Decision on merits; Subjects: RACE RELATIONS, RUSSIAN FEDERATION, RACIAL DISCRIMINATION; [CERD: Rassendiskriminierungsübereinkommen; Convention sur l'élimination de la discrimination raciale; Convenzione sull'eliminazione della discriminazione razziale]
Volltext (verifizierbarer Originaltext)
GE.26-09541 (E) 240726 280726
Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination
Views adopted by the Committee under article 14 of the
Convention, concerning communications No. 85/2023,
No. 86/2023 and No. 87/2023*, **
Communications submitted by:
X, Y and Z (represented by counsel)
Alleged victims:
The authors
State Party:
Russian Federation
Date of communication:
20 December 2022 (initial submission)
Date of adoption of Views:
23 April 2026
Document references:
Decision taken pursuant to rule 100 (4) of the
Committee’s rules of procedure, transmitted to
the State Party on 8 September 2023 (not issued
in document form)
Subject matter:
Racial discrimination against a minority
Indigenous people in Crimea
Procedural issues:
Admissibility; exhaustion of domestic remedies;
substantiation of claims
Substantive issue:
Discrimination on the grounds of national or
ethnic origin
Articles of the Convention:
1 (1), 2 (1) (a), 5 (a), (b), (d) (viii) and (ix) and
(e) and 6
1.1
The authors of the communications are X (communication No. 87/2023),
Y (communication No. 85/2023) and Z (communication No. 86/2023). The authors are
nationals of Ukraine of Crimean Tatar ethnicity, born in 1963, 1982 and 1986, respectively.
They claim that the State Party has violated their rights under articles 1 (1), 2 (1) (a), 5 (a),
(b), (d) (viii) and (e) and 6, as well as, with respect to X and Z, article 5 (d) (ix), of the
Convention. The individual complaints procedure under the Convention entered into force
for the State Party on 1 January 1992. The authors are represented by several lawyers,1
including from the European Human Rights Advocacy Centre.
* Adopted by the Committee at its 117th session (13 April–1 May 2026).
** The following members of the Committee participated in the examination of the communication:
Sheikha Abdulla Ali Al-Misnad, Michał Balcerzak, Pela Boker-Wilson, Chinsung Chung, Bakari
Sidiki Diaby, Régine Esseneme, Guan Jian, Ibrahima Guissé, Gün Kut, Carla Ivette Pousa Caride,
Vadili Mohamed Rayess, Verene Shepherd, Chrispine Gwalawala Sibande, Stamatia Stavrinaki,
Mazalo Tebie, Faith Dikeledi Pansy Tlakula, Abderrahman Tlemçani and Saúl Vicente Vázquez.
1 Jessica Gavron, Camilla Alonzo and Toby Collis (all of the European Human Rights Advocacy
Centre) and Sergei Zaets, Vera Krat, Oksana Maximenyuk and Lyudmila Pankratova.
United Nations
CERD/C/117/D/85/2023
CERD/C/117/D/86/2023
CERD/C/117/D/87/2023
International Convention on
the Elimination of All Forms
of Racial Discrimination
Distr.: General
28 July 2026
Original: English
CERD/C/117/D/85/2023
CERD/C/117/D/86/2023
CERD/C/117/D/87/2023
2
GE.26-09541
1.2
On 23 April 2026, pursuant to rule 100 (3) of the Committee’s rules of procedure, the
Committee decided to join communications No. 87/2022, No. 85/2018 and No. 86/2018,
submitted by three different authors, for joint consideration and decision, in view of the
substantial factual and legal similarity among them.
Facts as submitted by the authors
2.1
The authors submit that they are Crimean Tatars, who constitute one of the Indigenous
Peoples of Ukraine and an ethnic minority, and whose homeland is Crimea. Crimean Tatars
comprise approximately 0.5% of the population of Ukraine, with 98% of Crimean Tatars
living in the Crimean peninsula.2 The status of Crimean Tatars as an Indigenous community
has been recognized by the European Parliament.3 It has been recognized and accepted by
both the Russian Federation and the International Court of Justice that Crimean Tatars
constitute a distinct ethnic group for the purposes of protection under the Convention.4 The
families of X, Y and Z were deported from Crimea in 1944, but they returned there in 1984
(in the case of X) and 1990 (in the cases of Y and Z). The authors are lawyers and have been
representing other Crimean Tatars in criminal and administrative proceedings since the
annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation in 2014.
2.2
The authors submit that, after the 2014 annexation of Crimea by the Russian
Federation,5 the State Party justified its actions by citing the political doctrine of the “Russian
world” and the need to protect Russian-speaking populations and its nationals abroad.6
2.3
The authors further note that Crimean Tatars, particularly through their representative
body, the Mejlis,7 opposed the annexation and have since faced systematic discrimination
and persecution by the de facto authorities, resulting in significant displacement8 due to fear
of coercion, legal pressure and social marginalization. According to the authors, international
2 See Open Society Justice Initiative, Human Rights in the Context of Automatic Naturalization in
Crimea (2018). In March 2014, Ukraine recognized the status of Crimean Tatars as an Indigenous
community. See Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, resolution entitled “On Statement of the Verkhovna
Rada of Ukraine re guarantees of rights of the Crimean Tatar people as a part of the State of Ukraine”,
20 March 2014.
3 European Parliament resolution of 12 May 2016 on the Crimean Tatars, paras. B, F, 2 and 9. See also,
for example, CCPR/C/RUS/CO/7, para. 23; and A/HRC/28/64/Add.1, paras. 6 and 49.
4 International Court of Justice, Application of the International Convention for the Suppression of the
Financing of Terrorism and of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Racial Discrimination (Ukraine v. Russian Federation), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, I.C.J.
Reports 2019, p. 588, at paras. 80 and 95.
5 The forcible imposition of Russian law in the Crimean peninsula was subsequently affirmed in
Federal Constitutional Law of the Russian Federation No. 6-FKZ of 21 March 2014 on the Admission
of the Republic of Crimea to the Russian Federation and the Establishment of New Entities, the
Republic of Crimea and the City of Federal Significance of Sevastopol, within the Russian
Federation.
6 See Tadeusz A. Olszański, Arkadiusz Sarna and Agata Wierzbowska-Miazga, “The consequences of
the annexation of Crimea”, Centre for Eastern Studies, 19 March 2014; Orysia Lutsevych, “Agents of
the Russian world: proxy groups in the contested neighbourhood”, Chatham House, April 2016,
pp. 8 and 9; Mikhail Suslov, “‘Russian world’: Russia’s policy towards its diaspora”, Institut français
des relations internationales, July 2017; Russian Federation, Presidential Executive Office, “Vladimir
Putin answered journalists’ questions on the situation in Ukraine”, 4 March 2014; and Global Rights
Compliance, International Law and Defining Russia’s Involvement in Crimea and Donbas (2022),
paras. 3.3.1.2 and 3.3.1.3.
7 The Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People, created in 1991, is an executive body of Crimean Tatars. In
2016, following the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation, it was prohibited by Russian
authorities as an extremist organization.
8 According to the Mission of the President of Ukraine in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, as at
5 July 2019, 39,771 residents had left Crimea since 2014 (“Zvit pro rezultaty diialnosti
Predstavnytstva Prezydenta Ukrainy v Avtonomnii Respublitsi Krym za II kvartal 2019 roku”, p. 13).
As the authorities list only officially registered persons, it is possible that the actual data are different
and that the number of those displaced from Crimea is higher. OHCHR reported that Crimean Tatars
constituted a large proportion of those displaced (“Situation of human rights in the temporarily
occupied Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol (Ukraine)”, 25 September 2017,
para. 50).
CERD/C/117/D/85/2023
CERD/C/117/D/86/2023
CERD/C/117/D/87/2023
GE.26-09541
3
organizations, including the United Nations human rights treaty bodies,9 the Office of the
United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR),10 the Organization for
Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE)11 and the Council of Europe, have extensively
documented these violations. They state that Ukraine has brought claims against the Russian
Federation before the International Court of Justice under the Convention, 12 alleging a
targeted campaign against Crimean Tatars encompassing enforced disappearances, arbitrary
detention, suppression of media and cultural expression, imposition of Russian citizenship
and the banning of the Mejlis. The authors note that the European Court of Human Rights
has recognized such claims as prima facie substantiated in the inter-State case of Ukraine v.
Russia (re Crimea).13
2.4
The authors note that, since 2014, the Russian authorities in Crimea have pursued a
systematic pattern of discrimination against Crimean Tatars. They state that the Mejlis was
banned in 2016 as an “extremist organization”,14 dismantling the community’s primary
political institution, while its leaders15 and members have faced targeted persecution, entry
bans, politically motivated prosecutions, convictions in absentia and lengthy prison sentences.
The authors note that anti-extremism and anti-terrorism legislation has been applied
disproportionately, with mass raids, arbitrary arrests and prosecutions often linked to alleged
9 See, for example, CERD/C/RUS/CO/23-24, paras. 11, 19 and 20; follow-up letter sent by the
Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination to the Russian Federation, 13 December
2019; CCPR/C/RUS/CO/8, paras. 38 and 39; CCPR/C/RUS/CO/7, para. 23; and CAT/C/RUS/CO/6,
para. 48.
10 For example, OHCHR, “Report on the human rights situation in Ukraine”, 15 November 2014,
paras. 209 and 212–225; OHCHR, “Situation of human rights in the temporarily occupied
Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol (Ukraine)”, 25 September 2017,
paras. 50, 78, 81, 90, 92, 97, 101–103, 107, 108, 152 and 168; and the conference room paper of
OHCHR entitled “Report on the situation of human rights in the temporarily occupied Autonomous
Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol, Ukraine 13 September 2017 to 30 June 2018”,
paras. 3, 30, 31, 42, 50 and 55, available at
https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/g18/282/16/pdf/g1828216.pdf.
11 Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), Human Rights Assessment Mission in
Ukraine: Human Rights and Minority Rights Situation (2014); and OSCE, Report of the Human
Rights Assessment Mission on Crimea (6–18 July 2015) (2015). See also, for example, Commissioner
for Human Rights of the Council of Europe, “Report by Nils Muižnieks, Commissioner for Human
Rights of the Council of Europe, following his mission in Kyiv, Moscow and Crimea from 7 to
12 September 2014”, 27 October 2014, paras. 20–28; European Parliament resolution of 12 May 2016
on the Crimean Tatars; Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, resolution 2387 (2021),
entitled “Human rights violations committed against Crimean Tatars in Crimea”, paras. 5, 6, 7, 10, 12
and others; and European Parliament, Directorate-General for External Policies, The Situation of
National Minorities in Crimea Following its Annexation by Russia (2016).
12 International Court of Justice, Application of the International Convention for the Suppression of the
Financing of Terrorism and of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Racial Discrimination (Ukraine v. Russian Federation), Application instituting proceedings, filed in
the Registry of the Court on 16 January 2017.
13 Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea), Applications No. 20958/14 and No. 38334/18, Decision, 16 December
2020, paras. 391, 450, 467, 479, 495, 504, 506 and 508–510.
14 On 15 February 2016, the Prosecutor of the Republic of Crimea brought an action against the Mejlis
under article 262 of the Code of Administrative Procedure of the Russian Federation and article 9 of
Federal Law No. 114-FZ of 25 July 2002 on Counteracting Extremist Activities. The Prosecutor
sought a judgment of the Supreme Court of Crimea declaring the Mejlis an extremist organization and
banning its activities. On 12 April 2016, the Prosecutor of the Republic of Crimea temporarily
suspended activities of the Mejlis, and on 26 April 2016, the Mejlis was declared an extremist
organization by the Supreme Court of Crimea and was banned from conducting any activities. The
ban was upheld by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 29 September 2016.
15 For example, the authorities of the Russian Federation imposed a five-year ban on entry to the
territory of Crimea on Mustafa Dzhemilev (former Chair of the Mejlis) and Refat Chubarov (Chair of
the Mejlis), in April and July 2014, respectively. See Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council
of Europe, “Report by Nils Muižnieks, Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe,
following his mission in Kyiv, Moscow and Crimea from 7 to 12 September 2014”, para. 21; and
Crimean Human Rights Group and others, Human Rights in Crimea During the Seven Years of
Russian Occupation (2021), p. 23.
CERD/C/117/D/85/2023
CERD/C/117/D/86/2023
CERD/C/117/D/87/2023
4
GE.26-09541
affiliation with banned organizations such as Hizb ut-Tahrir.16 They further observe that
serious human rights violations, including enforced disappearances, torture, extrajudicial
killings and abductions, have been documented,17 as exemplified by the killing of Reshat
Ametov.18
2.5
The authors state that cultural repression has also been systematic, including
restrictions on public commemorations, 19 freedom of assembly 20 and education in the
Crimean Tatar language, applied discriminatorily as compared with pro-Russian groups.21
Crimean Tatars, including the authors, have also been targeted with the issuance of warnings
against them for so-called “extremist actions” when they have sought to organize or
participate in public gatherings or events, including events to commemorate the 1944
deportation of Crimean Tatars. On 29 October 2021, 31 Crimean Tatars were detained after
taking part in a rally in support of Crimean Tatar defendants in one of the proceedings known
as the “case of the Crimean Muslims”. Twenty-two of those detained were charged with
participation in an unauthorized mass event under the Code of Administrative Offences of
the Russian Federation.
2.6
On 25 October 2021, there was a large gathering at the so-called Crimean garrison
military court to listen to a video stream of court proceedings concerning the appeal of three
Crimean Tatars, who are part of a group of Hizb ut-Tahrir defendants known as the
“Krasnogvardeysk group”. More than 20 Crimean Tatars, including human rights defenders
and journalists, were detained by officers from the Centre for Combating Extremism (Centre
E) and were charged under article 20.2.2 (1) of the Code of Administrative Offences of the
Russian Federation, allegedly for gathering in breach of coronavirus disease (COVID-19)
regulations. In the documents relating to their detention, the police of the Russian Federation
noted that a gathering of “citizens of Crimean Tatar ethnicity” had been observed. A number
of those detained were clients of Z. Z was arbitrarily arrested after attending police
department No. 3 (“Central”) of the Directorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the
Russian Federation for Simferopol in order to provide legal assistance to his clients.
2.7
Crimean Tatar media entities have been denied registration and/or licences to operate
under Russian legislation, and education in the Crimean Tatar language has been restricted.22
16 An organization associated with Islam that has been designated as a terrorist organization in the
Russian Federation.
17 Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, resolution 2387 (2021), entitled “Human rights
violations committed against Crimean Tatars in Crimea”, paras. 4 and 13.3.1; and European
Parliament resolution of 12 May 2016 on the Crimean Tatars, para. B.
18 High-profile disappearances include the case of Reshat Ametov, a Crimean Tatar who disappeared
after attending a protest in Simferopol on 3 March 2014 and whose body was found on 15 March
2014 showing signs of torture; and the disappearance of Crimean Tatar cousins Islyam Dzhepparov
and Dzhevdet Islyamov, relatives of a former member of the Mejlis, who were abducted on
27 September 2014 by men in military uniform. See OHCHR, “Report on the human rights situation
in Ukraine”, 15 November 2014, paras. 212–217; and Crimean Tatar Resource Center, “Contributions
for the study of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances on the topic of
‘standards and public policies for an effective investigation of enforced disappearances’”, 2019.
19 See, for example, Crimean Tatar Resource Center, “Crimean Tatar activist was given a warning on
the inadmissibility of breaking the law”, 22 April 2021; Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group,
“Russia calls celebrating Crimean Tatar Flag Day ‘extremism’ and threatens prosecution”, 25 June
2021; Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group, “Remembrance banned as ‘extremism’ and political
trials on anniversary of Crimean Tatar deportation”, 18 May 2021; Kharkiv Human Rights Protection
Group, “Crimean Tatar rights activist takes Russian prosecutor to court over ‘warnings against
extremism’”, 15 July 2020; and Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group, “Russian occupiers warn
against using an ‘extremist symbol’ on Crimean Tatar Flag Day”, 27 June 2019.
20 See Crimean Human Rights Group, “Discrimination of Crimean Tatars and freedom of peaceful
assembly”, 22 November 2021; and Crimean Human Rights Group, “Crimean human rights situation
review”, October 2021.
21 OSCE, “Freedom of assembly in Crimea occupied by the Russian Federation”, 17 April 2015, p. 2.
22 OHCHR, “Situation of human rights in the temporarily occupied Autonomous Republic of Crimea
and the city of Sevastopol (Ukraine)”, 25 September 2017, para. 157.
CERD/C/117/D/85/2023
CERD/C/117/D/86/2023
CERD/C/117/D/87/2023
GE.26-09541
5
2.8
Lastly, the authors note that these patterns have persisted and intensified following
the full-scale invasion by the Russian Federation of Ukraine, with continued enforced
disappearances and disproportionate targeting in mobilization efforts. The authors emphasize
that detentions frequently targeted participants in peaceful assemblies based on ethnicity and
affected lawyers, human rights defenders, journalists and even minors, raising serious
concerns regarding due process and access to legal representation.23 They cite a report by the
Secretary-General,24 noting that such measures appear aimed less at public health and more
at discouraging peaceful assembly, highlighting their discriminatory and disproportionate
nature.
2.9
In their respective appeals, X, Y and Z advanced substantially similar claims, alleging
that the decisions of the Kyiv District Court of Simferopol (in Y’s case) and the Central
District Court of Simferopol (in X’s and Z’s cases) were discriminatory on the basis of their
ethnicity as Crimean Tatars. They argued that their administrative prosecution formed part
of a broader pattern of persecution targeting Crimean Tatars as an ethnic minority, in
violation of the guarantees of equality and non-discrimination under domestic and
international law, including article 19 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, article
14 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
(European Convention on Human Rights), article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights, and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Racial Discrimination. In support of these claims, X, Y and Z referred to a series of related
incidents involving the detention and prosecution of other Crimean Tatars, including legal
professionals, arguing that these circumstances demonstrated a systemic and discriminatory
enforcement practice. In each case, the Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea dismissed
the allegations of discrimination, finding that there was no evidentiary basis in the case files
to substantiate claims that the proceedings had been motivated by ethnic bias.
2.10
The facts relevant to each individual communication are summarized below.
2.11
X has worked as a human rights defender since 1997 and has represented many
high-profile Crimean Tatars. Between 2001 and 2013, she was a member of the Mejlis, where
she headed the department of Crimean Tatar language education. On 25 October 2021, she
arrived at a police station in Simferopol to provide legal assistance to detainees, including Y.
After leaving the station, she made public statements to the media and those gathered outside.
On 26 May 2022, she was detained outside the Kyiv District Court of Simferopol while
preparing to represent Z and was charged under article 20.2.2 of the Code of Administrative
Offences of the Russian Federation for alleged participation in a mass gathering on
25 October 2021. On 28 May 2022, she was sentenced by the Central District Court of
Simferopol to five days of administrative detention. She was held in poor conditions, which
had a detrimental impact on her health. Her appeal was rejected by the Supreme Court of the
Republic of Crimea on 22 June 2022.
