114th CONGRESS Printed for the use of the 

1st Session Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe 

HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS IN 

RUSSIAN-OCCUPIED CRIMEA 

DECEMBER 11, 2015 

Briefing of the 

Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe 

Washington: 2016 
(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

Chairman 

ALCEE L. HASTINGS, FLORIDA

ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, ALABAMA

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, TEXAS

STEVE COHEN, TENNESSEE

ALAN GRAYSON, FLORIDA

RANDY HULTGREN, ILLINOIS

JOSEPH R. PITTS, PENNSYLVANIA

LOUISE MCINTOSH SLAUGHTER, 

NEW YORK

SENATE 

ROGER WICKER, MISSISSIPPI, 

Co-Chairman 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN. MARYLAND

JOHN BOOZMAN, ARKANSAS

RICHARD BURR, NORTH CAROLINA

JEANNE SHAHEEN, NEW HAMPSHIRE

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) 

HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS IN 

RUSSIAN-OCCUPIED CRIMEA 

DECEMBER 11, 2015 

COMMISSIONERS 

Page 

Orest Deychakiwsky, Policy Adviser, Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe .... 1 

Jonas Wechsler, Senior Adviser, U.S. Department of State, Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe ..................................................................................................................... 20 

PARTICIPANTS 

Ivanna Bilych, Co-Founder and President of VOLYA Institute for Contemporary Law and 

Society, Board Member of the Ukrainian American Bar Association ..................................... 3 

Bohdan Yaremenko, Chairman of the Board of the Ukrainian Nongovernmental Organization, Maidan of Foreign Affairs, Former Ukrainian Diplomat ................................................ 7 

Andriy Klymenko, Chief Editor of Black Sea News, Economist [with interpreter Svitlana 

Krasynska] ................................................................................................................................... 12 

Yuriy Yatsenko, Maidan Revolution Activist, Recently Released Political Prisoner [with interpreter Bohdan Pechenyak] ..................................................................................................... 14 

Yaroslav Brisiuck, Deputy Chief of Mission, Embassy of Ukraine to the United States ......... 16 

APPENDIX 

Prepared statement of Ivanna Bilych ........................................................................................... 27 

Prepared statement of Bohdan Yaremenko .................................................................................. 31 

Prepared statement of Andriy Klymenko .....................................................................................

Prepared statement of Yuriy Yatsenko .........................................................................................

Prepared statement of Anna Fotyga, Member of the European Parliament, Chair of the 

Subcommittee on Security and Defense ....................................................................................

[IV]
(1) 

HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS IN 

RUSSIAN-OCCUPIED CRIMEA 

DECEMBER 11, 2015 

Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe 

Washington, DC 

The briefing was held at 2 p.m. in room B-318, Rayburn House Office Building, 

Washington, DC, Mr. Orest Deychakiwsky, Policy Adviser for the Commission on Security 

and Cooperation in Europe, moderating. 

Commissioner present: Jonas Wechsler, Senior Adviser, U.S. Department of State, 

Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe. 

Panelists present: Ivanna Bilych, Co-Founder and President of VOLYA Institute for 

Contemporary Law and Society, Board Member of the Ukrainian American Bar Association; Andriy Klymenko, Chief Editor of Black Sea News, Economist; Bohdan Yaremenko, 

Chairman of the Board of the Ukrainian Nongovernmental Organization, Maidan of Foreign Affairs, Former Ukrainian Diplomat; Yuriy Yatsenko, Maidan Revolution Activist, 

Recently Released Political Prisoner; and Yaroslav Brisiuck, Deputy Chief of Mission, 

Embassy of Ukraine to the United States. 

Mr. DEYCHAKIWSKY. Good afternoon. My name is Orest Deychakiwsky. I’m a policy 

adviser here at the U.S. Helsinki Commission. 

On behalf of Chairman Congressman Chris Smith and the leadership of the Commission, welcome to this Helsinki Commission briefing entitled ‘‘Human Rights Violations in 

Russia and Occupied Crimea.’’ 

Russia’s forcible and illegal occupation of Ukraine’s sovereign territory of Crimea in 

March 2014 resulted in a deplorable human rights situation as well as other serious consequences that continue to this day. 

Changes in government and legal framework in Crimea following the attempted 

annexation have had a toxic impact on human rights and fundamental freedoms. Violations of civil, political, social, economic and cultural rights are widespread, especially 

against those who oppose Russian occupation, including Crimean Tatars and other ethnic, 

including, of course, Ukrainian and other ethnic political and religious groups. 

Except for a recent spike because of the disruption of electricity supplies, Crimea has 

not been in the news all that much lately, certainly not compared to the months immediately following Russia’s occupation. 
2 

Now, this egregious act of aggression stands in flagrant violation of both bilateral 

Russian/Ukrainian and numerous, numerous international agreements and international 

law. The international community has not recognized the attempted annexation. 

As far as the United States, both the administration and Congress have addressed 

the Russian occupation of Crimea in various ways, including through legislation and 

through concrete sanctions against Russia, including Crimea-specific sanctions. 

And just a few days ago, in Kyiv, Vice President Biden repeatedly vowed that the 

U.S. will never recognize Russia’s occupation of Crimea. Just one of his quotes was, ‘‘This 

attempted annexation is contrary to international law, it is wrong, and we will never 

accept it under any circumstances.’’ 

The Helsinki Commission, too, has addressed this issue, repeatedly stressing that 

Russia’s invasion and subsequent behavior has violated not one, not two, but all ten core 

OSCE principles enshrined in the 1975 Helsinki Final Act. 

And to cite one example or activity, at last year’s annual session of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, which encompasses 56 OSCE country parliaments, our then-chairman Senator Ben Cardin’s resolution strongly condemned, and I quote, ‘‘the clear, gross 

and uncorrected violation of the Helsinki principles of the Russian Federation with 

respect to Ukraine, including the particularly egregious violations of that country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.’’ 

The resolution passed by a substantial margin, despite fierce Russian opposition. And 

then this last year there was a follow-up Canadian resolution, a follow-up to Senator 

Cardin’s resolution of 2014, which also passed despite Russian opposition. That’s just one 

illustrative example. 

It’s important that all of us keep shining the light on Crimea, despite the understandable attention to the occupied territories of the Donbas where Russia and its proxies continue to flaunt the Minsk agreements, or to the humanitarian crisis that has resulted 

from Russia’s aggression, or for that matter to the whole issue of combating corruption, 

Ukraine’s greatest internal threat. 

But it’s important for us not to forget what is also happening to the people of Crimea 

who suffer under Russian misrule. 

So we’re very pleased to have with us today four experts, including three who reside 

in Ukraine, to help shine that light. They’ll help us better understand what’s happening 

in Crimea today—not only the human rights situation, but indeed what some have said 

is the peninsula’s colonization and militarization. 

And we’ll also hear directly from someone who himself has been a direct victim of 

Russian human rights abuses. 

Before we start, I just also want to introduce my colleague Jonas Wechsler, who’s our 

State Department senior adviser at the Helsinki Commission. 

We’ll start with Ivanna Bilych, who will present the findings and recommendations 

of the comprehensive, truly comprehensive report, ‘‘Human Rights on Occupied Territories: The Case of Crimea,’’ prepared by an international team of lawyers that was led 

by her and supported by the VOLYA Institute and the Ukrainian American organization 

Razom. 

Let me at the outset thank Ivanna as this briefing was really her brainchild. Indeed, 

a similar briefing was organized by Ivanna, along with her colleague Bohdan Pechenyak, 

who is here and who will serve as an interpreter at the U.N. on Wednesday. 
3 

And also I want to introduce Svitlana Krasynska who will interpret for Andriy 

Klymenko. She’s also a member of the VOLYA Institute. 

OK, so the formal introductions. Ivanna Bilych holds a master’s degree in international affairs from Columbia University and also an L.L.M. from New York University 

School of Law. She also received L.L.B. and L.L.M. degrees from Kyiv National Taras 

Shevchenko University. Ivanna is a lawyer and activist. She represented Viktor Smalyy, 

an attorney prosecuted by the former regime, the Yanukovych regime, in Ukraine. She’s 

a former board member and general counsel of Razom, a board member of the UkrainianAmerican Bar Association, a co-founder and president of the relatively newly established 

VOYLA Institute. 

Next after her Bohdan Yaremenko will be speaking. He’s chairman of the board of 

the Ukrainian nonprofit organization Maidan for Foreign Affairs. Bohdan is a former diplomat, having worked at the ministry of foreign affairs of Ukraine as vice-council at the 

consulate general of Ukraine in New York, the head of the U.S. and Canada Department, 

and he was consul general of Ukraine in Edinburgh as well as in Istanbul. 

Andriy Klymenko is the chief editor of Black Sea News and a prominent economist, 

originally from Crimea. He was fortunate to escape the persecution of self-proclaimed Crimean and Russian authorities. He’s the author of another report on the situation of 

Crimea, an Atlantic Council and Freedom House report that’s available on the Freedom 

House website. That report was produced on the first anniversary of the Crimean invasion 

back in March. Some of you were probably at the rollout of that. 

And finally, Yuriy Yatsenko is an activist of the Revolution of Dignity, was illegally 

imprisoned in Russia on political grounds in May 2014. After his refusal to cooperate with 

the Russian FSB, he suffered brutal torture and criminal prosecution. He was released 

after a year imprisonment thanks to the coordinated work of a lawyer, human rights 

organizations and international pressure. After the release, Yuriy Yatsenko became a 

speaker of the Let My People Go campaign as the first rescued person from the list of 

Ukrainian nationals persecuted on political grounds in the Russian Federation. 

And we’ll start then. 

Ms. Bilych, Ivanna, the floor is yours. 

Ms. BILYCH. Thank you, Orest. 

It is a great privilege and honor to speak at this venue today. 

I am deeply grateful to Helsinki Commission, its leadership and our moderator, Orest 

Deychakiwsky, for hosting this very important roundtable. 

Even as a 10-year-old child growing up in Soviet Ukraine, I always knew of the Helsinki Commission. Back then I could not possibly know what exactly it did, but I knew 

it was something bigger than I could possibly comprehend back then. I was right. It 

stands for democracy and human rights, rule of law and simply, morally the right thing. 

Most of you know the great importance of the topic I’m going to speak with you 

about, but for those for whom it may seem a bit remote, let me remind you of the words 

of one of the greatest men, William Allen White, who said that ‘‘Wherever a free man is 

in chains, we are threatened also. Whoever is fighting for liberty is defending America.’’ 

Another great man and our great President Franklin Roosevelt once said that 

‘‘Freedom means the supremacy of human rights everywhere. Our support goes to those 

who struggle to gain those rights and keep them. Our strength is in our unity of purpose. 

To that high concept there can be no end save victory.’’ 
4 

Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank you all for coming today to discuss our 

latest report. 

Thank you to the esteemed coauthors for their outstanding work and dedication to 

human rights, international law, global peace and security. 

I would like to extend my sincere and deepest gratitude to a very special woman who 

couldn’t attend today, Professor Mary Holland, who supervised the project. 

Thank you to David Glasgow, assistant director for the Public Interest Law Center, 

for his guidance and support. 

And I would like to thank Matthew Mosner and Ethan Burger, who is here today, 

thank you, for their time and valuable comments to the early drafts. 

Special thank you to all the editors, designers, volunteers, experts who gave us their 

feedback on the second edition. 

And thank you to the wonderful team from VOLYA Institute for their superb work 

and dedication to the second edition to this report. 

Thank you, our Razom partners for their support and understanding of the importance of the issues presented today. 

A year ago, at a different venue in the United Nations, we gathered to discuss the 

legal dimensions of Russian actions in Ukraine, the occupation of Crimea and its illegal 

attempts to annex the Ukrainian territory. 

To this day, the Russian Federation continues to occupy sovereign Ukrainian territory in Crimea and has violated international law by illegal seizing the Ukrainian peninsula. 

We still have to sort out all the implications and grave consequences of the illegal 

actions of the Russian Federation in Ukraine and find a solution to restore Ukrainian sovereign territory for people of Ukraine and for us as the international community, individually and together, as well as for us the citizens of this great country. 

What is very clear, however, is that the practice of human rights in occupied Crimea 

is dire and continues to deteriorate. Every day, Ukrainian citizens in occupied Crimea face 

unprecedented oppression and limitations of their rights. Serious and consistent violations 

of the civil, political, social, economic and cultural rights of Crimeans have been welldocumented by a variety of organizations, including the United Nations, Human Rights 

Watch, international media outlets, reports from the undercover journalists, activists in 

various local organizations, over the previous year. 

The illegitimate, self-proclaimed Crimean and Russian authorities target those 

ethnic, religious and national groups that oppose the occupation. Indigenous Crimean 

Tatars are frequently suspected of this sort of broadly defined anti-Russian activity. 

To help address the situation, to build on those findings and create a pragmatic guide 

for people both within Crimea and outside of the peninsula to understand the legal framework of the situation, and in an attempt to sort out the legal chaos that has been created 

by the illegal actions of the Russian Federation in Ukraine, an international team of lawyers based in New York University School of Law prepared this report. And it’s available 

for you to pick up outside. 

