|

The interim decision of the ICJ does not provide for compensation for Ukraine was a long process – lawyer

The interim decision of the ICJ does not provide for compensation for Ukraine to receive any compensation a long process.

This assessment of the judgment of 10 April was given by the lawyer of law firm “Ilyashev and Partners” Andrey Bychkov.

According to him, in General, the International court of justice ruling is positive for Ukraine and formally can be viewed as a small victory.

At the same time, the lawyer said: “Despite the significa nce of this process, we should not overestimate the practical importance of this decision and certainly should not entertain the illusion that it will be executed unconditionally by the Russian Federation”.

“First, this decision is interim and does not affect the merits of the dispute between Ukraine and Russia. No compensation for Ukraine it does not. Before considering the merits of the dispute, in which the court could theoretically award of Ukraine of compensation in one form or another, is still far” – he said.

A. Bychkov said that the decision “inherently declarative: the court obliged the Russian Federation to fulfill the conditions of the International Convention on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination”.

“However, the Russian Federation, previously ratified this Convention and thus committed itself to fulfill its conditions. If she does it in practice is another issue,” he said.

The lawyer noted that the decision of the International court of justice is the first in this process is certainly important not only for Ukraine but for the entire civilized world.” On the one hand, the court forbade Russia to restrict the rights of the Crimean Tatars on the preservation of representative bodies of its people, including the Majlis, and is also obliged to provide education in the Ukrainian language in Crimean schools in accordance with the International Convention on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination.

On the other hand, according to him, the court did not accept the arguments of the Ukrainian side about the necessity of adopting provisional measures to ensure compliance with RF requirements of the International Convention for the suppression of the financing of terrorism in connection with the events in Donbass.

At the same time, the court decided that he was, “at first sight”, has sufficient authority to resolve the dispute between Ukraine and Russia on issues of interpretation and application of the two conventions.

According to the lawyer, the clause “at first sight” means that at this stage the court has not delved into the question of whether it has jurisdiction to consider the dispute between the two countries on the merits. The court chose to consider the application of interim measures against the Russian Federation. This means that the parties retain the right to continue to raise the issue of whether the court of jurisdiction to consider the dispute between Ukraine and Russia on the merits.

“Despite initial success, Ukraine still has a long and hard way in this process and not only in order to achieve real results in the form of obtaining redress for violations of their rights and the rights of its citizens”, – said Alexander Bychkov.

As reported, the international court of justice (the Hague) under the claim of Ukraine against Russia 19 APR 2017 announced the decision, according to which Russia in the Crimea is obliged to ensure the rights of the Crimean Tatars, to allow the activities of the Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar people and to provide education in the Ukrainian language.

The court also expects Russia and Ukraine to implement the Minsk agreements.

Leave a comment

Confirm that you are not a bot - select a man with raised hand: