fault. I would say that sometime international society looks like—they 

want to look like they’re objective, but in this time the keeping silence, I think it’s a crime 

against Ukrainian people and it’s a crime against the sovereignty, integrity of our country. 

Amb. KILLION. Well, we experienced that even going to the international community 

at the OSCE PA and the OSCE in Vienna. But luckily one place that’s not trying to be 

balanced is the U.S. Congress. There’s clear-headed assessment of what the real situation 

is and what we need to do. And you know that a lot of things have been done here in 

Congress—the actual acts, like the Ukrainian Freedom Support Act, lots of resolutions 

about political prisoners, colloquies on the floor, et cetera, et cetera. 

What’s the next level? What else does Congress need to do that it hasn’t done? 

Mr. NAYYEM. First of all, I want to express my gratitude that all these things were 

done for Ukraine because I remember all these years, starting in 2011 when Yanukovych 

was elected and I was a journalist and we covered all these issues, and what Mr. Senator 

Durbin did and this—the resolution on Ukraine and against Tymoshenko’s imprisonment—all these—I remember that. So it is not something that we miss or we don’t know. 

We do know about that, and we actually—that is our hope because, to be frank, the 

situation in the last months in the United States a little bit disturbed us, I think even 

more than you. We don’t know who is actually—who is leading Congress and Trump. And 

maybe these days we would like Congress to be the leaders in this process, because we 

know those people who are actually serving here. We know the values of these people. 

The next level, what could be done. First of all, you know that we have now this 

countering Russian aggression act that should be adopted. I hope that there will be no 

hesitation in adopting this act, because it hurts Russia when we’re talking about energy 
6 

sanctions, when we’re talking about pipelines and about gas sector. And it’s not something—you know, sanctions for sanctions. These sanctions will hurt, we understand that. 

The second thing is, I think this is—I would say as a politician, not maybe even as 

a civil activist, that if we have some tools we used before, like the Magnitsky List, why 

we cannot amend it? Yes, we have some problems because the Magnitsky List, it was 

great work and great job of lawyers who prepared for that. But they did it once, and it’s 

list open. Here in and European Parliament also. 

So I think that we can amend them. And I think the PEN Center is an organization 

who actually awarded, they will take—I think they have to have the leadership in the 

process, because actually this guy is, first of all, a filmmaker. He’s not, you know, a 

lawyer. He’s not a solider. He’s an artist. So we as politicians, as parliament of Ukraine, 

as the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine, will support this kind of civil initiative to 

amend the Magnitsky List with those people who prosecuted Sentsov, Kolchenko, who tortured them, who made this court decision, and also those agencies in which he is now 

imprisoned. So I think it would be fair. It’s the long way, but we should do it. Personal 

sanctions, and very precise. 

Thank you. 

Amb. KILLION. Great. Thanks. That’s a great start. 

And now we want to have the audience engage, participate, ask questions. Who 

would like to go first? Don’t be shy. Please. And if people could identify themselves and 

tell what organization they’re from? And Jordan Warlick will provide you with a microphone. 

QUESTIONER. Thanks. Good afternoon. My name is Deanna. I come from Ukraine, 

Kiev, and I’m a fellow here working in the House of Representatives. 

My question will be, Mustafa, you mentioned that Ukraine has exhausted all the 

judicial ways of helping Oleg. I was wondering, and maybe it’s a question to Halya, what 

about the European Court of Human Rights? 

Ms. COYNASH. Those two, Kolchenko and Sentsov, both have cases at the European 

Court of Human Rights. The problem—and Mustafa mentioned this before—the problem 

with the European Court of Human Rights—well, there are two problems. One is that it 

takes a very long time, years. The second problem is that Russia has already effectively 

said—they’ve made some nonsense about how it—if it’s unconstitutional, or something, 

they can refuse to obey it. 

And in fact, one of the interesting things is that Kolchenko’s first application—and 

I suspect there have been more than one by now—to the European Court of Human 

Rights, was specifically over the issue of having Russian citizenship foisted on them. A 

lot of attention to that question of citizenship would be wonderful. But unfortunately, it’s 

a long-term process. I mean, there are cases for almost all of the prisoners awaiting in 

the European Court of Human Rights. It would be nice if they gave it priority treatment, 

but unfortunately they don’t. 