The purpose of the report is to assist individuals in Crimea, Ukraine, as well as 

around the world, working in academia, governments, international organizations, nongovernmental organizations, business and media, to understand the nature of the human 
5 

rights violations in the occupied territory so they are better equipped to defend, to protect 

an internationally recognized expression of human rights. 

The report or White Paper includes four parts and the manual. We analyzed the 

human rights situation in occupied Crimea, placing it within the context of applicable 

international standards, conventions and treaties; authorities and entities responsible for 

protecting and providing human rights; specific abuses of human rights by self-proclaimed 

Crimean and Russian authorities; legal precedence that apply to the occupied territory 

and its legal regime. 

The authors examined the historical and legal context, defined the primary rights 

that are being violated, give recommendations on what steps people in Crimea can take, 

and outline actions for organizations. 

We brought together several related threats to create the context for the current 

situation, covering the recent history of Crimea’s transfer in 1954 to the so called March 

16, 2015 referendum to unify with the Russian Federation; the Russian Federation’s use 

of force to occupy Crimea in 2014; post World War international agreements and treaties 

on state sovereignty and territorial integrity. 

We outlined and examined 21 distinct human rights that are provided by the international and domestic laws. We analyzed each right individually with respect to international, Ukrainian and Russian law. The report focuses on civil, political rights, social, 

economic and cultural rights. 

We discussed the suggested remedies for individuals whose human rights have been 

violated, suppressed, encroached or otherwise denied. The general and specific remedies 

include the use of international and Ukrainian and Russian Federation legal instruments. 

We concluded the Russian Federation’s illegal occupation and attempted annexation 

of Crimea has created a continuous stream of human rights violations, encroaching on or 

even prohibiting basic individual rights and freedoms. 

The Russian Federation fails to comply with its obligations as an occupying power. 

And the Ukrainian government is not paying enough attention to the human rights 

abuses in Crimea Ukraine. 

Remedies applying international law are not always available to victims with limited 

resources due to complex procedures, limited jurisdiction and resulting lengthy proceedings. 

Our findings demonstrate the insufficiency of existing remedies for human rights violations and mechanisms of the entire international system of human rights protection 

with respect to Crimeans. 

The following recommendations are for those entities that can help ensure human 

rights enforcement and protection in Crimea. We address the Ukrainian government, the 

self-proclaimed Crimean and Russian Federation’s authorities, the international community and NGOs and civil society advocates on the ground. 

Existing national and international remedies are ineffective against such massive 

human rights violations as are occurring in Crimea. Self-proclaimed Russian Federation’s 

authorities deny responsibility and Ukrainian Government claim the lack of ability and 

resources to respond properly. 

For this reason, the concerted efforts of governments and institutions worldwide are 

critical. Human rights organizations have reported extensively on human rights violations 

in Crimea and recommended ways to address those issues. 
6 

We concur with the recommendations and provide additional recommendations. In 

addition to the recommendations that we published on April 15, 2014 in our previous 

report, we built up and extend it to an additional 61 recommendations. 

We expect our recommendations to Ukraine, self-proclaimed Crimean and Russian 

authorities, international community and civil society and activists will prompt a solution, 

which will honor the Ukrainian people’s human rights desire and support for unitary, sovereign country, Ukraine’s territorial integrity and democracy. 

Among the key recommendations, we recommend that Ukraine continue to work 

closely with the United Nations and other states and the international community to 

ensure Russia’s troop withdrawal from Crimea and from the eastern Ukraine border. 

We invented and proposed trifold logic to our recommendations. We ask the 

addressees of our recommendations to work on these recommendations and tasks 

according to their respective roles, responsibilities, goals and objectives. 

The Ukrainian Government is advised to implement the recommended measures. The 

international community is encouraged to assist and monitor, and civil society to demand 

implementation of the measures and subsequently monitor the implementation. 

The self-proclaimed Crimean and Russian authorities should comply with international law. 

We suggest several key recommendations; among them is creation of special international tribunal, creation of special database that would help Crimeans to store the 

information about the human rights abuses or just sensitive information about their property, or just any information they find sensitive. 

And coming back from Brussels and Strasbourg we found out that something similar 

like that exists regarding Chechnya. So the methods are there and it can be practically 

implemented. 

Securement of free communication and access to true information. Securement of 

ongoing monitoring of human rights situation. 

A crucial part of this report is a Human Rights Protection Guide which we call the 

manual, and we translated it into Ukrainian language, Crimean Tatar and Russian languages, which is designed to help residents of Crimea take steps to improve their current 

situation directly. 

We conclude that people in Crimea are economically deprived and legally underserved, often knowing little about their rights and being unable to demand their application. 

Therefore, the aim of the manual is to provide Crimeans of all ethnic and religious 

backgrounds with access to justice by explaining their fundamental rights. The manual 

lists a number of fundamental rights and their application. 

And finally, the manual includes a directory of Ukrainian international and Crimean 

human rights organizations where they can report and seek advice or explanations. 

Speaking about the recommendations, we believe that our recommendations are 

directed towards the state-building and having a true democracy and building a true 

democratic and prosperous Ukraine. 

And to conclude, I would like to remind you a quote from John Prendergast, a great 

human rights activist, who said that ‘‘The biggest roadblock to action on genocide and 

other human rights crimes is ignorance. Most people just don’t know that such things are 
7 

happening. And often, if they have a vague idea they are happening, there is a feeling 

that there is nothing that can be done to stop those crimes.’’ 

Franklin Roosevelt also said that ‘‘We must remember that any oppression, any injustice, any hatred is a wedge designed to attack our civilization.’’ 

Russia’s actions are striking at the heart of international law and order and the principles and values that helped to prevent war since World War Second. And if we allow 

ourselves to let it be, we run into much bigger risks. 

I encourage you today to utilize your great expertise, and you’ll hear many great 

experts today, this venue, power and any and all means to find a meaningful solution to 

stop the wedge of oppression, injustice, hatred towards the people of Ukraine in occupied 

Crimea. 

Thank you. 

Mr. DEYCHAKIWSKY. Thank you very much, Ivanna. 

As you could see, that was an overview of quite a comprehensive report. And I think 

it’s especially useful in that it’s action-oriented in terms of both recommendations and a 

manual, a practical manual. 

With that, let me turn to our next speaker, and that’s Bohdan Yaremenko. 

Bohdan, please. 

Mr. YAREMENKO. Thank you, Mr. Deychakiwsky. It’s a great honor for me to be here 

and to address this outstanding congressional body. 

I would like also to express my appreciation to everyone who made this presentation 

possible, to the VOLYA Institute, Ukrainian-American group Razom, as well as to Renaissance Foundation for supporting our trip to New York and Washington. 

So ladies and gentlemen, our NGO, Maidan of Foreign Affairs, together with our 

partner web portal The Black Sea News, represented here by its editor, Mr. Andriy 

Klymenko, are not only covering the Russian military aggression in Ukraine since midFebruary of 2014, but are the only Ukrainian institutions that summarized the picture 

of the aggression and published the comprehensive Crimea regain strategy, which is still 

the only one existing in Ukraine and it was done last year. 

We are convinced the situation in Crimea and eastern Ukraine is directly connected 

and should be kept in the same frame for political analysis. 

Honestly speaking, the picture will still be incomplete without analyzing the Russian 

intervention into Ukraine aside of what is happening in Transnistria, in Moldova, 

Abkhazia and Ossetia in Georgia. The time limits will not allow me to do it in a proper 

way. 

Nevertheless, the issue of human rights in the conflict areas in Ukraine and in particular in the occupied Crimea should not and cannot be properly addressed without 

broader overview of the political, military, security, economic and social situation. 

So we decided to share our responsibilities. With your permission, I will cover the 

general issues in order to allow my dear friend and colleague Mr. Andriy Klymenko to 

concentrate fully on the issues of the human rights. 

So political preferences of the inhabitants of Crimea were not the reason for occupation and illegal annexation of the Crimean Peninsula. The local parliament elected in the 

year 2012 included only three deputies out of 100, who represented the pro-Russian movements and organizations. 
8 

A few ethnic and interreligious conflicts have been artificially enforced by the Russian propaganda within a short period of time as the active phase of the annexation plan 

was being implemented during the winter of 2014. This fear was an additional factor to 

reinforce the overall concerns of the citizens. 

The main propaganda messages, directed towards the citizens of Ukraine from the 

Russian side, covered the issues of the quality of life and quality of government. The 

media has created the illusion of greater efficiency of the Russian authorities compared 

to Ukrainian ones and of the readiness of the Russian state to ensure the better socioeconomic life conditions without any efforts made by the citizens of Ukraine. 

So the invasion scenario is as follows. First, presence of the Russian citizens, 

including the military personnel from the intelligence agency, primarily of the principal 

intelligence directorate or the general staff of the ministry of defense of the Russian Federation. Together with the pro-Russian activists among the local residents and citizens of 

Ukraine, they organized rallies, fights, massive disturbances, violent confrontations with 

patriotic, pro-Ukrainian citizens. 

Second, a premeditated escalation used as an excuse for creation of the self-defense 

units that include both local residents and the Russian citizens infiltrated specifically for 

such purposes. 

Three, in eastern Ukraine, these units seized administrative buildings and paralyzed 

the activity of the state bodies, which in turn stepped away from solving the problem and, 

in some cases, supported anti-state actions. 

In Crimea, the self-defense units were a cover-up that was covering the covert operation of the special forces of the Russian army. They were the ones who seized the governmental agencies and blocked military bases of Ukrainian army. 

Four, establishment of the pseudo government that took over the responsibility of the 

management over the occupied territories. The mentioned pseudo government imitated 

freedom of expression which was used as the justification of the expansion and explanation of the aggression. 

The inability and unwillingness of legitimate authorities to take matters for quick 

and decisive suppression of those trends, an attempt to calm down the protesters or 

aggressors were regarded as weaknesses, encouraged the aggression and demoralized the 

Ukrainian supporters. 

Corruption, common business interests of the local and central authorities’ representatives with the relevant public and private bodies of the aggressor state were actively 

used as the mechanism to influence and compromise the political will for resistance and 

defense. 

The annexation of Crimea has become the first case of the invasion of territory in 

Europe since the Second World War. The national situation calls into question the existence or the effectiveness of international law and the international security guarantees, 

thus threatening the existing world order. 

The ‘‘hot face’’ of the armed conflict in eastern Ukraine is still ongoing. However, the 

so called Minsk agreements do not function as the ceasefire mechanism, at least as an 

effective mechanism, do not lead to the establishment of a sustainable peace and do not 

provide a solution on the problem of the territorial integrity restoration of Ukraine 

because it doesn’t cover the Crimean issue. 
9 

The escalation phases coincide with the international negotiations on peace settlement. They are effectively used by Russia as a tool of pressure on negotiating parties. 

The occupied areas of Donetsk and Luhansk regions suffered from the large-scale 

destruction of the infrastructure and residential buildings resulting from the combat operations. 

An industrial infrastructure was particularly destroyed, plundered and transported 

to Russia. In particular, defense enterprises were completely dismantled and transported 

to Russia. 

The current condition of the industrial infrastructure does not allow to predict the 

possibility of the restoration of the pre-war regional economy structure and, consequently, 

of the social structure of the population. 

About 2.5 million people, about the third of the overall number of inhabitants, mainly 

the most educated and active part of the society, became forced migrants and refugees. 

Prospects for resolving the situation in the east of Ukraine, the problem of the specific 

areas of Donetsk and Lugansk region are uncertain. 

In terms of displaced people and political fugitives from Crimea, about 40,000 people 

represented the most active and loyal citizens of Ukraine. 

In general, the public mood in Crimea can be described as follows: At the beginning 

of the Crimean occupation, the residents were fully satisfied with Ukrainian liberalism, 

not satisfied with the quality of life, not satisfied with the quality of government. 

As the result of occupation, as for now, the residents of Crimea have not received 

the improvement of the quality of government, it actually deteriorated, have not got better 

quality of life, it actually deteriorated, have lost Ukrainian legal liberalism. 

A phase of adaptation to the law of the occupying country is Crimea is over, and the 

process of reclamation of the assets of the annexed territory is ongoing. This process can 

be described simply as colonization. 

Replacement or dilution of the Crimean population is taking place. The import of 

Russians, including the military personnel and their families, officers of the intelligence 

agencies and their families, officials and their family members, members of the Russian 

organized crime groups from the Northern Caucasian regions of Russia is still ongoing. 

Thus, according to official Russian statistics, the increase of the number of Russian 

immigrants in Sevastopol during the occupation was about 25,000 people or about 7 percent of the population. In the rest of Crimea, this rate is somewhat lower, 10,000 people 

or 0.5 percent of population. 

The occupying authorities are developing Crimea mainly as a military base. The 

number of troops is about 50,000 people, not including the members of the security agencies or police. 