2.12
Y was admitted to practise law in 2016 and has defended many Crimean Tatars,
including a Deputy Chair of the Mejlis. On 25 October 2021, he arrived at a police station in
Simferopol to provide legal assistance to more than 20 detained Crimean Tatars. He was
subsequently detained and charged with two counts of disobedience to the police under
article 19.3 (1) of the Code of Administrative Offences after recording a conversation with
police officers and refusing a strip search. On 11 November 2021, he was sentenced to
12 days of administrative detention and fined 4,000 roubles; these decisions were upheld on
18 November and 20 December 2021 by the Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea. His
case was denounced by two Human Rights Council special procedure mandate holders,25 and
he was released on 23 November 2021, after which several Crimean Tatars who had gathered
to witness his release were arrested. On 26 May 2022, he was again arrested and charged
under article 20.3.3 of the Code of Administrative Offences based on a Facebook post in
which he had been tagged and which he had promptly deleted a month prior. On 27 May
23 See, for example, RUS 4/2020, RUS 10/2019, RUS 2/2019 and RUS 14/2018. All allegation letters
and/or urgent appeals mentioned in the present document are available from
https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/Tmsearch/TMDocuments.
24 A/HRC/50/65, para. 28.
25 See RUS 12/2021.
CERD/C/117/D/85/2023
CERD/C/117/D/86/2023
CERD/C/117/D/87/2023
6
GE.26-09541
2022, he was fined 75,000 roubles by the Kyiv District Court of Simferopol. His appeal was
rejected on 29 June 2022.
2.13
Z has been engaged in human rights defence since 2016, advising Crimean residents,
including Crimean Tatars, persecuted by the Russian authorities. He was admitted as a lawyer
in 2019 and has since represented several Crimean Tatars, including those accused of
involvement in Hizb ut-Tahrir. On 25 and 26 October 2021, he provided legal assistance to
Y and made a public statement outside the police station. On 27 May 2022, after representing
Y in court, he was arrested by the Centre for Combating Extremism (Centre E) and charged
under article 20.2.2 of the Code of Administrative Offences for alleged participation in a
mass gathering related to the October 2021 events. He was sentenced the same day by the
Central District Court of Simferopol to eight days of administrative detention. His appeal
was rejected on 29 June 2022.
2.14
X, Y and Z each appealed the decisions against them to the Supreme Court of the
Republic of Crimea, claiming discrimination on the basis of ethnicity. On 22 June (in the
case of X) and 29 June (in the cases of Y and Z) 2022, their three appeals were rejected. The
authors claim that they have been subjected to discriminatory judicial harassment as part of
a broader pattern of systemic racial discrimination against Crimean Tatars in Crimea. They
refer, in this regard, to ongoing proceedings before the International Court of Justice and the
European Court of Human Rights.26
Complaint
3.1
The authors submit that the Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea is de facto the
highest court in the Crimean peninsula and that its decisions are final. They conclude that
there are no further effective domestic remedies available to them. In the alternative, they
refer to the Committee’s admissibility decision in Qatar v. United Arab Emirates,27 claiming
that the requirement to exhaust domestic remedies should be considered inapplicable due to
the existence of a generalized policy and practice of racial discrimination by the State Party
against Crimean Tatars.
3.2
The authors claim that the State Party has violated article 1 (1) of the Convention, as
they have been subjected to different treatment on the grounds of their ethnicity and their
association with other Crimean Tatars, as lawyers representing individuals of Crimean Tatar
ethnicity.
3.3
The authors submit that their administrative prosecution under article 20.2.2 of the
Code of Administrative Offences was based on their ethnicity and on their legal
representation of other Crimean Tatars. Their prosecution was part of an ongoing pattern of
State harassment intended to repress and silence Crimean Tatar lawyers who defend other
Crimean Tatars. The repression by the State Party of Crimean Tatars, who have been opposed
to the occupation that began in 2014, as an ethnic minority has been perpetrated in pursuit of
the State Party’s policy to “Russify” Crimea and is inherently discriminatory. In light thereof,
the authors submit that the discriminatory and abusive administrative proceedings against
them have had both the purpose and the effect of impairing the enjoyment of their rights, in
violation of the State Party’s obligations under article 1 (1) of the Convention.
3.4
They also claim a violation of their rights to equal treatment before the Crimean courts,
security of person, freedom of opinion and expression, and work, as lawyers representing
other Crimean Tatars, under article 5 (a), (b), (d) (viii) and (e), as well as, with respect to X
and Z, article 5 (d) (ix), of the Convention.
3.5
Lastly, they claim that the State Party breached article 2 (1) (a) of the Convention by
engaging in acts or practices of racial discrimination and failed to ensure an adequate remedy
against racial discrimination under article 6 of the Convention.
26 International Court of Justice, Application of the International Convention for the Suppression of the
Financing of Terrorism and of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Racial Discrimination (Ukraine v. Russian Federation); and European Court of Human Rights,
Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea), Applications No. 20958/14 and No. 38334/18.
27 CERD/C/99/4.
CERD/C/117/D/85/2023
CERD/C/117/D/86/2023
CERD/C/117/D/87/2023
GE.26-09541
7
State Party’s observations on admissibility and the merits
4.1
In a note verbale dated 2 February 2024, the State Party submitted its observations on
the admissibility and merits of the communication. The State Party rejects the allegations
advanced by the authors and maintains that no violations of the Convention have occurred.
It submits that the measures taken against the authors constituted lawful, necessary and
proportionate responses to administrative offences under national law and were applied
without any discrimination.
4.2
The State Party submits that Y was twice held administratively liable for failure to
comply with lawful orders of police officers, namely, his refusal to cease video and audio
recording within a restricted Ministry of Internal Affairs facility in Simferopol and to undergo
a personal search. By decisions of the Central District Court of Simferopol, he was found
guilty under article 19.3 (1) of the Code of Administrative Offences and sentenced to 12 days
of administrative detention and a fine of 4,000 roubles. The State Party observes that these
decisions were upheld by the Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea. It recalls that the
domestic courts found the legal classification of the acts to be correct, the procedural
requirements and limitation periods to have been duly respected and the evidence to be
sufficient, with no indication of bias or interest on the part of the police officers involved.
4.3
The State Party further submits that, by a decision of the Kyiv District Court of
Simferopol, Y was found guilty under article 20.3.3 (2) of the Code of Administrative
Offences. This finding was based on a post on Facebook, which contained calls to participate
in unauthorized public events and was assessed by the competent authorities as aimed at
discrediting the use of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation. He was consequently
fined 75,000 roubles.