Mr. NAYYEM. I will say, that as a government, we will support that. I mean, all 

application of our citizens who went to the Human Rights court, of course. The thing is 

that it will not release him. Let’s be honest. Even if we would have this decision tomorrow, it will not release Oleg. So we should use all of the tools to do our job. 
7 

QUESTIONER. Of course. And there is a case, Ukraine versus Russian Federation, in 

the International Court of Justice right now. Do you think that can in any way help all 

the prisoners? 

Ms. COYNASH. The Russian president’s press secretary has already effectively said 

that they will not comply with one of the major—there was a—the International Court 

of Justice a week ago or so, gave a judgement—preliminary judgement, which was basically in Ukraine’s favor. It decided on three counts in Ukraine’s favor and one count 

against. The one count against was that they did not enforce provisional measures against 

Russia in Donbas. They simply said that they wanted—but they have accepted the case 

against Russia on that, and also on discrimination in Crimea. 

Now, the problem is they did take provisional measures—is that what they’re called? 

Provisional, yes. Provisional measures in Crimea over discrimination of Crimean Tartars. 

And they specifically said that the ban on the Mejlis must be lifted. The president’s press 

secretary has already said that—well, lied, basically. Said that there were reasons for 

banning it, and they’re not going to comply. So it’s a very important judgement, but, 

again, like with what Mustafa said about the court in Strasbourg, Russia needs pressure 

from you—[laughs]—from the Congress, from America, from other countries to ensure that 

it does comply. 

Mr. NAYYEM. I would amend two things. First of all, we really think that it’s not 

great, but it’s small victory of Ukraine in these decisions. First of all, because if you, for 

example, remember the case Georgia versus Russia in 2008, they lost it. The court even 

didn’t recognize the jurisdiction of this court. So Ukraine on both convention of terrorist 

and racial discrimination we are accepted. So applications are accepted, which is great job 

for our Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 

Second, is that by this decision Crimea was recognized as annexed territory, and it 

was international military conflict. It means that whatever—even if Russia would not recognize this decision, at the end of the day they will pay for that because it’s international 

court—someday. Provisional measures are something for today, but historically this territory is recognized as annexed territory. So they will pay for that. 

And about terrorism on the inside, let’s see, I think we’ll have more arguments, 

because it was—they told that they didn’t have enough proof that Russia actually financed 

terrorists on our territory, which actually—I think MH17, we can call it whatever you 

want, but it’s terrorism. And for all humanities, very obvious. Maybe there was not some 

very vital and very precise proofs, but we will find them. It’s not a problem. But historically, they recognize that there is terrorism on that territory. And from the other side, 

they said this territory was annexed. 

Thank you. 

Ms. COYNASH. I’ll just add one little point about the MH17. At the international 

court, what actually happened—because there’s an alternative opinion from one judge, 

who in fact wanted the provisional measures. He explained that MH17 had largely been 

left out of the consideration at the moment. And the thought that it ought to have been 

put in. It will eventually be put in. So they have accepted the case. It’s just that they 

didn’t want to bring provisional measures while they didn’t have all the proof. But MH17 

is undoubtedly—[laughs]—terrorism. 

QUESTIONER. I just wanted to add that even though there’s always been problems 

with enforcement of international decisions of courts, I still think it’s very important that 
8 

the international organizations recognize what’s really happening, and will be still helpful 

at the end of the day. 

Thank you. 

Ms. COYNASH. Thank you very much. 

Amb. KILLION. Thank you. 

Alex Tiersky, from the Helsinki Commission. 

Mr. TIERSKY. Thank you very much, Ambassador Killion. 

I would like to ask Ms. Kaplan three questions about her cousin. And I’ll ask all three 

of them at once, please. The first question is, how can you monitor his condition? And 

what barriers are there for monitoring his condition, whether for visits by family, the 

press, advocates or the Ukrainian Government that he recognizes as his own? This is the 

first question. 

My second question is, how does he maintain this amazing combative spirit that we 

see in the letters and the documentation that we do hear from him? 

And then my third question, what do you think makes him so dangerous to Russian 

authorities? 

Thank you. 

Ms. KAPLAN. It’s quite a challenge to monitor his situation because, first of all, the 

Ukrainian consular officials are not allowed to visit him on the basis that he is a Russian 

national. Russian journalist and human rights activist Zoya Svetova tried to get in a 

meeting with him, but she was also denied without any reasons provided. 

Letters sent to him from overseas do not reach him, and one should use all kinds 

of tricks in order to send him any information. And the information which we receive 

about his situation, about his conditions, we learn indirectly, and I’m not going to specify 

what kind of channels we use to get this information. 

Oleg refused to meet his relatives, his family members because it is a very stressful, 

emotional kind of event. And he himself saw other prisoners who got into a deep depression after meeting their family members, so he would like to avoid this risk. 

I can’t answer your second question. It’s a mystery to me how he manages to maintain his combative spirit. 

The reason why Oleg was arrested was not because he was representing any kind 

of threat to the Russian Government. The reason was just simply the Russians needed 

to have an explanation, a justification for their invasion of Crimea and the justification 

was—— 

Mr. SOBCHENKO. I’m sorry, I’m going to expand the answer because I know it by 

heart. The reason was that Russians needed to have a pretext to protect the Russianspeaking population from so-called Ukrainian right-wing, radical organizations, so they 

needed to find the presence of those organizations which were known. And as a result, 

they seized randomly people who were objecting to the Russian invasion, and they 

announced them to be, deemed them to be Ukrainian radical activists in Crimea. 

Ms. KAPLAN. The only threat Oleg represents to the Russian Government is the fact 

that he’s a very blunt man and he calls a spade a spade. When he had his last word in 

the court, I saw how even the Russian journalists, who were basically representing the 

propaganda pro-government media, were emotionally impacted by his words. 
9 

Indeed, his words can be so powerful that the Russian TV never showed him 

speaking. And after putting him in jail, they tried to silence him. They stopped even mentioning his name. So basically, the main threat to the Russian government from Oleg 

Sentsov comes from his ability to speak very forcefully. 

Amb. KILLION. Next question. 

QUESTIONER. Thank you very much. Oleksandr Oborskyi, embassy of Ukraine. 

At a previous event at Freedom House today, Mustafa and Halyna said, regarding 

the initiative to add Magnitsky List, there is much job that has to be done to track and 

identify all those investigators, Russian investigators, Russian officials who are related to 

this abuse of Oleg Sentsov and others. And my question is, have you—how it works—have 

you previously identified how many people, volunteers, funds are needed to organize this 

job? And what is private or what is government dimension of it? What government can 

do for this? 

Ms. COYNASH. I mean, I think one of the issues at the moment probably is—in fact, 

Gabe here from PEN America we’re hoping is going to help a little bit with the legal 

advice about what kind of proof is required for the Magnitsky List. Because the problem 

is not so much identifying some of the people. The judges are known. The investigators 

are largely known; in Sentsov’s case, they are known. The problem is that, firstly, you 

can’t necessarily find the people who committed the torture; you can’t find their names 

because—well, for obvious reasons, I guess. 

The other problem is always finding enough proof to meet your requirements in 

America with the Magnitsky List. I mean, it must stand up in a court of law, I understand. And that’s the area where we know, but you need to provide sufficient proof. So 

it’s really the proof that is the issue. 

And, Mustafa, yes—— 

Mr. NAYYEM. Maybe we’ll ask for some assistance from the embassy also. We asked 

for minister of foreign affairs of Ukraine and from secret service of Ukraine who already 

have some names, as I know. The problem is—it’s not to name them, because those people 

who actually signed the prosecution documents or who made a decision or the head of 

these bodies, they are known. The problem is that these sanctions which will be put on 

these people by Magnitsky List act, these sanctions could be challenged in court here in 

the United States. So we should be very convinced that our proofs are strong. 

And I think that we are, in this case, we are just involvement side part because we 

can just help with that as parliamentarians, as a government and as a secret service and 

as a minister of foreign affairs, but it should be done by civil society and I strongly believe 

that this should be done by NGOs, by those people who are about human rights, because 

it’s not the case of Ukrainian Government. It should be done by those people who really 

support Oleg, because as a government we support all our citizens. But now we have a 

very specific case in which are sentenced—this is an artist. Again and again I will repeat 

that. This guy would never work for government. He’s our citizen, but NGOs know more 

now and they have much more information and I think they have much more power and 

they are much more reliable in this situation. 

So I think the PEN Center, the leadership belongs to them in this process because 

actually they’re the first international agency who awarded Oleg for his courage. And I 

think the Helsinki Commission would help us also with how to follow this procedure. But 

the names and all other things should be done by NGOs. 
10 

Amb. KILLION. Thank you. 

Did the gentleman over here have a question? 

QUESTIONER. I’m Gabe Rottman. I’m the Washington director for PEN America. And 

I just wanted to thank the Helsinki Commission, Ambassador Killion, and especially the 

staff of the Commission for holding this briefing. It’s crucially important, and we’re 

extremely honored to be here. 

I actually just had a question. I’m new—this is my fourth week. And I’m also new 

to this case and new to international human rights law. I’m a sort of domestic-first person. And one of the things that struck me as particularly interesting and insidious in this 

case is the fact that Russian citizenship was foisted, as you say, on Oleg. I was wondering 

if you could say more about that aspect of it—how that happened, and whether it’s happened to anybody else. 

Ms. COYNASH. Well, as far as we know, I think it’s Kolchenko and Sentsov at the 

moment, because in other cases they have actually done the opposite, almost. A couple 

of people have actually been deported from their own country, from Crimea, simply, or 

else banned from entering Crimea, like Mustafa Dzhemilev. 

Now, in the case of Kolchenko and Sentsov, I think really the issue was they had 

not—the excuse was that they were given a month in which to formally state that they 

wanted to remain citizens of their own country after Russia invaded. Now, clearly, the 

situation was that a lot of people, even had they known and even if it was easy for them 

to get to the three offices in all of Crimea that were open to do this, a lot of people simply 

on principle would not have done it. I mean, why would you go and say that you want 

to be a citizen of your own country when somebody else has invaded it? So they had not 

done this and that has been used as the excuse. 

I think there is absolutely no doubt that the European Court of Human Rights will 

decide in Sentsov’s favor and in Olexandr Kolchenko’s favor. In fact, even the Russian 

ombudsperson, the previous one, agreed that they were Russian citizens. So, you know, 

this is reasonably clear that if a Russian human rights ombudsperson can actually say 

that, that there really are no grounds for doing it at all. 

There’s one other thing. I simply wanted to say as far as one of the times where Oleg 

Sentsov has doubtlessly annoyed the people in the Kremlin very much was actually on 

this particular subject about citizenship where he said I am not a serf to be sent around, 

to be handed to somebody else. 

Mr. SOBCHENKO. The serfs were transferred with the land. 

Ms. COYNASH. Yes, to be transferred with the land. Well, I mean, except that, of 

course, it wasn’t transferred, it was stolen. But yes. 

QUESTIONER. That’s great, thank you. 

Mr. NAYYEM. I want to amend something. First of all, you know, the Russian actions, 

now everything is hybrid. So Sentsov recognized as a citizen of Russian Federation, but 

official papers, in his sentence, there is no sign who is he. I mean, it’s empty, no citizenship, Ukraine or Russian. So it allows them to recognize him when it’s convenient, Russian citizen, or it’s not convenient Ukrainian. But it doesn’t allow, for example, our ambassador to come to him. 

But from the other side, International Criminal Court recognizes territory annexed 

and occupied, it means that all Geneva Conventions work there. And, by Geneva Convention, no one can be forced on occupied territory to be a citizen of another country against 
11 

his will. So I think it is a crime already, because he was citizen of Ukraine and now he 

was forced to have to be a citizen of Russia. So it’s an open crime and I think we will 

investigate it in the future. 

Amb. KILLION. Thanks, Gabe, for your question. And also, thank you very much for 

collaborating with us on this event. I’m sorry I didn’t recognize you. 

And I also want to thank Suzanne Nossel, my former colleague in the Obama 

Administration, who, along with you and everybody else at PEN America, does such great 

work. And we absolutely are offering our services to collaborate with you on this case and 

other cases in the future. And all of my experts are here today. Thanks. 

Any other questions? 

Paul Massaro. Paul Massaro is also on the Helsinki Commission staff. 

Mr. MASSARO. Gabe, you beat me to the punch on that one. I also thought that was 

the most remarkable thing about this case. 

And I just wanted to ask a follow-up question concerning this imposition of citizenship. And that is, is this an original innovation of Putin? Or are there historical examples 

of this happening? And if so, how were they combated in history in other scenarios? 

Ms. COYNASH. Oh, yes, of course. Immediately after the Second World War, of course, 

a lot of people were deported from, I understand, from various places. Poles were deported 

to—actually, I’m going to get this wrong, the wrong way around. Ukrainians were 

deported to Poland. Actually, I think I’m going to mix it up. But basically, people were 

forced to leave the part of the territory they were on. And they were simply made into 

other nationalities. 

I’m sorry, Alexei is probably better on this subject. 

Mr. SOBCHENKO. When Hitler and Stalin divided Poland, part of eastern Poland, 

which was occupied by the Soviet troops, all the denizens of those territories automatically 

were defined as Soviet citizens and were punished by law for violating—just for being, 

let’s say, bourgeois or clerical—church men. Because it was punished by the Soviet law, 

they were sentenced by the Soviet laws for being what they were. 

Mr. MASSARO. So this type of imposition has precedent in Soviet history ? 

Ms. COYNASH. Soviet, yes. 

Mr. MASSARO. —through the forceful distribution of population. 

Ms. COYNASH. Yes. So does the use of torture to get confessions. A lot of what is happening at the moment in Russia and with respect to Ukrainians and with respect to Russians have bad echoes from Soviet times, yes, and generally from the Stalinist period, 

unfortunately. 

Mr. SOBCHENKO. And eventually, all the Baltic republic citizens were by default converted to the Soviet citizenship. 

Ms. COYNASH. Yes, yes. 

Mr. SOBCHENKO. But that was basically part of the same deal. But the same is true 

about the part of eastern Romania called Bessarabia which was annexed by the Soviet 

Union as well. So, of course, the Transcarpathia region, which was part of Czechoslovakia 

and was transferred to the Soviet Union in 1945, the same also. I’m sorry. 

Amb. KILLION. And the French gave away the Baltics embassies, but we kept them. 

[Laughter.] 

Anyone else? 
12 

QUESTIONER. Hello. My name is Anna Zamejc, and I’m a fellow here at the Helsinki 

Commission, and I’m also an NGO project manager with People in Need, C ̆ love ̆k v Tı ́sni, 

based in Prague. 

I actually have two questions, one very short. Have there been actually any mediation attempts between Ukraine and Russia in the case of Oleg Sentsov? 

And the second question, do you feel actually that the European Union is doing 

enough in the case of Ukrainian political prisoners? And who is actually the leading advocate for Ukraine these days? I’m from Poland originally and I’m very sad to see that 

Poland has been withdrawing itself very much from the process. And Jaroslaw Kaczynski 

has signaled that the policy of Poland on Ukraine might be subject to change. 

If you could address those questions, thank you. 

Ms. COYNASH. I think that both—well, as far as the advocates are concerned, I think 

the Baltic states, for reasons that I will—I’m sorry if they’re obvious, but I will spell them 

out. The reasons are relevant, I think, to everybody, which is that they are the countries 

who are next in line and who—I mean, as well as other reasons. They’ve always been one 

to follow anyway, but then, so was Poland before the present regime. 

With the Baltic states, they have also understood a lot of things that I think the rest 

of the world is taking a bit longer to understand about the uses of disinformation, the 

uses of propaganda and generally the problems of hybrid warfare simply because they are 

very much the next target. 

As far as the European Union is concerned, well, probably not, but then, it is always 

very hard to know quite what to do in a situation like this. I think everybody needs to— 

I think the sanctions must be—there should never be any suggestion that the sanctions 

could be removed, firstly, until the agreements are reached. And probably, I think they 

needed to be strengthened from the start about Crimea. And it should have been understood from the beginning, from the outset that until Russia left Crimea that there could 

be no consideration of leaving sanctions. 

Mr. NAYYEM. I would say start from mediation. What do you mean exactly? Is this 

about negotiation for—— 

QUESTIONER. A third-party mediation. 

Mr. NAYYEM. You know, there are so many formats of negotiation with Russia. And 

there is no one which of them who had results with it. We have Normandy format and 

Minsk format, we have some other countries which try to be kind of like Great Britain, 

to be a neutral negotiator, but it doesn’t work. Maybe it would work if we would not have 

war. But in a case when we have war, everything is about war, it’s about hostages, it’s 

about prisoners, what they need, what they want to change for this guy, et cetera. So I 

cannot say that now is—we do not have this player who can be neutral in this situation, 

be mediator, because I think that if you would find some country which can be neutral, 

it would be very bad situation for us. Because in this situation when you see this aggression from Russia, I don’t know who can be neutral. Same about leading advocate and the 

role of EU. 

And I would say that leading advocate of Ukrainians for these days unfortunately 

are Ukrainian soldiers. Because I’m convinced that all these words which world leaders 

can say to Mr. Putin, all this toughness of Germany and France and even the United 

States sometimes, all this courage is based on the situation on the ground on our front 

line. If not for Ukrainian soldiers two years ago, no one would stop them because we don’t 
13 

have any supplies of weapons or troops who helped us three years ago to stop Russians 

on our border. So they are our main advocates. 