The development process and increase of the military grouping has not yet been completed. However, according to the objectives defined by the minister of defense of Russia, 

the number of Russian troops in Crimea can be increased to up to 100,000, 120,000 

people. 

The invaders turned the Crimea to a rehabilitation center for the militants fighting 

in the east of Ukraine. Training camps for training all the mercenaries later directed to 

fight against the armed forces of Ukraine in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions have been 

established in Crimea. 
10 

Crimea has become a basic center of support of the Russian military grouping in 

Syria as well. 

Forming a powerful military base in Crimea, Russia threatens both the southern 

regions of Ukraine and the existing Black Sea naval communications as well as the European countries—NATO member states, Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey. 

The road infrastructure in the occupied territories has been fully and largely 

destroyed because of the massive movement of a large number of heavy military vehicles, 

armored vehicles, battle tanks, so on. 

Intensive military building in Crimea led to accelerated destruction of roads. All programs of road construction of Russia in Crimea turned to be a usual patching work of 

a very poor quality. 

The Crimean economic assets are being stolen or lose their capacity. Railways, ports 

are not actually used. Without proper irrigation, the agricultural soils lose their fertility, 

while their salinity is increasing. 

Natural resources of Crimea are being destroyed. The unscrupulous extraction of the 

fresh underground water has led to the rise of the saline groundwater level in some areas, 

like Kerch Peninsula, leading to increase of the soil salinity. Furthermore, it complicates 

the water supply to the population. 

Given the intense military building, the occupants increase the volume of the quarry 

mines development and open up the new quarries for gravel extraction, which can result 

in destruction of the microclimate in the valleys of the Bakchisarai area. 

The situation with the quality of life in Crimea has developed in such a way that 

under systematic reduction of employment, according to our calculations, since the annexation, about 200,000 jobs, primarily in tourism, restaurant and hotel business services, 

small business and transport, have been lost. The available vacancies are not filled. 

Today there are 2,000 vacancies of municipal officials in Crimea, as well as a large 

number of jobs in health care. Generally, it is difficult to fill the vacancies of ordinary 

employers in the business structures. 

What will happen next? Developments in eastern Ukraine are hard to predict because 

the ‘‘hot face’’ of the conflict is still ongoing. Russia as the state aggressor has sufficient 

resources to continue military actions. Its probable political purposes in Ukraine and in 

Europe have not been achieved. 

The means of influence on Russia, such as international sanctions, are just beginning 

to influence the Russian economy. And the political will of the leadership of the Russian 

Federation to continue their aggression, but their duration in time is uncertain. 

In Crimea, the main trends affecting the current developments are as follows. First, 

the main priority is to develop the territory as the military base. 

Consequences: Posing threat to security of the Black Sea region, the EU member 

states and NATO, Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey. Change of the military balance namely 

within the framework of the agreement on conventional armed forces in Europe, although 

Russia is not following for some time this international agreement. 

The possibility within the framework or the arrangements or the agreements in the 

field of the strategic nuclear weapons control. A persistent military threat to the entire 

southern coast of Ukraine with a purpose to implement the plan of setting up the land 

corridor between the Russian Federation, Crimea and Transnistria. Militarization of the 
11 

region. Expansion of the Russian military presence in Syria and the consequent armed 

confrontation and civil war in that country. 

Further enforcement of the policy of forced loyalty towards the inhabitants of Crimea, 

which will lead to further violation of human rights, the pressure on the dissidents or disloyal groups or population. Andriy Klymenko will cover this issue later on. 

Strengthening control over the media. Implementation of strategic infrastructure 

building projects, like the bridge across the Kerch Strait. The need to increase supply of 

building materials and equipment primarily of metal, timber, construction mixes, so on, 

which will lead to increased pressure on the road infrastructure and increased use of local 

natural resources, which in turn results in poor climatic balance in the number of subregions of Crimea. 

Second, lack of economic development strategy, lack of the managerial human 

resources. 

Consequences: A trend towards reducing the number of small and medium enterprises. The set priority is to develop and support the larger companies mainly in the 

defense sector. Unemployment growth. Reduction of the tax capacity in the region. 

Increase of the dependence on direct funding from the federal budget of Russia. 

Redirection of the budget financial flows in Russia, financing deficits in other regions 

of the Russian Federation. Concealed contradictions and competition for obtaining funding 

between different regions of the Russian Federation. 

Decrease of the standard of living. Decrease of the consumer purchasing power of the 

population. Increase on prices, fewer choices for consumers, a lowering of the quality of 

food, increase of the social certification and increasing differences in living standards 

among the citizens funded by the state, federal, regional budgets and self-employed people 

and the employers of the commercial structures. Continuation of policy of excessive use 

of infrastructure and natural resources. 

Three, continuation of the trends toward resettlements of the citizens with simultaneous degradation of democratic institutions, human rights and freedoms, increase of 

corruption criminalization of a daily life. 

At the same time, Ukraine is going to greatly expand the policy of peninsula blockades trying to create enforcement mechanisms to engage Russia in dialogue on the annexation. 

Furthermore, Ukraine will be working on the creation of mechanisms for establishing 

the communication with the population of Crimea, information-disseminating channels, 

definition of the legal status. Creation of the opportunities to exercise the rights and protect the interests of the citizens in the territory of Ukraine. 

Definition of the status of the self-government bodies of the Crimean Tatar people. 

And Crimeans on the whole support all the activities. 

Thank you very much for your attention. 

Mr. DEYCHAKIWSKY. Thank you very much, Mr. Yaremenko. That also was a very 

comprehensive report. You’ve put the human rights situation in a broader context and discussed many of the consequences of Russia’s illegal occupation. 

And with that, we’ll turn to Andriy Klymenko. His statement will be read by Svitlana 

Krasynska. 

Please. 
12 

Ms. KRASYNSKA. Ladies and gentlemen, statement by Mr. Andriy Klymenko, editor 

in chief, The Black Sea News. 

Dear ladies and gentlemen, please allow me to start with a statement of the absence 

of any significant human rights violations in Crimea prior to the annexation noted by the 

specialized international bodies like Council of Europe or U.S. State Department. 

As well, there were no reports or any statements on the issue done by the Russian 

Federation. 

The existing problems in the field of the human rights were merely related to the 

underdeveloped, transitional, democratic or law enforcement system in Ukraine. 

Some noted occasional situations of the conflicts on the grounds of political affiliation, 

ethnic or religious routes ironically were always created by the pro-Russian activists, Russian neo-Nazis, et cetera. 

Today, the citizens of Ukraine residing in the temporarily occupied territory of the 

Autonomous Republic of Crimea are actually deprived of a number of fundamental rights 

and technology possibility of their protection, particularly by drawing attention of international human rights organizations to their problems. 

Forcing citizens of Ukraine to join Russian citizenship is one of the tools for invasion 

of the occupied territory by Russia. The owners of the Ukrainian passports are deprived 

of the opportunity of education, medical services, immovable property registration, 

obtaining utilities, employment, et cetera. 

For some categories of the citizens of Ukraine, the renunciation of Ukrainian citizenship was delivered as an ultimatum—employees and personnel of certain commercial 

structures, such as Ukrtelecom, et cetera. 

The aggressor is implementing a large-scale program of forcing the residents of 

Crimea to loyalty. Potentially disloyal persons are considered to be, first, journalists, civil 

activists, members of NCA, national competent authority, whose organizations and the 

media were created prior to the occupation. 

Second, Crimean Tatar people, in general, members of the autonomous bodies of the 

Crimean Tatar people, Kurultai, Medzhlis, 230 regional Medzhlis offices, clerical leaders 

of the Muslims, mainly of Crimean Tatars. 

And third, ethnic Ukrainians, or persons of different ethnic origin with Ukrainian 

political identity, including religious leaders and members of religious communities of the 

Ukrainian Orthodox church of Kyiv Patriarchate, Catholics, Greek Catholics, both Ukrainians and immigrants from Poland, Belarus and the Baltic states. 

The Crimean Tatars are put to systematic pressures as the most cohesive community 

that openly expressed its opposition to the occupation of Crimea by the Russian Federation. The number of secret service employees per capita in Crimea is three times higher 

than the similar rate for the rest of Russia. 

Methods of their work are intimidation, total control of telephone calls, Internet 

communication and brainwashing through the media, accusations, separation of certain 

groups of citizens on ethnic or religious grounds. 

Activists or citizens disloyal to Russia are called in for many-hours-long interrogations, ‘‘preventative interrogations,’’ searches are carried out in their homes, raids are carried out in the areas of compact settlement of the Crimean Tatars. 
13 

The troops block certain localities or settlements, the authorities organize deportation 

from Crimea, exclusions, criminal prosecution based on fabricated evidence and false 

accusations, kidnapping, murders. 

The state authorities of Russia have developed a whole arsenal of intimidation 

methods in the republic of Ichkeria and other regions of the North Caucasus. 

Despite the declared trilingualism in Crimea—Russia, Ukrainian, Crimean Tatar— 

invaders not only eradicate the Ukrainian language, but in general any mention of 

Ukraine. There are reported cases of public burning of books, schoolbooks, plates and 

inscriptions in the Ukrainian language in front of students. The Ukrainian schools and 

classes are being closed down. 

Russia makes efforts to establish information ghettos on the Crimean Peninsula in 

which citizens of Ukraine will be deprived of the opportunity to receive information from 

Ukraine. These efforts include a complete cessation of Ukrainian TV and radio channel 

broadcasting, disconnection of the Ukrainian mobile operators and Internet service providers. 

Today, all independent media maintaining pro-Ukrainian position ceased their existence and work in Crimea. They either disbanded or moved from Crimea to other regions 

of Ukraine. 

This particularly has the impact on the online media since the Ukrainian legislation 

did not require their registration, although they are equivalent to the print media under 

the laws of the Russian Federation. 

As of today, the only propaganda media spread in Crimea has an openly pro-Russian 

orientation. 

On May 9, 2014 the Russian Federation introduced the amendment to the criminal 

code which provides for a penalty of imprisonment from three to five years for journalists 

and ordinary citizens for disagreeing with the fact that Crimea belongs to Russia or for 

calls for its return to Ukraine. Public calls to commit actions aimed at violating the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation it’s called. Criminal procedures under the relevant article are initiated both against the citizens of Ukraine and the Ukrainian media 

that operates in the mainland Ukraine and are likely to be used for the persecution at 

the international level. 

The Russian authorities have eliminated the possibility of monitoring the compliance 

with human rights. Independent international human rights organizations in the occupied 

territories are not allowed to implement such monitoring. Instead, the Russian authorities 

are actively working to organize visits of international delegations and media to Crimea 

for propaganda purposes. 

Actions of the occupying power related to implementation of property rights are 

marred by massive violations of rules and practices accepted in the civilized world. There 

is a massive expropriation of all the state property of Ukraine in the territory of Crimea, 

which is called the ‘‘nationalization’’ by the Russian propaganda. 

More than 400 companies have been expropriated and the list is constantly growing. 

This list includes over 200 resorts, all the ports, including the airport, water and energy 

supply facilities, railways, wineries, grain elevators and agricultural enterprises. The 

objects that belong to Ukraine or to the trade unions and other public organizations as 

well as to the higher education institutions and the academy of science, et cetera, have 

also been expropriated. 
14 

As for the private enterprises, their formal expropriation was not carried out. However, there are schemes of raider takeovers and changes in the company management 

board that have been implemented. The ‘‘Crimean self-defense’’ units are used as a component of the forcible takeover in the course of such actions. An information component 

includes distribution of false information through the media on the bankruptcy or financial problems of such companies, on the large debts that they have, and such justifications 

call for their ‘‘nationalization.’’ Such schemes are currently applied selectively to those 

owners who support the idea of territorial integrity of Ukraine and oppose the occupation. 

Because of the time limits, I will gladly provide more comments or examples during 

our Q&A session. 

Thank you. 

Mr. DEYCHAKIWSKY. Thank you, very much, Mr. Klymenko, for your description of the 

truly deplorable human rights situation in Crimea. 

And now we’ll turn to our last speaker, Yuriy Yatsenko, who has a very compelling 

personal story, having been a prisoner of the FSB for a year. 

Go ahead. 

Mr. YATSENKO. Hello. My name is Yuriy Yatsenko. I am Ukrainian citizen who was 

illegally arrested and detained by the Russian Federation for over a year for political reasons. Others who have suffered and continue to suffer the same fate are Nadia Savchenko, 

Oleh Sentsov and others of whom you probably have never heard. 

I was arrested in May 2014 in Kursk region of the Russian Federation, to where I 

traveled together with my friend on a business trip. I was detained by the police during 

a routine document check that the Russian police often practice. 

At the police department, an agent of FSB, Russian Federal Security Service, showed 

to me a photograph of myself taken during Euromaidan protests, which, as I suspect, he 

had found on social media. The agent demanded that me and my friend provide false testimony about being recruited by the head of the SBU security service of Ukraine to commit 

acts of terrorism in Russia. At the time, I was just an ordinary student from western 

Ukraine and I simply couldn’t believe that such absurd accusations were being made 

against me. 