4.4
The State Party also notes that, by decisions of the Central District Court of
Simferopol, X and Z were found guilty under article 20.2.2 (1) of the Code of Administrative
Offences. It observes that, on 25 and 26 October 2021, they participated in a mass
simultaneous gathering near a police facility in Simferopol in support of detained individuals.
The domestic courts established that their actions resulted in breaches of public order and
applicable sanitary regulations in force during the COVID-19 pandemic. They were
sentenced to administrative detention for five and eight days, respectively, with the findings
supported by a body of evidence.
4.5
The State Party observes that, in their communications, the authors allege that, since
2014, the Russian authorities have engaged in discriminatory and persecutory practices
against Crimean Tatars, including extrajudicial executions, abductions, torture and other
forms of treatment purportedly constituting inhuman or degrading treatment. The State Party
further notes that the authors rely on reports by Ukrainian and Western human rights
organizations and other materials of an anti-Russian nature.
4.6
The State Party observes that, pursuant to article 14 (7) of the Convention, the
Committee is not to consider any communication unless it has ascertained that all available
domestic remedies have been exhausted. In this regard, the State Party notes that, under
article 30.13 (1) of the Code of Administrative Offences, complaints against final decisions
in administrative offence cases may be submitted to cassation courts of general jurisdiction,
as well as to the Supreme Court.
4.7
The State Party further submits that these remedies are effective in practice. It refers
to statistical data indicating that, in the first half of 2023, the Administrative Chamber of the
Supreme Court of the Russian Federation considered 4,460 complaints, of which 401 cases
were examined on the merits, and 91 complaints were upheld in whole or in part. Likewise,
cassation courts of general jurisdiction have overturned or amended a significant number of
administrative decisions annually between 2020 and 2023.
4.8
However, the State Party notes that, according to the information before the
Committee, the authors did not avail themselves of these remedies, as they failed to lodge
cassation appeals either with the cassation courts of general jurisdiction or with the Supreme
Court. Accordingly, the State Party submits that the present communication is inadmissible
under article 14 (7) of the Convention for failure to exhaust available domestic remedies.
CERD/C/117/D/85/2023
CERD/C/117/D/86/2023
CERD/C/117/D/87/2023
8
GE.26-09541
Furthermore, the State Party observes that, in the absence of statutory time limits for filing
such cassation appeals, the authors retain the possibility of pursuing these remedies.
4.9
The State Party recalls that, with regard to article 1 (1) of the Convention, the authors
have failed to demonstrate any link between the measures taken against them and their ethnic
origin. It notes that the proceedings against Y arose from his refusal to comply with lawful
police orders and conduct deemed to discredit the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation,
while those against X and Z concerned their participation in a mass gathering that disrupted
public order. The State Party submits that these measures were based solely on the authors’
conduct. It further notes that the relevant legal provisions are neutral in nature and apply
equally to all individuals and that the authors have not demonstrated that persons of a
different ethnic origin in similar situations were treated more favourably.
4.10 In the light of the above, the State Party submits that the communication is
unsubstantiated and inadmissible and respectfully invites the Committee to find that no
violation of the Convention has occurred.
Authors’ comments on the State Party’s observations on admissibility and the merits
5.1
On 23 July 2024, the authors submitted their comments on the State Party’s
observations on admissibility and the merits.
5.2
The authors state that they have exhausted all available and effective domestic
remedies within the meaning of the jurisprudence of the United Nations human rights treaty
bodies and contest the State Party’s claim to the contrary. They argue that the State Party
relies primarily on general statistical data regarding cassation and supervisory review
procedures and fails to demonstrate the practical availability and effectiveness of such
remedies in cases comparable to theirs, particularly in the context of the occupation of Crimea.
In this regard, the authors emphasize that the relevant assessment should concern the
accessibility of remedies in similar cases within the specific territorial and factual context,
rather than nationwide statistics.
5.3
The authors further note that, contrary to the State Party’s assertion, one of the authors,
Y, did in fact lodge a cassation appeal, which resulted in the quashing of one of the decisions
against him.28 However, they claim that this outcome does not demonstrate the effectiveness
of the remedy. On the contrary, they argue that it illustrates its ineffectiveness, as the
sanctions imposed – namely, administrative detention and a fine – had already been executed
prior to the appeal, and no mechanism for adequate redress or compensation was provided.
They further maintain that the quashing of the decision on procedural grounds did not
eliminate the negative consequences suffered and did not remove Y’s victim status.
5.4
Moreover, the authors contend that the mere formal availability of cassation review
does not render it an effective remedy. They argue that the absence of procedural time limits,
the discretionary nature of the review and the practical constraints linked to short limitation
periods for administrative offences undermine its effectiveness. In particular, they note that,
once the limitation period has expired, courts are unable to examine the merits of a case and
may only address procedural issues, as demonstrated in the case of Y. They also stress that
the outcome in that case was based on specific procedural irregularities and cannot be
regarded as indicative of the general effectiveness of the remedy.
5.5
In this respect, the authors refer to the jurisprudence of United Nations treaty bodies
demonstrating that such supervisory or cassation review procedures are not considered
effective remedies. In particular, they rely on the Views of the Human Rights Committee in
Popova v. Russian Federation,29 where that Committee rejected the State Party’s argument
of non-exhaustion, noting that the State had failed to demonstrate whether and in how many
cases supervisory review procedures in administrative matters had been successfully applied.
28 In particular, one of the decisions against Y, namely, the decision of the Central District Court of
Simferopol dated 11 November 2021, was quashed by the Fourth Cassation Court of General
Jurisdiction on 7 August 2023.
29 CCPR/C/122/D/2217/2012.
CERD/C/117/D/85/2023
CERD/C/117/D/86/2023
CERD/C/117/D/87/2023
GE.26-09541
9
Similarly, in Voronkov v. Russian Federation,30 the Human Rights Committee found that
cassation and supervisory review procedures were extraordinary and discretionary remedies
and therefore did not need to be exhausted where the State Party had not demonstrated their
effectiveness in comparable cases.
5.6
The authors also invoked the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights,
referring in particular to Smadikov v. Russia, 31 where the Court emphasized that the
supervisory review procedure under the Code of Administrative Offences lacked specific
time limits and therefore created legal uncertainty, undermining its effectiveness as a remedy
for the purposes of admissibility.