But if you are asking me from other parts of the world, I would say that there are— 

I cannot name someone, but I would say that there are those politicians who have the 

courage and leadership to say the truth. For us, it’s enough. Of course, we see now a different situation what is going on in the United States because we have different people 

in the United States. Three days ago, I saw National Security Adviser McMaster in 

Arizona, Sedona. I was happy what he said about United States. But at the same time, 

we see those tweets after Secretary of State Tillerson’s visit to Moscow, and we are a little 

bit frustrated with that. From the other side in Europe the situation with Pedro 

Agramunt, who visited Syria in these times. And they even don’t think that they are 

guilty. And Ukrainian delegation made a lot of things to make him resign. 

So in these days, we cannot say that some country is, but we can name those politicians who really have this courage to say the truth. Angela Merkel is our partner, definitely. Poland is our partner, definitely. There are different politicians there also, but 

mostly we feel that they are with us. In France, we are waiting. Can we say something? 

No, not yet. Netherlands—three months ago we were frustrated with its position. Now we 

know that the election has brought some wins. Germany, again, Steinmeier was not our 

partner, unfortunately. Angela is our partner. So in other countries, the same situation, 

so now everything is mixed. But leading advocate of us and of those countries who are 

[encountered ?] Russia unfortunately are soldiers and military forces. 

Amb. KILLION. Thank you. 

Let’s have one more question, the gentleman here. 

QUESTIONER. Hello, my name is Yaroslav Dovgopol. I am a Ukrainian journalist here 

and I’m working with Ukrainian news agency, Ukrinform, in the United States. 

First of all, I would like to thank the U.S. Helsinki Commission for your efforts supporting Ukrainian prisoners who are detained in Russia, including Oleg Sentsov; 

including my colleague and friend Roman Sushchenko, who is detained in Moscow; 

including Mykola Semena; and others. 

Yesterday, you organized here in Congress regarding human rights in Russia where 

you mentioned people from Ukraine who are in Russian prisons because of their resistance to Russian aggression. They are not just Ukrainian people. They are Russians and 

others. 

And I have a question to you, Mr. Ambassador. Is the U.S. Helsinki Commission 

going to make a statement after these events, which call on the U.S. Government and the 

U.S. Congress to increase pressure to Russian Government to release Ukrainian and Russian prisoners from Russian prisons? 

Thank you. 

Amb. KILLION. Well, thank you very much. We hope we’re making a statement by 

the events of this week, both our hearing and our briefing here today. And we’ll certainly 

be looking at ways to amplify that statement. And we appreciate your suggestion. 

I just want to thank everyone here on the panel today. I think this was a very useful 

briefing. And I also want to thank everybody in the audience. The questions were 

absolutely excellent. And I think everybody here today learned more about the situation 

and hopefully also can take away some new ideas about—many people in this room are 

policymakers—about how we can continue to refine and improve our policy and continue 
14 

to refine and improve our policy and continue to find ways to put pressure on Russia to 

change its aggressive behavior. 

So thank you very much, everyone. 

And also, thanks again to PEN America. We really enjoyed this opportunity to 

collaborate with you and we hope that it will continue in the future. 

And finally, I just want to thank my staff and especially Jordan Warlick, who I hope 

all of you will meet. She’s a new member of my staff and she is the lead for the Helsinki 

Commission on press freedom now. So it’s very appropriate that she worked on this 

hearing. 

And all of you should also meet Alex Tiersky. We lost our Ukrainian staffer of 35 

years to retirement yesterday. Orest Deychakiwsky retired, and so Alex Tiersky is going 

to take the lead on Ukraine. And I hope everybody will get a chance to meet him as well. 

Thank you. [Applause.] 

[Whereupon, at 3:58 p.m., the briefing ended.] 

Æ 

This is an official publication of the Commission on 

Security and Cooperation in Europe. 

★ ★ ★ 

This publication is intended to document 

developments and trends in participating 

States of the Organization for Security 

and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). 

★ ★ ★ 

All Commission publications may be freely reproduced, 

in any form, with appropriate credit. The Commission 

encourages the widest possible dissemination of its 

publications. 

★ ★ ★ 

www.csce.gov @HelsinkiComm 

The Commission’s Web site provides access 

to the latest press releases and reports, 

as well as hearings and briefings. Using the 

Commission’s electronic subscription service, readers are 

able to receive press releases, articles, and other 

materials by topic or countries of particular interest. 

Please subscribe today.