After we both refused to incriminate ourselves, they began beating us at regular 

intervals. We were also offered an option of going on Russian TV channels and giving a 

predetermined speech about being sent to Russia from Ukraine to commit subversive acts, 

but instead turning to the FSB for protection to save us from the Ukrainian authorities 

and their prosecution. 

Once again, we refused to give false testimony, so the harassment continued, turning 

into both physical and psychological violence. At first, the abuse and the beatings were 

constant. I remember one particularly brutal instance. Some special forces soldiers 

wearing masks put a bag over my head, took me into the woods and tortured me. They 

hanged me by handcuffs for hours, beat me in the head, groin and other parts of the body, 

as well as strangled me. They also simulated an execution, firing a gun next to my head. 

The next morning, which was two weeks since my arrest, I used a shaving blade to 

cut my abdomen and the veins on my arms to stop this abuse. Only then I was taken 

to the hospital from where I finally managed to inform my family about my whereabouts. 
15 

In the hospital, as a way of further punishing me for the protest, my wounds were 

sewn up without anesthesia. They didn’t repair my veins, but only the skin on my arms, 

so there was swelling and pain, so I couldn’t use my left arm for three months. 

Despite the court decision about our deportation, both my friend and I were illegally 

kept at a special detention center for illegal immigrants, for three months. During this 

period, the beatings and the torture was constant. Only three months later my friend was 

released and taken to the Ukrainian border, while I was suddenly charged with the crime 

of possessing explosives. 

Despite the absurdity of these accusations and absence of any evidence, the court 

found me guilty. At first, I was sentenced to two years of imprisonment, but shortly afterwards an appeal court reduced the sentence to nine months. Since by that time I had 

already spent a year in detention, I was released. 

Through this year, in addition to all other abuse I have mentioned, I had been regularly placed into the punishment cells and solitary confinement. I spent three months with 

a mentally ill person in one cell. I was told I had AIDS to scare me. 

The fact I am free now is a testament to the efforts of the publicity campaigns, international pressure and coordinated work of human rights advocates and lawyers. 

As of today, at least 13 Ukrainians are detained illegally somewhere in the Russian 

Federation, and at least eight such prisoners are being held in occupied Crimea, both 

Ukrainians and Crimean Tatars. The criminal cases against them are fabricated. 

Most of them have been brutally tortured. Some of them have been deprived for over 

a year of their right to meet with an attorney or Ukrainian consul. These are people of 

various ages, professional backgrounds and political views, but they share one thing: 

Their lives have become an instrument of the Russian state-sponsored propaganda that 

has created the image of Ukraine as a mortal enemy of Russia. 

The Kremlin officials constantly look for the means and the reasons to justify their 

hybrid war against Ukraine. That is why innocent Ukrainian citizens are proclaimed to 

be terrorists, spies and fascists. 

It is a miracle that I managed to escape imprisonment and can tell you my story 

personally. I prayed for this all the time in prison. 

Mr. PECHENYAK. OK. And he will say a few more words and I will translate for him, 

interpret. 

Mr. YATSENKO. [Through interpreter.] So I just want to impress upon you that while 

we’re sitting here talking about all of this, there’s 13 people, which I’ve mentioned, sitting 

in some decrepit Russian cell, waiting for their continuing punishment and not able to 

see anybody. 

Ukraine, just to be part of the democratic freedom-cratic world, has paid the price 

of thousands of lives and continues to pay that price. I think we deserve, that Ukraine 

deserves the democratic world extends the hand of help. 

Our campaign, that has been in the Euromaidan SOS and Let My People Go campaign, which he has became an advocate for this campaign, they developed a set of principles or the most effective things that could be done to address and to help these people 

that are still imprisoned. This includes organizing open hearings in the European Parliament and other parliaments of the free and Western democracies. It also includes providing information to the media and publicizing these cases of the people and their plight 

and to inform the world about sufferings. 
16 

And also, it includes identifying and including sanctions that include the people who 

participated in the torture and the prosecution into the sanctions, meaning adding, for 

example, adding these people, their names, specific names of the people who were 

complicit in these acts to the, for example, the Magnitsky list and other lists that may 

exist. 

Now, from my experience, I think it’s extremely important because if you don’t 

punish these evil acts they will spread, they will continue to spread and there will be 

more of them. 

Thank you for your attention. [Applause.] 

Mr. DEYCHAKIWSKY. Thank you very much, Yuriy. We’re glad you survived your horrible ordeal and that you’re here to bear witness and to also speak out on behalf of others 

who have been unjustly imprisoned and suffering human rights abuses. 

I do want to mention that both in the Senate and the House—actually these were 

led by our commissioners, Senator Ben Cardin and Senator Roger Wicker in the Senate— 

resolutions did pass earlier this year calling for the release of Nadia Savchenko and 

others. And also, a House resolution passed several months ago that included language 

along the lines of what you spoke. 

That’s a first step. It’s not calling for the addition of names to the Magnitsky list, 

but it’s a step. And actually this amendment was included by our Chairman, Chris Smith, 

and I have a copy of the resolution here. The amendment ‘‘calls upon the United States 

to impose targeted sanctions against persons responsible for the kidnapping, arrest and 

imprisonment of Nadia Savchenko and other illegally detained persons.’’ 

So at least there’s something on the record in the U.S. Congress on that. But it is 

a process. 

What I’m going to do before opening the floor to questions and answers is ask 

Yaroslav Brisiuck, who’s the what we call DCM, Deputy Chief of Mission, of Ukraine’s 

embassy to the U.S. and, I believe for the next few minutes at least, the Charge ́ d’Affaires 

because Ambassador Chaly is still on his way back from Kyiv where he had gone to 

accompany Vice President Biden. 

So Yaroslav, if you want to come up to the podium and make a few comments, 

please? 

Mr. BRISIUCK. I would like to thank the Helsinki Commission for holding today’s 

briefing, and the panelists for once again bringing the important message of Crimea and 

the ongoing Russia aggression, to Washington. 

There’s nothing more important to Ukraine, to the government, to civil society, the 

NGOs, to all citizens of Ukraine than stopping Russian aggression, the continued occupation of Crimea and egregious human rights abuses. 

We must not allow this topic to fall off the radar and be out-shadowed by other crises 

of today, such as Iran, Syria or Ebola or anything else, because the gravity of what’s happening in Ukraine has really global magnitude. 

As Mr. Yaremenko mentioned, this is the first time since World War II when an 

aggressor tries to redraw Europe’s borders by force. So things like that must not be happening today. And things like what happened to Mr. Yatsenko and are happening to 

others must not be happening in today’s world. 

And we’re grateful for the tremendous support and bipartisan support here in Washington, in Congress, that the Ukrainian Freedom Support Act passed last year, the 
17 

Crimea-specific resolutions both in the Senate and in the House. There’s executive orders 

imposing sanctions, Crimea-related sanctions, as well as numerous statements, including 

by Vice President Biden at the Rada just a couple of days ago. 

Unfortunately, the problem is that these sanctions have not been strong enough to 

make Russia, make Putin change his course. And as the war in Ukraine and Crimea is 

less, appears less on the front pages of newspapers, there’s danger that those sanctions 

might be rolled back. 

And our strong position is that these sanctions must remain in force, they must be 

ratcheted up to actually force the Kremlin to end its aggression and illegal occupation of 

Crimea. 

And what Congress could do in sending yet another powerful signal is to pass a law 

which would establish by law that it is the policy of the United States that it will never 

recognize the illegal annexation of Crimea. 

And I would like to ask the panelists to elaborate what Mr. Yatsenko mentioned 

when he talked about what the West should do to help end the occupation of Crimea, if 

you could please share your thoughts on this. 

And thank you very much again. 

Ms. BILYCH. I think I can answer. Well, again, we have 61 recommendations. Some 

of us were born and raised in Ukraine and were fortunate enough to get an excellent education in the West in the best educational institutions in the United States. We do understand how Ukraine works and operates and maybe there is a reason why we live here 

and work on those issues. 

Those recommendations are very practical and we believe they are aimed at building 

a truly stable Ukraine, democratic and prosperous Ukraine. 

For example, Ukrainian judicial system is young and often inefficient. Ukraine is a 

young democracy. It’s not able to handle all those human rights violations. So there is 

a huge need in establishing an independent international tribunal in adjudicating the 

abuses, human rights abuses that are happening in Crimea and that led to what had happened in Crimea. 

The next step probably would be to adjudicate those human rights violations that 

happened at Maidan and those that are happening in the eastern part of Ukraine due 

to Russian occupation. 

That is why we advocate for Ukrainian laws being used in that tribunal and international judges and experts being the judges. We informally talked with different judges 

and they don’t feel comfortable with adjudicating their peers, with people they went to 

school or their kids going to school. It’s a young democracy, it works, and they would like 

to learn. And I think, and we think it would be an appropriate solution. 

And also, that could tap into other issues and have them to deal with other concerns 

such as corruption and other things that they are dealing with. 

To build a database, to start a database, for example, it would send a very strong 

message. It may seem like it’s nothing, but it is something for a Ukrainian citizen who 

lives in Crimea, if she can send a copy of my deed to the property virtually to the database and use the Internet and store it and know that when everything is sorted out she 

can still use and exercise her right—it is a powerful message. 
18 

And we are watching. We are watching what you are doing. Maybe we’re not ready 

to deal with everything and we’re trying to develop the methods. But we are watching 

and we are collecting the data. We are protecting our citizens. 

And that’s where the other states, as the United States come in, they can provide 

their expertise. They have to, of course, work and be wholly engaged, but the expertise 

should be there. 

And of course, to restore the communication. I mean, it’s incomprehensible that 

Ukrainian citizens cannot communicate, they have to use super-expensive means to 

communicate with their family in the mainland, that they cannot exercise their right to 

true information. 

There was an experiment held on them by a foreign country. They’re being brainwashed by the Russian Federation’s propaganda. This is just incomprehensible. And that’s 

why there will be consequences when it continues. And it’s going to cost us more and more 

in the future to deal with those issues. 

And other things that can be done are, for example, Ukraine is a signatory to all 

World Health Organization treaties. The people who are drug addicts, they could gracefully release their dependency on drugs by using methadone and other means. Unfortunately, after Russian occupation happened, some of them committed suicide, so many of 

them died, we do not know what happened to all 806 individuals. Those are so underprivileged and under-served people, they just disappeared, vanished. Some of them left for 

Russian Federation where they have to go cold turkey, and some of them ran to Ukraine, 

where they can get support. 

Russia has to, as occupying power, has to renew those, has to implement Ukrainian 

laws and has to restore those programs. Little things like that, they seem little, but they 

are very important and they influence each and every individual. 

And just we have to remember, returning Ukrainian sovereignty, we have to return 

Ukrainian citizens back. So it has to come in totality of how—we have to look in totality 

of those factors. 

Thank you. 

Mr. DEYCHAKIWSKY. OK, thanks. 

Mr. KLYMENKO. [Through interpreter.] We have to come from the fact that none of 

the words, none of the monetary, none of the appealing to the Russian—from the international community are really working in the Russian Federation. 

Secondly, no independent monitoring of human rights abuses on the territory of 

Crimea exists or can exist under today’s circumstances. That’s why we only have one 

recourse, which is third, is the increase of the sanctions in order to create, in order to 

impose as big a price as possible for these actions. 

So at the same time, these sanctions also can work as an ultimatum for the release 

of political prisoners and for desisting the persecution of other citizens. 

I would like to give an example, that the energy blockade that was instituted by the 

civil society in Ukraine in 20 days alone brought damage to the Russian economy consisting of 10 billion rubles, which roughly is one-seventh of a billion dollars. 

And last, in general, during the time of the occupation, the money that went into the 

budget of Crimea from the Russian Federation increased between 70 to 80 percent. In 

other words, sanctions work. 
19 

Mr. DEYCHAKIWSKY. Anybody else? 

Mr. YATSENKO. So our chairman today mentioned about the possibility that the law 

may be adopted with regard to sanctioning people who are involved in these acts of torture. I would like to request that the people who were involved in my case and other cases 

of other people that are still imprisoned be added to the list, that sanctions apply to the 

Magnitsky list or other lists. So that’s my appeal to be included in that law. 

And I request, I appeal that that law is adopted. 

Mr. DEYCHAKIWSKY. OK, thanks. We’ll do our best. 

Bohdan Yaremenko wanted to add something very quickly before we move on. 

Mr. YAREMENKO. I’ll try to be as brief as possible. I just would like to remind what 

I just said in my presentation. The Crimean Peninsula, occupation of Crimea is not the 

primary issue when we’re talking about the ways of resolving the situation. We must 

remember that there are other cases in the region, Donbas, Transnistria, Abkhazia, 

Ossetia. And Russia is standing behind all of them. 