5.7
Lastly, the authors argue that, in the context of a generalized pattern of discriminatory
practices against Crimean Tatars in occupied Crimea, domestic remedies cannot be
considered effective. They maintain that such circumstances further absolve them of the
obligation to exhaust domestic remedies. Accordingly, the authors request the Committee to
reject the State Party’s arguments of inadmissibility and to proceed with its consideration of
the communication on the merits under article 14 of the Convention.
5.8
With regard to the merits, the authors state that the State Party’s assertion that there
was no evidence of ethnic discrimination is unfounded and fails to engage with the substance
of their claims. They note that the State Party artificially narrowed the scope of the complaint
to the absence of direct discrimination in the imposition of administrative liability, while
disregarding the broader context of intimidation, harassment and systemic persecution of
Crimean Tatars, within which the impugned measures must be assessed.32
5.9
The authors emphasize that proof of direct discrimination is not required, as indirect
discrimination may be established through evidence of differential treatment or
disproportionate impact on a protected group. In this regard, they reiterate that the
administrative proceedings against them were unfounded, abusive and punitive and formed
part of a wider pattern of harassment targeting them as Crimean Tatar lawyers and human
rights defenders. They further stress that these actions must be understood against the
background of a broader campaign of discriminatory persecution of Crimean Tatars in
occupied Crimea.
5.10
The authors state that, since 2014, 234 individuals have been prosecuted in occupied
Crimea for alleged violations of public order during mass gatherings, 205 of whom (almost
90%)33 were Crimean Tatars, indicating disproportionate targeting of this population. They
cite incidents between September and November 2021, including the detention of 53 Tatars
on 4 September for enquiring about previously arrested individuals; 15 on 11 October outside
a court hearing; over 20 on 25 October at the Crimean garrison military court; 31 on
29 October at a rally; 18 on 1 November at the military court; and 32 on 23 November in
Simferopol during the release of Y.
5.11
The authors further note that the Secretary-General’s report of June 2022 indicated
that sanctions for alleged COVID-19 regulation violations, which would include those
against Z, appeared to be aimed at discouraging peaceful assemblies rather than protecting
public health. They cite the call by the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of
Europe for the Russian authorities to review the legal framework on public gatherings and
ensure the protection of minorities rather than their harassment.34
30 CCPR/C/136/D/2951/2017.
31 Application No. 10810/15.
32 Amnesty International, “Russia/Ukraine: 10 years of occupation of Crimea”, March 2024, p. 10; and
CrimeaSOS, “107 people became victims of persecution for ‘involvement in Hizb ut-Tahrir’”,
16 January 2024. See also Amnesty International, “Terrorising the dissent: abuse of terrorism-related
charges in Russia”, 19 February 2024, p. 5; and https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-221291.
33 See Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe, “Crimean Tatars’ struggle for human
rights”, 18 April 2023.
34 A/HRC/50/65, para. 28; and Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe, “Crimean
Tatars’ struggle for human rights”, p. 18.
CERD/C/117/D/85/2023
CERD/C/117/D/86/2023
CERD/C/117/D/87/2023
10
GE.26-09541
5.12
The authors also submit that the extension of the application of Russian legislation to
Crimea, in the context of policies of “Russification,” inherently results in differential
treatment based on ethnicity, disproportionately affecting Crimean Tatars as an Indigenous
minority. They argue that the enforcement of laws on public assemblies and public order has
been systematically used to suppress Crimean Tatar cultural, political and civic expression,
as demonstrated by disproportionate arrests, detentions and prosecutions.35
5.13
Furthermore, the authors highlight that legal professionals representing Crimean
Tatars, including the authors, have been subjected to targeted judicial harassment, arbitrary
detention, disbarment and intimidation, illustrating a broader strategy aimed at suppressing
legal defence and silencing dissent within the community.36
5.14
With respect to the burden of proof, the authors argue that they established a prima
facie case of discrimination, thereby shifting the burden to the State Party to demonstrate that
its actions were non-discriminatory and applied equally in comparable situations. However,
the State Party failed to provide concrete or verifiable evidence, relying instead on general
assertions.
5.15
The authors further rely on relevant international jurisprudence, noting in particular
that the European Court of Human Rights, in Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea), found an
administrative practice of discrimination against Crimean Tatars, including through arbitrary
prosecutions, restrictions on assemblies and judicial harassment, and submit that similar
conclusions should be drawn in the present case.
5.16
Lastly, while acknowledging the judgment of the International Court of Justice of
31 January 2024 in Ukraine v. Russian Federation, the authors argue that it does not preclude
the Committee from reaching its own conclusions, given the differences in scope and facts.
They also refer to recent jurisprudence of the Human Rights Committee confirming that
discrimination may arise in contexts of occupation and armed conflict.37
5.17
The authors maintain that they have established discriminatory treatment contrary to
the Convention and request the Committee to proceed with its consideration of the
communication on the merits. The authors reiterate that they have presented compelling
evidence demonstrating a pattern of discriminatory practices by the State Party against the
Crimean Tatar population. They state that the documented instances of judicial harassment,
disproportionate arrests and detentions targeting Crimean Tatars, particularly lawyers and
those opposing the occupation of Crimea, reveal a systematic campaign of persecution,
notwithstanding the State Party’s assertions to the contrary.
5.18
In the light of the above, the authors request the Committee to reject the State Party’s
arguments, to declare the communication admissible and to examine it on the merits under
article 14 of the Convention. They further invite the Committee to find violations of
articles 1 (1), 2 (1) (a), 5 (a), (b), (d) (viii) and (e) and 6, as well as, with respect to X and Z,
article 5 (d) (ix), of the Convention.
5.19
Lastly, the authors invite the Committee to recommend that the State Party adopt both
individual and general remedies. At the individual level, they request compensation for
pecuniary and moral damage, the review and quashing of the remaining administrative
sanctions and the cessation of ongoing harassment. At the general level, they call for
measures to prevent discriminatory practices against Crimean Tatars, ensure protection of
their fundamental rights, guarantee access to effective remedies and reparation, eliminate
obstacles to the enjoyment of their economic, social, and cultural rights and prevent racial
bias in judicial proceedings.
35 Amnesty International, “Russia/Ukraine: 10 years of occupation of Crimea”, p. 14.
36 Human Rights Watch, “Russian authorities increase pressure on Crimean human rights lawyer”,
14 January 2019; and Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe, “Crimean Tatars’
struggle for human rights”, p. 17.