So it is not the case of Crimea alone. It is the case of the international community 

finding the way to address the country, the U.N. members, the U.N. security members, 

the countries which own the nuclear arsenals and to make it cooperating with the rest 

of the world and to make it to respect international law, to respect the international order. 

On the level of practical diplomacy, besides the things mentioned by Andriy, I would 

like to add there are existing sanctions. You know that right now we have two packages 

of sanctions against Russian Federation. One package was introduced after the annexation of occupation of Crimea, another because of the war in the eastern Ukraine. 

So I have no doubts that they should be combined and united within one package. 

Otherwise, the Russian Federation will continue to think that as long as they would 

create some ceasefire situation in eastern Ukraine, it would mean that most of the sanctions would be lifted. 

And the package of the sanctions that was introduced because of the Ukrainian 

occupation is nothing else but symbolic. So it’s the prohibition for entry to European 

Union and United States for like 300 Crimeans, Putin can live with this. And the restrictions on the operation in the Western markets for 20, 30 Crimean-based companies, so 

it’s nothing to stop Russia. So those two packages should be united. 

Because the most important part of the sanctions are those that are directed on the 

sectoral, on the different sectors of Russian economy, so the rest of the world should send. 

Again, I would like to clarify that, of course, the regaining of Crimea is the competence and responsibility and duty of Ukrainian nation. But to assist us, the rest of the 

world could send the message to the Russian Federation that the sanctions will stay in 

place as long as you are keeping your troops in eastern Ukraine and in Crimea and quite 

possibly in Transnistria, in Ossetia and in Abkhazia. 

There is no way to resolve this situation or those situations one by one. We should 

find the common approach to all of them. Thank you. 

Mr. DEYCHAKIWSKY. OK, thank you. 

We’re going to open up the floor to questions. And what I’d ask you to do, you may 

want to line up, speak at the podium, and please use the mic there because this is being 

transcribed. And also, keep in mind, please, if you could identify yourself. 
20 

And while you’re lining up, I’m going to give the opportunity to my colleague Jonas 

Wechsler to ask the first question—or the second question, I should say. 

Mr. WECHSLER. Thank you, Orest. 

My question relates to the issue of forced citizenship upon the Crimea residents. It’s 

broad-based and I’m sure that a number of you could speak to it, including DCM Brisiuck. 

But to get to it, I’d like to know, Crimean residents who’ve been refused citizenship, 

how are they currently being treated? I know you spoke to some of the property issues, 

but in terms of their freedom to come and go and otherwise conduct economic and social 

activities. 

And then furthermore, it has been noted that a number of Crimean residents at the 

time were at least initially supportive of the Russian activities with thoughts that they’d 

see some economic and other improvement. 

As we’ve heard up here, the situation has only deteriorated all around in Crimea. 

And I’m sure now a number of these folks are experiencing buyer’s regret. And I’m 

interested to know, in terms of Ukraine’s own ability to reach out to these residents, does 

Ukraine allow these Crimeans to reclaim their citizenship whether or not they voluntarily 

accepted Russian passports, or accept them should they later choose to move to the Crimean mainland? 

Mr. KLYMENKO. [Through interpreter.] About citizenship, on March 18, 2014 Putin 

declared us all citizens of Russia. We didn’t ask him for it. Ukraine’s minister of justice, 

declared that it does not fit any legal frameworks. Ukraine told its citizens in Crimea that 

it considers them citizens of Ukraine. 

Along with that, living in Crimea without Russian passport is impossible. You will 

not be given a job, you will not be admitted to a hospital, your children will not be able 

to go to school and you will not be able to have your car registered or get any kinds of 

documents. 

The quantity of people who could register as residents, but not citizens, who did not 

want to take Russian passports were limited to 5,000 people from the beginning. 

When you go to the government, when you get a government job, which is police and 

prosecutors office and other government institutions, it is required to give up your 

Ukrainian citizenship and take the Russian passport. 

Unofficially, but yet rather assertively, the workers of the ministry of education are 

also requested to do the same. 

Majority of the residents of Crimea retained their Ukrainian passports. The decision 

of the civilized world to not give visas to those Crimean residents with Russian passports 

had a very strong impact. In Crimea, a very widespread expression for those who hold 

Russian passports, to call it Auschwitz which was the term in Nazi Germany, used in 

Nazi Germany. 

As to what to do to help, according to international law and the Ukrainian law on 

occupied territories, all responsibility for all spheres of life of citizens who reside in 

Crimea reside with the country occupant. 

Ukraine can help its citizens only on the mainland Ukraine, not on the occupied territory. This help consists of the following, although it also has its own problem. First of 

all, the high school graduates can be accepted in universities in Ukraine. And also, citizens who want to receive birth certificates for their newly born children can also do that 

on the mainland Ukraine. 
21 

Those who left Crimea for the mainland Ukraine and those who cannot find a job, 

they, for a short period of six months, can receive unemployment benefits. 

We cannot talk about any kind of help out of Ukraine on the territory of the occupied 

Crimea, it’s just completely impossible. Even for possessing a little Ukrainian flag, you 

can be detained by the police. 

And lastly, we, all the declared, new citizens of Russia now are prone to having 

criminal charges against us on the territory of Crimea. 

On March 6th of this year, I presented a report, together with the Atlantic Council, 

on the situation on human rights in Crimea. On March 10, FSB opened a criminal case 

against me for an attempt to disturb the territorial integrity of Russia. They opened the 

case precisely for the reason that they consider me a citizen of Russia. 

Related to this case, about 10 people were questioned. There were multiple searches 

in their homes and offices. And this case is still open and continues. 

In other words, the problem of citizenship is very wide and very complex and it calls 

for professionals, the legal professionals to take charge of addressing it. 

So the main help that we can provide to the Crimeans, except the Crimean Tatars, 

is for those who want and can move to the mainland Ukraine, so we provide everything 

they need for that to happen in place. 

The children who were educated in Ukraine will now be serving in the Russian military, and so on. 

Mr. DEYCHAKIWSKY. All right, thank you. 

Now we’ll take questions from the floor. If you could please come up to the podium 

on your right, my left. And yes, identify yourself. 

QUESTIONER. I’m Adrian Karmazyn with the U.S.-Ukraine Foundation. And I was 

wondering if you could talk a little bit more about the life of refugees from Crimea, various communities of Crimeans throughout Ukraine. There’s the Crimean Tatar community, there are other communities. Where do they live? Where do they work? How do they 

participate in Ukrainian life? 

Ms. BILYCH. Actually, I would like to address this. I know we have better-equipped 

people from Ukraine to do this. But this year I went to Ukraine twice and I’ve met many 

Crimeans and I’ve made friends with many Crimeans. 

And one of those Crimeans, many of them, they live a very fulfilling political life and 

civil society life. And some of them they’re just inspiring. For example, I met this young 

lady. She continues her studies. She had to escape the persecution. And she’s been very 

instrumental in even providing us with some materials. And she’s just amazing and she’s 

an inspiration. She was a quiet spirit and that’s what I saw in many other Crimeans, 

amazing, inspiring people and true heroes. 

And when we went to Ukraine, we had this amazing opportunity to meet more 

Crimeans at the Maidan of Foreign Affairs, and it was just an amazing meeting. They 

were so inspiring and so giving us more strength and inspiration to go and help to explain 

what’s going on there and to provide them the forum to do that. 

And for many of them, of course, it’s very hard. But those people who I in particular 

met, they just—they were a true inspiration. 

And that’s how we met Mr. Klymenko and that’s how we developed a friendship and 

a true working experience. Thank you. 
22 

Mr. DEYCHAKIWSKY. Anyone else? OK. 

Mr. KLYMENKO. [Through interpreter.] First of all, I want to emphasize that we do 

not call ourselves refugees. The law calls us temporarily displaced persons. And although 

this may be incorrect, but we call ourselves political immigrants, Crimean political 

immigrants. And this is exactly so. 

Those people who left Crimea were those who understood that they could not continue their either professional or civic activities or simply those people, Ukrainian 

patriots, who simply could not pretend, you know, hold themselves back and pretend like 

nothing is going on. 

I will give you an example of one of our colleagues and a person from Yalta where 

I’m from and who is now our colleague at the Maidan of Foreign Affairs. 

So imagine a dean of law schools comes from a brief vacation and comes back to the 

building, seeing portraits of Putin everywhere. He was an Afghan veteran, he’s 50 years 

old. He’s a very strong character. 

Without hesitation, he gives an order, in 10 minutes I don’t want to see this, I want 

to see pictures of flowers from the botanical garden. 

As soon as I found out about that, I called him immediately and told him you have 

to leave Crimea now because very shortly you will be found in the basement of FSB. 

There are about 40,000 to 50,000 such individuals in different parts of Ukraine. 

And perhaps you know that we also have about a million refugees from the Donbas. 

Among them, there are also Ukrainian patriots. But the majority of people were simply 

leaving to avoid the bombing. And those people line up at the government agency offices 

to receive benefits and wait and demand help. 

Those Ukrainian patriots from Crimea and Donbas, as a rule, understand that 

Ukraine is undergoing very hard times right now. And they are trying not to only help 

themselves, but also to do something to improve the situation in Ukraine. 

And at the same time, and this is my concluding thought, that we all of a sudden 

just have become poor. I’ve lost my home and I’ve lost all my property in Crimea. And 

at my age I am now a homeless person. And you know, the only way for me to deal with 

this is just to try to forget it. 

There is an organization that’s been recently created of civic organizations supporting 

Crimea and resettled. There have been two conferences and it unites over 2,500 organizations from different parts of Ukraine. 

Mr. DEYCHAKIWSKY. Thank you, and for also describing yet another example of the 

human impact of Russia’s aggression. 

I think we have time for one or two more questions if anybody wants to please come 

up to the podium again and identify yourself. 

QUESTIONER. Alex Yanevskyy, Voice of America, Ukrainian Service. I’d like to go back 

to violation of the human rights in occupied Crimea. 

You’ve been saying that Russia does not comply with international law, and you said, 

all of you, pretty much said that Russian Federation has to do so. But recently, Russia’s 

Duma adopted to law where it says that the domestic law overrules an international law. 

What are you going to do about that? Thank you. 

Mr. YAREMENKO. Well, basically, I already answered this question. So it’s not about 

the Crimean law and it’s not about Donbas law and it’s not about Transnistria law. It’s 
23 

about the country which is purposely violating international law and our ability as an 

international community to find an answer on this dilemma. 

There is no answer so far. So it looks like that for the Russian Federation the fact 

that it is in possession of nuclear weapons has a good excuse to do whatever it wants. 

That’s it. 

And so far, all of us—and of course, the countries like Ukraine, like Moldova, like 

Georgia, they’re looking upon the United States as the leader of the democratic world to 

assist us to find the answers on those questions. 

They are very tough and the harsh reality is that we don’t know how to address this 

issue. 

Ms. BILYCH. I mean, obviously, the question is also for political experts. And it’s very 

complex. But I think at home here we have to ask ourselves and look very deep into all 

those issues and think, of course we have to talk to Russian Federation. But we have to 

ask ourselves, can you partner with Russia on other tasks? Is this the partner who can 

just go and dismantle the international law and order in one day, just by someone’s desire 

and ambition? 

We have to be very careful and not to—and with our terminology, with our definitions, and to think. Because what’s happening in eastern Ukraine, obviously we’re talking 

about Crimea today, but I think our colleagues are very correct about the complexity of 

the issues. 

On Wednesday at the U.N., we heard Georgia testifying with Lithuania and other 

countries that they witnessed firsthand what’s going on in Ukraine. They can testify that 

it’s pretty much the same what they went through, about Moldova’s similar experience 

we heard a year ago during our first report presentation. 

So it’s very complex. Now, as we look for other solutions in the Middle East, can you 

really partner with a country that exports terrorism and doesn’t believe in human rights, 

on other tasks? 

I was raised in Ukraine, and Ukrainian author Ivan Franko wrote a very famous 

fairy tale about the sneaky fox who stole a chicken. And then manipulated other animals 

to a point—that he appointed himself a presiding judge over his own case. 

So I think there is so much irony in all of this. And we have to ask, we have to look 

into ourselves and look into our values. 

That’s why I specifically brought those quotes and looked into those quotes and 

thought that’s what I believe. That’s why I do believe that Ukrainians at Maidan stood 

for something very similar to what we believe here in the United States and in other 

developed countries. They may still have to figure it out, have to deal with all this that 

they have on their plate, but values-wise, I do believe, and human rights-wise, they stand 

for the same rights we stand for here in the US. 

And it’s usually the people of the Russian Federation have to figure out what their 

value system is. And it might be a much longer process. I mean, we have to also work 

with them, but we cannot just be very arrogant and ignorant of those questions and then 

just to try, get over and wake up and not to deal with those questions. Thank you. 

Mr. KLYMENKO. [Through interpreter.] [Off mic]——please say a few words, too. 

So we need to change a lot of different formats. We need to change the format of the 

U.N. We need to change the format of NATO, the Articles 5 and 6 of the Atlantic agreement. 
24 

And since Ivanna commented that the legal system has practically been destroyed 

with these actions by the Russian Federation, we need to change now and create new 

system. And the sooner the civilized world understands that that’s what needs to happen 

and starts acting upon it, the sooner there will be real changes. 

Mr. DEYCHAKIWSKY. Thank you. 

Oh, OK, one more question, and that’s it. We need to wrap it up, unfortunately. 

QUESTIONER. I just have a very quick question. I first of all want to thank Mr. 

Yatsenko for talking about his case in public today. I know it must have been a difficult 

conversation, difficult thing to talk about. 

Since we know that the situation in Crimea right now has deteriorated since the 

blockade and the blackout, I was just curious, since we don’t have good sources of information about what’s really happening on the ground in Crimea, if some of you could just 

briefly comment. I’m sure you have professional, personal and other friendship networks 

in Crimea. What is the public sentiment there? Because I don’t think we can rely on any 

sort of polling that’s coming out of Crimea these days. 

What is the perception of people now towards their Russian occupiers, the Russian 

authorities? Has it changed as a result of recent events specifically? Thank you. 

Mr. YAREMENKO. [Through interpreter.] Thank you. So in Crimea, the population 

could be divided into three equal factions. So one-third are those who wanted Putin and 

who wanted to die in Russia. 

And another third of the population are just what I would call regular consumers. 

They just don’t really care who’s in charge, Germans, communists, fascists, so long as I 

have food on the table I’m OK. 

And finally, another third of the population are the conscious, so to speak, citizens 

of Ukraine. And so half of them, the 300,000, consists of Crimean Tatars and the other 

300,000 consists of many different ethnicities, Russians, Ukrainians, Greeks and others. 

We call all of them political Ukrainians. 

And this one-third of the population now, for longer than a year, have been asking 

for this blockade. 

And I personally received thousands of letters appealing, do something, stop feeding 

the occupant. So in other words, the political Ukrainians in Crimea perceived this 

blockade as something that Ukraine is beginning to do for the de-occupation of Crimea. 

The mood of the first one-third of the population, the Putin supporters, we’re not 

interested in their mood. 

And with regard to the second one-third, the consumer population, their view of the 

situation is shaped exclusively by Russian TV, the ‘‘Russia Today’’ channel, which is a 

propaganda channel. 

So in this way, the political Ukrainian population says we will take this kind of pain 

in order to, you know, cooperate in the return of Crimea. But of course, the rest of the 

population are lamenting in various ways and praying for Putin. 

Thank you. 

Mr. DEYCHAKIWSKY. OK, thank you very much. 

I think with that I want to thank the panelists for their very interesting, informative, 

insightful presentations and responses to questions. You provide a lot of food for thought 

and concrete suggestions. So thank you very much. 
25 

And I want to thank the audience for your interest and wish everybody a happy 

weekend, enjoy your weekend. 

Oh, I see Stacy here, our communications director—one more thing to add, the transcript will be up on our website probably by Tuesday, because it’s usually 48 hours, 2 

business days, on our website. And our website is www.csce.gov. 

OK. And with that, the briefing’s adjourned. Thank you. [Applause.] 

[Whereupon, at 3:50 p.m., the briefing ended.] 

(27) 

A P P E N D I X 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF IVANNA BILYCH

It is a great privilege and honor to speak at this venue today. 

I am deeply grateful to Helsinki Commission, its leadership and our moderator Orest 

Deychakiwsky for hosting this very important round table. Even as a ten-year-old child 

growing up in Soviet Ukraine, I always knew of the Helsinki Commission. Back then I 

could not possibly know what exactly it did, but I knew it stood for something bigger that 

I could comprehend and imagine. I was right!—it stands for democracy, human rights, 

rule of law and simply morally the right thing. 

Most of you know the great importance of the topic I am going to speak with you 

about, but for those for whom it may seem a bit remote let me remind you the words of 

one of the greatest men, William Allen White, who said that ‘‘Wherever a free man is in 

chains we are threatened also, whoever is fighting for liberty is defending America.’’ 

Another great man and our great President Franklin Roosevelt once said that 

‘‘Freedom means the supremacy of human rights everywhere. Our support goes to those 

who struggle to gain those rights and keep them. Our strength is our unity of purpose. 

To that high concept there can be no end save victory.’’ 

Ladies and Gentlemen, I would like to thank you all for coming today to discuss our 

latest report, ‘‘The Human Rights on Occupied Territory: Case of Crimea.’’ 

Thank you to the esteemed coauthors for their outstanding work and dedication to 

human rights, international law and order, global peace and security. I would like to 

extend my sincere and deepest gratitude to a very special woman, professor Mary Holland, who supervised the project. Thank you to David Glasgow, Assistant Director of the 

Public Interest Law Center for his guidance and support of this pro bono project. I would 

like to thank Matthew Mosner and Ethan Burger for their time and valuable comments 

to the early drafts. 

Special thank you to all the editors designers, volunteers, experts who gave us their 

feedback on the second edition. 

And thank you to a wonderful team from VOLYA Institute for their superb work and 

dedication to the second edition of this report and making it a reality! 

Thank you to our Razom Partners for their support and understanding of the importance of the issues presented today. 

A year ago at a different venue, in the United Nations, we gathered to discuss the 

legal dimensions of Russian actions in Ukraine, the occupation of Crimea and its illegal 

attempts to annex Ukrainian territory. To this day, the Russian Federation continues to 

occupy sovereign Ukrainian territory in Crimea and has violated international law by illegally seizing the Ukrainian peninsula. We still have to sort out all the implications and 

grave consequences of the illegal actions of the Russian Federation in Ukraine and find 

a solution to restore Ukrainian sovereign territory for people of Ukraine and for us as the 

international community individually and together. 
28 

What is very clear, however, is that practice of human rights in occupied Crimea is 

dire and continues to deteriorate. Every day Ukrainian citizens in occupied Crimea face 

unprecedented oppression and limitations of their rights. Serious and consistent violations 

of the civil, political, social, economic and cultural rights of Crimeans have been welldocumented by a variety of organizations including the United Nations, Human Rights 

Watch, international media outlets, reports from the undercover journalists within Crimea 

and various local organizations over the previous year. The illegitimate self-proclaimed 

Crimean and Russian authorities target those ethnic, religious, and national groups that 

oppose the occupation. Indigenous Crimean Tatars are frequently suspected of this sort 

of broadly defined ‘‘anti-Russian activity.’’ 

To help address this situation, to build on those findings and create a pragmatic 

guide for people both within Crimea and outside of the peninsula to understand the legal 

framework of the situation and in attempt to sort out the legal chaos that has been created by the illegal actions of the Russian Federation in Ukraine, an international team 

of lawyers based at New York University School of Law prepared this report as a pro bono 

service. 

The purpose of the report is to assist individuals in Crimea, Ukraine, as well as 

around the world, working in academia, governments, international organizations, nongovernmental organizations, businesses, and media to understand the nature of the 

human rights violations in the occupied territory, so that they are better equipped to 

defend and protect the internationally recognized expression of human rights. 

The report or WHITE PAPER includes four parts and the Manual. 

We analyzed the human rights situation in occupied Crimea, placing it within the 

context of: 

• applicable international standards, conventions and treaties; 

• authorities and entities responsible for protecting and providing human rights; 

• specific abuses of human rights by the self-proclaimed Crimean and Russian 

authorities; 

• legal precedents that apply to the occupied territory, and its legal regime. 

The authors examined the historical and legal context, defined the primary rights 

that are being violated, give recommendations on what steps people in Crimea can take 

and outline actions for organizations. 

In Part I we brought together several related threads to create the context for the 

current situation, covering: 

• recent history, from Crimea’s transfer in 1954 to the so-called March 16, 2014 referendum to unify with the Russian Federation; 

• the Russian Federation’s use of force to occupy Crimea in 2014; 

• post-World War II international agreements and treaties on states’ sovereignty and 

territorial integrity. 

In Part II we outlined and examined 21 distinct human rights that are provided for 

by international and domestic laws. We analyze each right individually with respect to 

international, Ukrainian and Russian law. The report focuses on: 

• civil and political rights: right to life, freedom from torture or any other inhuman 

treatment, access to justice, right to nationality, right to privacy and family rights, 

liberty and security of a person, freedom of thought, freedom of speech, freedom 
29 

of assembly, right to truth, right to participate in state governance, right to 

equality before the law and freedom from discrimination; limitations of these 

human rights and freedoms are prohibited unless prescribed by law; 

• social, economic and cultural rights: right to own property, right to social security, 

right to an adequate standard of living, right to speak one’s own language and 

maintain one’s own cultural tradition, right to education, and right to health care. 

In Part III we discussed and suggested remedies for individuals whose human rights 

have been violated, suppressed, encroached or otherwise denied. The general and specific 

remedies include the use of international, Ukrainian and Russian Federation legal 

instruments. 

We concluded that Russian Federation’s illegal occupation and attempted annexation 

of Crimea has created a continuous stream of human rights violations encroaching on or 

even prohibiting basic individual human rights and freedoms. The Russian Federation 

fails to comply with its obligations as an occupying power, and the Ukrainian government 

is not paying enough attention to the human rights issues in Crimea. 

Remedies applying international law are not always available to victims with limited 

resources due to complex procedures, limited jurisdiction, and resulting lengthy proceedings. Our findings demonstrate the insufficiency of existing remedies for human 

rights violations and mechanisms of the entire international system of human rights 

protection with respect to Crimeans. The following recommendations are for those entities 

that can help ensure human rights enforcement and protection in Crimea: 

1. The Ukrainian Government 

2. The self-proclaimed Crimean and Russian Federation’s authorities 

3. The international community 

4. NGOs, civil society and advocates on the ground 

Existing national and international remedies are ineffective against such massive 

human rights violations as are occurring in Crimea. Self-proclaimed Russian Federation’s 

authorities deny responsibility, and the Ukrainian government claims the lack of ability 

and resources to respond properly. 

For this reason, the concerted efforts of governments and institutions worldwide are 

critical. Human rights organizations have reported extensively on human rights violations 

in Crimea and recommended ways to address issues affecting human rights in occupied 

Crimea. We concur with their recommendations, and provide additional recommendations. 

In addition to the recommendations cited in the report published April 15, 2014 

‘‘Ukrainian Crisis: Its Legal Dimensions,’’ further findings have led us to call on the 

Ukrainian, self-proclaimed Crimean and Russian authorities, civil society and the international community, to implement the following recommendations. 

We expect our recommendations to Ukraine, Self Proclaimed Crimean and Russian 

authorities, international community and civil society and activists will prompt a solution, 

which will honor the Ukrainian people human rights desire and support for unitary, sovereign country, Ukraine’s territorial integrity and democracy. 

Among the key recommendations: we recommend that Ukraine continue to work 

closely with the UN and the international community to ensure Russia’s troop withdrawal 

from Crimea and from the Eastern Ukrainian border. 
30 

We ‘‘invented’’ and proposed trifold logic to our recommendations. We ask the 

addressees of our recommendations to work on these tasks according to their respective 

roles, responsibilities, goals, and objectives. The Ukrainian government is advised to 

implement the recommended measures; the international community is encouraged to 

assist and monitor; and civil society—to demand implementation of the measures, and 

subsequently monitor their implementation. The Self-proclaimed Crimean and Russian 

authorities should comply with international law. 

• Creation of Special International Tribunal 

• Creation of special database 

• Creation of ad hoc markets 

• Securement of free communication and access to true information 

• Securement of ongoing monitoring of human rights situation 

A crucial part of this report is a Human Rights Protection Guide [‘‘the Manual’’]. The 

Manual is designed to help residents of Crimea take steps to improve their current situation directly. We concluded that people in Crimea are economically deprived and legally 

underserved, often knowing little about their rights and being unable to demand their 

application. Therefore, the aim of the Manual is to provide Crimeans of all ethnic and 

religious backgrounds with access to justice by explaining their fundamental rights. The 

Manual lists a number of fundamental rights that apply to Crimea, according to international human rights treaties, as well as pursuant to the articles of the Constitutions 

of Ukraine and the Russian Federation. Finally, the Manual includes a directory of 

Ukrainian and international human rights protection organizations and advocacy groups, 

so that Crimeans know where to report violations and seek advice or explanation. 

To conclude I would like to remind a quote from John Prendergast, a great human 

rights activist, who said that ‘‘The biggest road block to action on genocide and other 

human rights crimes is ignorance. Most people just don’t know that such things are happening, and often, if they have a vague idea they are happening, there is a feeling that 

there is nothing that can be done to stop these crimes.’’ 

Franklin Roosevelt also said that ‘‘We must remember that any oppression, any injustice, any hatred, is a wedge designed to attack our civilization.’’ 

Russia’s actions are striking at the heart of international law and order that has 

helped to prevent war since the World War II, and if we allow ourselves to let it be, we 

run into much bigger risks. 