37 Bratsylo et al. v. Russian Federation (CCPR/C/140/D/3022/2017), paras. 8.17–8.19.
CERD/C/117/D/85/2023
CERD/C/117/D/86/2023
CERD/C/117/D/87/2023
GE.26-09541
11
Issues and proceedings before the Committee
Consideration of admissibility
6.1
The Committee notes that both the authors and the State Party acknowledge that the
State Party exercises effective control over the territory of the Crimean peninsula, which
engages the State Party’s jurisdiction for the purpose of the Convention.38 The Committee
reiterates its position on the legal status of Crimea under international law and the
fundamental importance of the principle of territorial integrity of all States Members of the
United Nations.39
6.2
Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must
establish, pursuant to rule 106 (e) of its rules of procedure and article 14 (7) (a) of the
Convention, whether domestic remedies have been exhausted, unless the application of such
remedies is unreasonably prolonged. The Committee takes note of the State Party’s
contention that the authors failed to exhaust all effective domestic remedies by not filing the
cassation appeals available to them. The authors argue that the remedies would have been
ineffective, particularly in the light of the fact that one of them, Y, did file a cassation
appeal before the Fourth Cassation Court of General Jurisdiction. The Committee notes that
Y lodged a cassation appeal before the Fourth Cassation Court of General Jurisdiction in
Krasnodar, which resulted in the quashing of one of the impugned decisions. However,
according to the authors, those cassation proceedings did not provide an effective remedy to
Y in respect of the administrative detention or the fine imposed on him, and no mechanism
for adequate redress or compensation was available to him.
6.3
The Committee recalls that, under article 14 (7) (a) of the Convention, a
communication is to be declared inadmissible unless all available and effective domestic
remedies have been exhausted. As concerns X and Z, the Committee notes that they did not
lodge cassation appeals either before the cassation courts of general jurisdiction or before the
Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. The State Party argued that these remedies were
effective in practice, indicating that, in the first half of 2023, the Supreme Court considered
4,460 complaints, of which 401 cases were examined on the merits, and 91 complaints were
upheld in whole or in part, and that, between 2020 and 2023, cassation courts of general
jurisdiction overturned or amended a significant number of administrative decisions annually.
The Committee considers, however, that, in the present case, the State Party has not
demonstrated, for the purposes of article 14 (7) (a) of the Convention, that the proposed
remedies were effective in the specific circumstances.40 This would have required the State
Party to substantiate that allegations raised by Crimean Tatars were genuinely and effectively
examined within the Russian judicial system, in particular by the cassation courts of general
jurisdiction and the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.
6.4
The Committee recalls that the requirement to exhaust domestic remedies under
article 14 (7) (a) of the Convention must be applied with some degree of flexibility and
without excessive formalism, particularly where a continuing or administrative practice of
violations affecting a specific group is alleged.
6.5
The Committee notes the authors’ contention that their rights under article 5 (e) of the
Convention were violated. In the absence of further detailed information and explanations,
the Committee finds that the authors failed to sufficiently substantiate their claims under this
provision of the Convention, as is required by rule 95 (1) (f) of the Committee’s rules of
procedure. Accordingly, it declares this part of the communication inadmissible.
38 See, in this regard, European Court of Human Rights, Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea), Decision,
16 December 2020, paras. 303 et seq. For a similar approach, see also Human Rights Committee,
Bratsylo et al. v. Russian Federation, para. 7.3.
39 CERD/C/RUS/CO/25-26, para. 23.
40 See rule 107 (8) of the Committee’s rules of procedure.
CERD/C/117/D/85/2023
CERD/C/117/D/86/2023
CERD/C/117/D/87/2023
12
GE.26-09541
Considerations of the merits
7.1
The Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the
submissions made available by the parties, as required under article 14 (7) of the Convention
and rule 113 (1) of its rules of procedure.
7.2
The Committee recalls that article 5 (a) of the Convention guarantees the right of
everyone, without distinction as to race or ethnic origin, to equality before the tribunals and
all other organs administering justice in the State Party. In the present case, the Committee
notes that the authors, all of Crimean Tatar ethnicity, consistently raised arguable claims that
the administrative proceedings against them were discriminatory and formed part of a broader
pattern of discriminatory treatment affecting Crimean Tatars, including lawyers providing
legal assistance to members of that community. These claims were supported not only by the
specific facts as submitted by the authors, but also by contextual and corroborative
information, including evidence of disproportionate targeting of Crimean Tatars in the
enforcement of public order and assembly laws, as reflected in reports by international and
regional human rights bodies and in the statistical information referred to in the footnotes.
The Committee observes, however, that the domestic courts – at two levels of jurisdiction –
dismissed the authors’ allegations of racial discrimination without addressing their substance,
relying on the absence of direct evidence of discriminatory intent and failing to examine the
broader factual context or the cumulative impact of the measures complained of. The
Committee recalls that the right to equality before the courts requires that allegations of racial
discrimination be genuinely and effectively examined. In the absence of any substantive
judicial assessment of the authors’ discrimination claims, the Committee considers that the
authors were not afforded equal treatment before the tribunals within the meaning of
article 5 (a) of the Convention.
7.3
The Committee recalls that article 5 (b) of the Convention guarantees the right of
everyone, without distinction as to race or ethnic origin, to security of person and protection
by the State against violence or bodily harm, whether inflicted by government officials or by
any individual, group or institution. In the present case, the Committee notes that the authors
were subjected to regular detentions that they claim were related to their professional
activities, or activities undertaken on behalf of the Tatar community, including short-term
administrative detention, arrests and police custody. The Committee further notes the
consistent allegations, supported by corroborative material and reports by international and
regional human rights bodies,41 that such detentions formed part of a broader pattern of
intimidation, harassment and punitive enforcement measures disproportionately affecting
Crimean Tatars, including human rights defenders and legal professionals. The Committee
observes that the detentions in question were imposed several weeks or months after the
alleged events, were not shown to be strictly necessary and were accompanied by additional
elements of harassment. In this regard, the Committee considers that the cumulative effect of
the authors’ administrative detention and judicial harassment constitutes an impairment of
their right to personal security. The Committee notes, in particular, that, although Y’s
detention was quashed by the courts, he failed to receive any redress for the violations
suffered. In the absence of any indication that the State Party took measures to prevent or
remedy such discriminatory interference with their security of person, the Committee
concludes that the authors’ rights under article 5 (b) of the Convention were not effectively
protected.