I encourage you today, to utilize your great expertise, this venue, power any and all 

means to find a meaningful solution to stop the wedge of oppression, injustice, hatred 

towards the people of Ukraine in occupied Crimea. 
31 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BOHDAN YAREMENKO

Ladies and Gentlemen: 

Our NGO Maidan of Foreign Affairs together with our partner web-portal The Black 

Sea News represented here by its Editor-in-Chief Mr. Andrii Klymenko are not only covering the Russian military aggression in Ukraine since mid-February 2014 but is the only 

Ukrainian institution that summarized the picture and published the Strategy of 

Returning the Crimea last year. 

We are convinced that the situation in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine is directly connected and should be kept in the same frame for political analysis. Honestly speaking the 

picture will still be incomplete without analyzing the Russian intervention into Ukraine 

aside of what is happening in Transdniestria in Moldova, Abkhazia and Ossetia in 

Georgia. 

The time limits will not allow me to do it in a proper way. 

Nevertheless, the issue of human rights in the conflict areas in Ukraine and in particular in the annexed Crimea should not and cannot be properly addressed without 

broader overview of the political, military, security, economic and social situation. 

So, we decided to share the responsibilities. With your permission I will cover the 

general issues in order to allow my dear friend and colleague Mr. Andrii Klymenko to concentrate fully on the issues of human rights. 

Political preferences were not the main reason for the annexation of the Crimea (the 

local parliament, elected in 2012, included only 3 deputies out of 100 who represented the 

pro-Russian movements and organizations). 

A fear of ethnic and interreligious conflicts has been artificially enforced by the Russian propaganda within a short period of time as the active phase of the annexation plan 

was being implemented (in winter 2014); this fear was an additional factor that reinforced 

the overall concerns of the citizens. 

The main propaganda messages directed towards the citizens of Ukraine from the 

Russian side covered the issues of the ‘‘quality of life’’ and ‘‘quality of government’’ (the 

media has created an illusion of greater efficiency of the Russian authorities compared 

to the Ukrainian ones, and of the readiness of the Russian state to ensure the better socioeconomic life conditions without any efforts made by the citizens of Ukraine). 

Invasion Scenario: 

1. Presence of the Russian citizens, including the military personnel from the intelligence agencies, primarily from the Main Intelligence Directorate of the General Staff of 

the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation. Together with the pro-Russian activists among the local residents and citizens of Ukraine, they organized rallies, fights, mass 

disturbances, and violent confrontations with patriotic citizens. 

2. A premeditated escalation used as an excuse for creating the self-defense units 

that include both local residents and the Russian citizens infiltrated specifically for such 

purposes. 

3. In the Eastern Ukraine, these units seized administrative buildings and paralyzed 

the activity of the state bodies, which in turn stepped away from solving problems, and 

in some cases supported anti-state actions. In Crimea, the self-defense units were a coverup that was covering the covert actions of special units of the army of the Russian Federa-
32 

tion. They were the ones who seized the government agencies and blocked military units 

of the Ukrainian army. 

4. Establishment of the pseudo governments that took over the responsibility over the 

management of the occupied territories. The mentioned pseudo governments imitated a 

freedom of expression which was used as justification or explanation of the aggression. 

The inability or unwillingness of the legitimate authorities to take measures for a 

quick and decisive suppression of these trends, an attempt to calm down the protesters 

or aggressors was regarded as weakness, encouraged the aggressor, demoralized the supporters. 

Corruption, common business interests of the local and central authorities with the 

relevant public and private bodies of the aggressor state were actively used as mechanisms for influencing and compromising the political will for resistance. 

The annexation of Crimea has become the first case of invasion of the territory in 

Europe since the Second World War. The mentioned situation calls into question the existence or the effectiveness of international law and the international security guarantees, 

thus threatening the existing world order. 

The Current State of Affairs 

A ‘‘hot phase’’ of the armed conflict in the Eastern Ukraine is still ongoing. However, 

the so-called Minsk agreements do not function as a ceasefire mechanism, do not lead to 

the establishment of sustainable peace and do not provide a solution to the problem of 

the territorial integrity restoration of Ukraine. 

The escalation phases coincide with the international negotiations on peace-settlement (they are effectively used by Russia as a tool of pressure on negotiating parties). 

The occupied areas of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions suffered from a large-scale 

destruction of the infrastructure and residential buildings resulting from the combat operations. 

An industrial infrastructure was partially destroyed, plundered and transported to 

Russia (in particular, defense enterprises were completely dismantled and transported to 

Russia). The current condition of the industrial infrastructure does not allow to predict 

a possibility of the restoration of the pre-war regional economy structure and, consequently, of the social structure of the population. About 2.5 million people (about a third 

of the overall number of inhabitants), mainly the most educated and active part of the 

society, became forced migrants and refugees. 

Prospects for resolving the situation in the East of Ukraine (the problem of ‘‘specific 

areas of Donetsk and Lugansk regions’’) are uncertain. 

Forced migrants and political fugitives from Crimea (about 40 thousand people) represented the most active and loyal citizens of Ukraine. 

In general, the public mood in Crimea can be described as follows: 

At the beginning of the Crimean occupation the residents were 

fully satisfied with the Ukrainian legal liberalism, 

not satisfied with quality of life, 

not satisfied with the quality of government. 

As a result of occupation, as for now the residents of Crimea 

have not received the improvement of the quality of government, it actually deteriorated, 
33 

have not got better quality of life, it actually deteriorated, 

have lost Ukrainian legal liberalism. 

A phase of adaptation to the law of the occupying country in Crimea is over, and a 

process of reclamation of the assets of the annexed territory is ongoing—this process can 

be described as colonization. 

Replacement or ‘‘dilution’’ of the Crimean population is taking place—‘‘the import of 

the Russians’’, including the military personnel and their families, officers of the intelligence agencies and their families, officials and their family members, members of the 

Russian organized crime groups from the North Caucasian regions of Russia, is still 

ongoing. Thus, according to the official Russian statistics, the increase of number of the 

Russian immigrants in Sevastopol during the occupation was about 25,000 people, or 

about 7% of the population. In the rest of Crimea, this rate is somewhat lower—10 thousand people, or 0.5% of the population. 

The occupying authorities are developing Crimea mainly as a military base. The 

number of troops is about 50 thousand people, not including the members of the security 

agencies. The development process and increase of the military grouping has not yet been 

completed; however, according to the objectives defined by the Minister of Defense of 

Russia, the number of Russian troops in Crimea can be increased to 100–120 thousand 

people. 

The invaders turned the Crimea to a rehabilitation center for the militants fighting 

in the east of Ukraine. Training camps for training of the mercenaries later directed to 

fight against the Armed Forces of Ukraine in the Donetsk and Lugansk regions have been 

established in Crimea. 

Crimea has become a basic center of support of the Russian military grouping in 

Syria. 

Forming a powerful military base in Crimea, Russia threatens both the southern 

regions of Ukraine and the existing Black Sea naval communications, as well as the European countries—NATO member-states (Bulgaria, Romania, and Turkey). 

The road infrastructure in the occupied territories has been fully or largely destroyed. 

During the period of the Crimean occupation, the loading of the roadbed had been 

increased in tens of times, primarily owing to the movement of large numbers of heavy 

military vehicles (armored vehicles, tanks and other heavy equipment). Intensive military 

building in Crimea led to accelerated destruction of roads. All programs of the road 

construction of Russia in Crimea turned to be a usual ‘‘patching work’’ of a very poor 

quality. 

The Crimean economic assets are being stolen or lose their capacity. Railways, ports 

are not actually used. 

Without proper irrigation, the agricultural soils lose their fertility, while their 

salinity is increasing. Natural resources of Crimea are being destroyed. The unscrupulous 

extraction of the fresh underground water has led to the raise of saline groundwater level 

in some areas (Kerch Peninsula), leading to increase of the soil salinity; furthermore, it 

complicates the water supply to the population. 

Given the intense military building, the occupants increase the volume of the quarry 

mines development, and open up the new quarries for gravel extraction, which can result 

in destruction of the microclimate, e.g. in the valleys of the Bakhchisarai area (Alma 

Valley). 
34 

The situation with the quality of life in Crimea has developed in such a way that 

under systematic reduction of employment (according to our calculations, since the annexation about 200 thousand jobs, primarily in tourism, restaurant and hotel business, services, small business and transport, have been lost), the available vacancies are not filled. 

Today there are 2,000 vacancies of municipal officials in Crimea, as well as a large 

number of jobs in health care; generally, it is difficult to fill the vacancies of ordinary 

employees in the business structures. 

What happens next? 

Developments in Eastern Ukraine are hard to predict because the hot phase of the 

conflict is still ongoing. Russia as a state-aggressor has sufficient resources to continue 

military actions, its probable political purposes in Ukraine and in Europe have not been 

achieved, the means of influence on Russia, such as international sanctions, just begin to 

influence the Russian economy and the political will of the leadership of the Russian Federation to continue the aggression, but their duration in time is uncertain. 

In Crimea, the main trends affecting the current developments are as follows: 

1. The main priority is to develop a territory as a military base 

Consequences: 

• Posing threat to security of the Black Sea region, the EU Member States and 

NATO [Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey], change of the military balance, namely 

within the framework of the Agreement on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe, 

and possibly within the framework of the agreements in the field of strategic 

nuclear weapons control; persistent military threat to the entire southern coast of 

Ukraine with the purpose to implement the plan of setting up a land ‘‘corridor’’ 

between the Russian Federation, Crimea and Transnistria, militarization of the 

region, expansion of the Russian military presence in Syria and the consequent 

armed confrontation and civil war in that country; 

• Further enforcement of the policy of ‘‘forced loyalty’’ towards the inhabitants of the 

Crimea, which will lead to further violation of the human rights (the pressure on 

dissidents, on disloyal groups of population), strengthening control over the media; 

• Implementation of strategic infrastructure building projects—a bridge across the 

Kerch Strait, the energy bridge; 

• The need to increase supply of building materials and equipment (primarily the 

metal, timber, construction mixes, crushed stone), which will lead to increased 

pressure on the road infrastructure and increased use of local natural resources, 

which, in turn, results in poor climatic balance in the number of sub-regions of 

Crimea. 

2. Lack of economic development strategy, lack of managerial human resources 

Consequences: 

• A trend towards reducing the number of small and medium-sized enterprises (the 

set priority is to develop and support the large companies, mainly in the defense 

sector); unemployment growth; reduction of the tax capacity in the region, increase 

of dependence on direct funding from the federal budget of Russia. Redirection of 

the budget financial flows in Russia, financing deficit in other regions of the Russian Federation, concealed contradictions and competition for obtaining a funding 

between different regions of the Russian Federation; 
35 

• Decrease of the standard of living; decrease of the consumer purchasing power of 

the population [increase of prices, fewer choice for consumers, lowering of the 

quality of food]; increase of the social stratification and increasing differences in 

living standards among the citizens funded by the state/federal/regional budgets, 

and self-employed people and employees of commercial structures; gradual growth 

of social tension; 

• Continuation of policy of the excessive use of infrastructure and natural resources, 

environmental degradation—changing of the climatic balance, loss of underground 

fresh water deposits, lowering of fertility, of the quality of agricultural lands, the 

gradual reduction of their area. As a result, lowering of the ability of Crimea to 

ensure the self-sustained food security. 

3. Continuation of the trend towards resettlements of the citizens with simultaneous degradation of democratic institutions, human rights and freedoms, increase of corruption 

and criminalization of a daily life. 

At the same time, Ukraine is going to gradually expand the policy of Peninsula 

blockade, trying to create enforcement mechanisms to engage Russia in the dialogue on 

the annexation. Furthermore, Ukraine will be working on the creation of mechanisms for 

establishing the communications with the population of Crimea [information disseminating channels, definition of the legal status, creation of opportunities to exercise the 

rights and protect the interests of the citizens in the territory of Ukraine, definition of 

the status of self-government bodies of the Crimean Tatar people and Crimeans on the 

whole, support of their activities]. 

Thank you for your attention. 
36 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ANDRIY KLYMENKO

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen, 

Please allow me start with the statement of the absence of any significant human 

rights violations in Crimea prior of the annexation noted by the specialized international 

bodies like Council of Europe or let say the US State Department. As well there were no 

reports or any statements on the issue done by the Russian Federation. 

The existed problems in the field of the human rights were merely related to the 

underdeveloped transitional democratic or law-enforcement system in Ukraine. Some 

noted occasional situations of the conflicts on the grounds of political affiliation, ethnic 

or religious routs ironically were always created by the pro-Russian activists, Russian neoNazis etc. 

Today, the citizens of Ukraine residing in the temporarily occupied territory of the 

Autonomous Republic of Crimea are actually deprived of a number of fundamental rights 

and the possibility of their protection, particularly by drawing attention of international 

human rights organizations to their problems. 

Forcing citizens of Ukraine to join Russian citizenship is one of the tools for invasion 

of the occupied territory by Russia (the owners of the Ukrainian passports are deprived 

of the opportunity of education, medical services, immovable property registration, 

obtaining utilities, employment, etc.). 

For some categories of the citizens of Ukraine, the renunciation of Ukrainian citizenship was delivered as an ultimatum (employees and personnel of certain commercial 

structures, such as Ukrtelecom, etc.). 

The aggressor is implementing a large-scale program of forcing the residents of 

Crimea to loyalty. Potentially disloyal persons are considered to be: 

- journalists, civil activists, members of NCA (national competent authority), whose 

organizations and the media were created prior to the occupation; 

- Crimean Tatar people in general, members of the autonomous bodies of the Crimean 

Tatar people (Kurultai, Medzhylis, 230 regional Medzhylis offices), clerical leaders of the 

Muslims (mainly of Crimean Tatars); 

- ethnic Ukrainians or persons of different ethnic origin with Ukrainian political 

identity, including religious leaders and members of religious communities of the 

Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kiev Patriarchate, Catholics, Greek Catholics (both 

Ukrainians and immigrants from Poland, Belarus, the Baltic States). 

The Crimean Tatars are put to systematic pressure as the most cohesive community 

that openly expressed its opposition to the occupation of Crimea by the Russian Federation. 

The number of secret services employees per capita in Crimea is 3 times higher than 

the similar rate for the rest of Russia. Methods of their work are intimidation, total control of telephone calls, Internet communication, and ‘‘brainwashing’’ through the media, 

accusations, separation of certain groups of citizens on ethnic or religious grounds. Activists or citizens disloyal to Russia are called in for many-hours-long interrogations, 

‘‘preventive interrogations’’, searches are carried out in their homes, raids are carried out 

in the areas of compact settlement of the Crimean Tatars, the troops block the certain 

localities or settlements, the authorities organize deportation from Crimea, exclusions, 
37 

criminal prosecution based on fabricated evidence and false accusations, kidnapping, murders. 

The State authorities of Russia have developed the whole arsenal of intimidation 

methods in the Republic of Ichkeria and other regions of the North Caucasus. 

Despite the declared trilingualism in Crimea (Russian, Ukrainian, Crimean Tatar) 

invaders not only eradicate the Ukrainian language, but in general any mention of 

Ukraine. There are reported cases of public burning of books, schoolbooks, plates and 

inscriptions in the Ukrainian language in front of the students, the Ukrainian schools and 

classes are being closed down. 

Russia makes active efforts to establish ‘‘information ghettos’’ on the Crimean peninsula, in which citizens of Ukraine will be deprived of the opportunity to receive information from Ukraine. These efforts include a complete cessation of Ukrainian TV and radio 

channels broadcasting, disconnection of the Ukrainian mobile operators and internet 

service providers. 

Today all independent media maintaining pro-Ukrainian position ceased their existence and work in the Crimea (either disbanded or moved from the Crimea to other regions 

of Ukraine). This particularly has the impact on the online media, since the Ukrainian 

legislation did not require their registration, although they are equivalent to the print 

media under the laws of the Russian Federation. 

As of today, the only propaganda media spread in Crimea has an openly pro-Russian 

orientation. 

On 9 May 2014, the Russian Federation has introduced the amendment to the 

Criminal Code, which provides for a penalty of imprisonment from 3 to 5 years for 

journalists and ordinary citizens for disagreeing with the fact that Crimea belongs to 

Russia or for calls for its return to Ukraine (Public calls to commit actions aimed at violating the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation). Criminal procedures under the 

relevant article are initiated both against the citizens of Ukraine and the Ukrainian 

media that operate in the mainland Ukraine, and are likely to be used for the persecution 

at the international level. 

The Russian authorities have eliminated the possibility of monitoring the compliance 

with human rights. Independent international human rights organizations in the occupied 

territories are not allowed to implement such monitoring. Instead, the Russian authorities 

are actively working to organize visits of international delegations and media to Crimea 

for propaganda purposes. 

Actions of the occupying power related to implementation of property rights are 

marked by massive violations of rules and practices accepted in the civilized world. There 

is a massive expropriation of all the state property of Ukraine in the territory of Crimea, 

which is called the ‘‘nationalization’’ by the Russian propaganda. More than 400 companies have been expropriated, and the list is constantly growing. This list includes over 200 

resorts, all the ports, including the airport, water and energy supply facilities, railways, 

wineries, grain elevators and agricultural enterprises. 

The objects that belonged to Ukraine or to the trade unions and other public 

organizations, as well as to the higher education institutions and the Academy of Sciences 

etc., have also been expropriated. 

As for the private enterprises, their formal expropriation was not carried out. However, there are schemes of raider takeovers and changes in a company management board 
38 

that have been implemented. The ‘‘Crimean self-defense’’ units are used as a component 

of the forcible takeover in the course of such actions. An information component includes 

distribution of false information through the media on the bankruptcy or financial problems of such companies, on the large debts they have, and such justifications call for their 

‘‘nationalization’’. Such schemes are currently applied selectively to those owners who support the idea of territorial integrity of Ukraine and oppose the occupation. 

Because of the time limits I will gladly provide more comments or examples during 

the Q&A session. 
39 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF YURIY YATSENKO

My name is Yuriy Yatsenko. I am a Ukrainian citizen, who was illegally arrested and 

detained by the Russian Federation for over a year, for political reasons. Others who have 

suffered and continue to suffer the same fate are Nadia Savchenko, Oleg Sentsov and 

others, of whom you probably have never heard. 

I was arrested in May 2014 in Kursk region of the Russian Federation, to where I 

traveled together with my friend on a business trip. I was detained by the police during 

a routine document check that the Russian police often practice. At the police department, 

an agent of the FSB (Russian Federal Security Service) showed to me a photograph of 

myself taken during the Euromaidan protests, which, as I suspect, he had found on social 

media. The agent demanded that me and my friend provide false testimony about being 

recruited either by the Right Sector (Ukrainian right-wing party, heavily demonized by 

the Russian propaganda) or personally by the head of the SBU (Security Service of 

Ukraine) to commit acts of terrorism in Russia. At the time, I was just an ordinary student from Western Ukraine and simply could not believe that such absurd accusations 

were being made against me. By the way, my western Ukrainian origin became an additional reason for the Russian law enforcement personnel to harass me. 

After we both refused to incriminate ourselves, they began beating us at regular 

intervals. We were also offered an option of going on Russian TV channels and giving a 

predetermined speech about being sent to Russia from Ukraine to commit subversive acts, 

but instead turning to the FSB for protection, to save us from the Ukrainian authorities 

and their persecution. Once again, we refused to give false testimony, so the harassment 

continued, turning into both physical and psychological abuse. For example, they threatened to hand me over to the head of the Chechen Republic Ramzan Kadyrov. ‘‘We’ll 

transfer you to Kadyrov, you’ll be his dog,’’ as one FSB official threatened me. 

At first, the abuse and the beatings were constant. I remember one particularly 

brutal instance. Some special forces soldiers, wearing masks and bearing no insignia on 

their uniforms other than the colors of the Russian flag, put a bag over my head, took 

me into the woods and tortured me. They hanged me by the handcuffs for hours and beat 

me in the head, groin and other parts of the body, as well as strangled me. They also 

simulated an execution, firing a gun next to my head. 

The next morning, which was two weeks since my arrest, I used a shaving blade to 

cut my abdomen and the veins on my arms to stop this abuse. Only then I was taken 

to the hospital, from where I finally managed to inform my family about my whereabouts. 

Despite the court decision about our deportation, both my friend and I were illegally 

kept at a special detention center for illegal immigrants for three months. During this 

period, the beatings and the torture was constant. Only three months later, my friend was 

released and taken to the Ukrainian border, while I was suddenly charged with the crime 

of possessing explosives. 

Despite the absurdity of these accusations and the absence of any evidence, the court 

found me guilty. At first, I was sentenced to two years of imprisonment, but shortly afterwards, an appeal court reduced the sentence to 9 months. Since by that time I had 

already spent a year in detention, I was released. Throughout this year, in addition to 

all the other abuse I’ve mentioned, I had been regularly placed into the punishment cells 

and solitary confinement. 
40 

The fact that I’m free now is a testament to the efforts of the publicity campaigns, 

international pressure, and coordinated work of human rights advocates and lawyers. 

When I was in detention, I was visited by the guards from time to time, informing me 

that another article about me appeared in the press, or that another press-conference 

dedicated to my case was held. They seemed to be alarmed by that, and kept saying that 

this should be stopped, that everything should be ‘‘done quietly’’. That is why all public 

events in support of the prisoners are extremely important, because they give a clear 

signal to the repressive regime that it is being watched closely and that none of the prisoners are forgotten. 

As of today, at least 13 Ukrainians are detained illegally somewhere in the Russian 

Federation, and at least 8 such prisoners are being held in occupied Crimea, both Ukrainians and Crimean Tatars. The criminal cases against them are fabricated, most of them 

have been brutally tortured, some of them have been deprived for over a year of their 

right to meet with an attorney or a Ukrainian consul. These are people of various ages, 

professional backgrounds, and political views, but they share one thing—their lives have 

become an instrument of the Russian state-sponsored propaganda that has created the 

image of Ukraine as a mortal enemy of Russia. The Kremlin officials constantly look for 

the means and the reasons to justify their hybrid war against Ukraine. That is why 

innocent Ukrainian citizens are proclaimed to be terrorists, spies, and fascists. 

I am appealing to you on behalf of the campaign #LetMyPeopleGo. There are no independent courts in Russia, that is why politically motivated cases have no chance of being 

decided fairly. Only international pressure can help achieve the release of those detainees. 

We are waiting for the return home of Nadia Savchenko, Olexandr Kolchenko, Oleg 

Sentsov, Gennadiy Afanasiev, Olexii Chirnii, Sergiy Lytvynov, Mykola Karpiuk, Stanislav 

Klyh, Olexandr Kostenko, Haiser Dzhemilev, Yurii Soloshenko, Valentyn Vyhyvskii, and 

Viktor Shur. We also demand that Crimea be deoccupied and that everyone be released 

from the places of detention: Akhtem Chyihoz, Ali Asanov, Mustafa Dehermendzhy, Yuriy 

Ilchenko, Ruslan Zaytullaev, Nuri Primov, Rustam Vaytov, Ferat Sayfullaev. It is likely 

that this list is not complete. We may even be unaware of what other prisoners have been 

illegally detained. Nevertheless, we demand that the Russian Federation release ALL of 

the prisoners subject to politically motivated persecution. 
41 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ANNA FOTYGA

Honorable Members of the U.S. Congress, Excellencies, Dear Ukrainian Friends, 

Ladies and Gentlemen, 

It is my honor and privilege to speak to you advocating the cause of Ukraine and 

in particular indicating the awful situation, awful violation of human rights in Crimea 

after the illegal annexation of this territory by the Russian Federation. I still remember 

my observing the Ukrainian presidential elections in 2004, and how much I counted on 

changes in this country, on genuine cooperation within our region and possibility to enjoy 

freedom, right to self-determination, and to peacefully design our common future. All of 

those dreams were taken from Ukraine, and to some extent from whole our region. First 

after the Russian invasion on Georgia, and after annexation of Crimea and further 

creeping of Russia inspired so called ‘‘green people’’ towards the eastern parts, east and 

southern parts of Ukrainian territory. I still remember this act of annexation signed by 

Vladimir Putin in Kremlin on March 18th end enormous audience to this performance or 

theatre. It was really a blow to all of us. 

Before annexation of Crimea, local community, despite poverty of Ukraine and necessity to make a real jump in order to get closer to Western society, enjoyed reasonable 

freedom. There were schools for minorities, there were free media, the NGOs used to 

flourish, there were Crimean Tatars starting to come back to their homeland, home territory. It was not perfect arrangement for them after decades and centuries of migration 

to Russia. It was perpetrated, forced by Stalin, and earlier the rulers of Russia. But they 

started to make their living, they had considerable possibility to elect their representatives, including to the chamber of Ukrainian Parliament, Verkhovna Rada. I have contacts 

with leaders of Tatar community, Mustafa Cemilev and the deputy to Verkhovna Rada, 

Refat Chubarov. They speak about atrocities imposed on Tatar population of Crimea after 

annexation. Closing of schools, disappearing of youth, inability to move freely, inability 

to join their families living elsewhere, in other territories. Because of their earlier suffering they decided to stay there. Actually, I really welcome variety of reports on the 

situation of human rights in occupied by Russia territory of Crimea, and all these reports 

are of excellent quality. I was fortunate to participate in many debates here in the European Parliament including the presentation of the report. I consider it extremely valuable, 

including parts referring to energy security, and energy or resources used by Russian Federation as a tool for oppression of their neighbors. Including and in particular, to oppress 

Ukraine. 

All our thoughts, all our efforts are with this country and people of Ukraine fighting 

for their freedom because we consider it necessary to prevent freedom, independence of 

countries of whole region of Central and Eastern Europe. They simply fight our cause. 

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. 

★ ★ ★ 

http://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.