7.4
The Committee further recalls that article 5 (d) (viii) of the Convention guarantees the
right of everyone, without distinction as to race or ethnic origin, to freedom of opinion and
expression. In the present case, the Committee notes that the measures taken against the
authors were closely linked to their expressions of opinion and the exercise of communicative
41 See European Court of Human Rights, Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea), Decision, 16 December 2020,
where the Court accepted as prima facie substantiated the existence of an administrative practice by
the respondent State in Crimea, established on the basis of corroborated international reports,
including arbitrary detention, judicial harassment and intimidation disproportionately affecting
Crimean Tatars, among them human rights defenders and legal professionals. See also the Grand
Chamber judgment of 25 June 2024, confirming a systematic pattern of repression directed against
Crimean Tatar activists and opponents of the occupation. See also A/HRC/50/65, para. 26.
CERD/C/117/D/85/2023
CERD/C/117/D/86/2023
CERD/C/117/D/87/2023
GE.26-09541
13
activities in the context of their professional and civic engagement, including making public
statements, communicating with journalists, recording interactions with law enforcement
officials and providing legal assistance to detained members of the Crimean Tatar community.
The Committee observes that the authors were subjected to prosecution and detention
following such activities, which, as reflected in the case file and the supporting material, were
treated as grounds for sanction rather than as conduct warranting protection. It further notes
that these measures occurred within a broader context in which expressions associated with
Crimean Tatar identity, dissenting views regarding the situation in Crimea and advocacy on
behalf of Crimean Tatars have been systematically restricted, a matter of concern previously
highlighted by the Committee.42 In the absence of detailed explanations by the State Party
that the interference with the authors’ expressive activities pursued a legitimate aim in a
non-discriminatory and proportionate manner, the Committee considers that the authors’
enjoyment of their right to freedom of opinion and expression was impaired in a manner that
disproportionately affected them as members of a protected ethnic group, contrary to
article 5 (d) (viii) of the Convention.
7.5
As to the claims brought by X and Z under article 5 (d) (ix) of the Convention, the
Committee recalls that this provision guarantees the right of everyone, without distinction as
to race or ethnic origin, to freedom of peaceful assembly and association. It notes that X and
Z were subjected to administrative prosecution and short-term detention in connection with
their presence at peaceful gatherings near judicial and law enforcement institutions, which
took place specifically in response to the detention and prosecution of members of the
Crimean Tatar community. The Committee observes that it is not argued that the gatherings
in question were accompanied by violence and that X and Z attended them in a professional
capacity, including to provide legal assistance and to observe proceedings of public interest.
It further notes that the authorities relied on broadly framed public order and sanitary
regulations to characterize such presence as unlawful assembly, despite the absence of
evidence that X or Z posed any genuine threat to public order or public health.43 As with
restrictions imposed on the rights to freedom of opinion and expression, the Committee
considers that the interference with the authors’ right to peaceful assembly must be assessed
in its broader context. In this regard, it recalls its concluding observations on the combined
twenty-fifth and twenty-sixth periodic reports of the State Party, in which it expressed
concern about the disproportionate restriction of peaceful assemblies affecting members of
certain ethnic minorities and called upon the State Party to ensure and respect the exercise of
the right of peaceful assembly without discrimination.44 In the absence of any indication that
the interference with the assemblies involving X and Z was necessary and proportionate and
was non-discriminatory in nature, the Committee considers that their right to peaceful
assembly was impaired, contrary to article 5 (d) (ix) of the Convention.
7.6
The Committee recalls that article 6 of the Convention obliges States Parties to ensure
effective protection and remedies through the competent national tribunals and other State
institutions against any acts of racial discrimination, as well as the right to seek just and
adequate reparation or satisfaction for damage suffered. In the present case, the Committee
notes that the authors’ allegations of racial discrimination were consistently rejected by the
domestic courts without substantive examination, thereby depriving them of any meaningful
avenue to obtain redress. The Committee further observes that, although one of the authors,
Y, succeeded in having one administrative decision quashed by a higher court, that outcome
did not result in any form of reparation, compensation or other form of satisfaction for the
deprivation of liberty and other harm already suffered, nor did it address the underlying
claims of discriminatory treatment. As regards the other authors, their convictions and
sanctions were upheld, and no remedies were made available to allow them to challenge
effectively the discriminatory nature of the proceedings or to obtain redress for the harms
sustained. The Committee reiterates that remedies under article 6 must be effective in practice
as well as in law and must be capable of providing appropriate relief, including reparation,
42 CERD/C/RUS/CO/25-26, para. 23.
43 For a similar approach, see Human Rights Committee, Poplavny and Sudalenko v. Belarus
(CCPR/C/118/D/2139/2012).
44 See CERD/C/RUS/CO/25-26.
CERD/C/117/D/85/2023
CERD/C/117/D/86/2023
CERD/C/117/D/87/2023
14
GE.26-09541
in cases of discrimination. In the absence of any convincing information as to the existence
of an effective judicial or administrative remedy capable of addressing the authors’
discrimination claims or providing adequate redress, the Committee considers that the State
Party has failed to comply with its obligations under article 6 of the Convention.
7.7
The Committee, acting under article 14 (7) of the Convention, is of the view that the
facts before it disclose a violation of article 5 (a), (b) and (d) (viii), read in conjunction with
article 2 (1) (a), and of article 6 of the Convention, for all authors, and of article 5 (d) (ix),
read in conjunction with article 2 (1) (a), for authors X and Z.
8.
The Committee recalls that, according to the rules of responsibility of States under
international law, any violation of an international obligation that has resulted in harm entails
a duty to make full reparation for the injury caused.45 The Committee emphasizes that it is
the responsibility of the State Party to make reparation for the violations of its obligations
under the Convention and of the rights of the authors established in the present case, which
should include full and effective reparation. Such reparation should encompass, inter alia,
adequate compensation for the material and moral damage suffered, including reimbursement
of the fines imposed, as relevant, as well as other appropriate forms of satisfaction. Moreover,
the Committee requests the State Party to take further measures to ensure that existing
legislation is applied in an effective manner and with due regard to the requirements of the
Convention, including by preventing structural and indirect discrimination and advancing
substantive equality in practice. The State Party is also requested to give wide publicity to
the Committee’s Views, including by disseminating them in its official language or languages,
as well as in the language of the authors.
9.
The Committee wishes to receive from the State Party, within 90 days, information
on the measures taken to give effect to the present Views.
45 Pérez Guartambel v. Ecuador (CERD/C/106/D/61/2017), para. 6.