Babin Borys V., Dr. Hab. (Law), Professor, babinb@ukr.net

Institute of International Relations of Kiev State University named for Taras

Shevchenko

Rights of Indigenous Peoples of Ukraine in Conditions

of the Dignity Revolution and Foreign Occupation

Evolution of the Statute of the Indigenous Peoples of Ukraine in

Crimea as a Ground of Statute the Crimea

Considering the historical, legal, ethical

preconditions of application the international legal

mechanisms helps to protect and promote the rights of

indigenous peoples (IP) for specific ethnic groups in

Ukraine. Traditionally relevant issues is connected with

the Crimean Tatar People (CTP); while several other ethnic

groups of Ukraine may be qualified for the corresponding

status. These issues were exacerbated in a gradual of

curtailment the democratic freedoms in Ukraine and civil

society institutions in the 2010-2014, which led to the

Dignity Revolution and at the same time become a foreword

to the escalation of separatism and to the foreign

occupation of the Crimea, which is the historic homeland

of IPs of Ukraine.

CTP as a separate ethnic group live in the territory of

Ukraine at least from the thirteenth century, they have

political and legal development of the national state –

the Crimean Khanate (XV-XVIII cent.) and used religious

and cultural autonomy in the Russian empire in (XVIII-XX

cent.), which did not prevent the empire to squeeze out

gradually most of the CTP in abroad exile1. Modern

historians are unanimous in determining the identity of

ethnic genesis CTP in the Crimean Khanate; it is proved

that CTP have their own legal system based on Sharia and

customs (Tore) and used the traditional institutes of the

collective national property (Vakf)2.

Crimean Karaites (Karays) and Krymchaks emerged as

separate ethnic groups in the Crimea in the early Middle

Ages, they had the actual national-cultural autonomy

mechanisms in the Crimean Khanate, Russian Empire and the

Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic (A.S.S.R., to

1945). In legal acts of the Crimean Khanate, the Russian

Empire, the Crimean A.S.S.R., the USSR and the Republic of

Crimea these ethnic groups were called as peoples and were

recognized as indigenous population; they had features of

collective state-legal status3. Non-numerous character of

these ethnic groups has led to their almost complete

annihilation because of Hitler's genocide against the1 Vozgrin V. Y. Historic Destinies of Crimean Tatars / Victor Y. Vozgrin. – M.

: Mysl`, 1992. – P. 76-108 (246 p.) [on Russian : Возгрин В. Е. Историческиесудьбы крымских татар / В. Е. Возгрин. – М. : Мысль. 1992. – 246 с.]

2 Babin B. V. Legal Statute of the Indigenous peoples of Ukraine / Borys V.Babin. – Donetzk : Kashtan, 2006. – P. 101-114 (312 p.) [on Ukrainian : Бабін Б.В. Правовий статус корінних народів України : моногр. / Б. В. Бабін. – Донецьк :Каштан, 2006. – 312 с.]

3 Achkinazy I. B. Krymchaks : Historic-Ethnographic Essay / I. V. Achkinazy. –Simferopol : Dar, 2000. – P. 24-28 (189 p.) [on Russian : Ачкинази И. В. Крымчаки:историко-этнографический очерк / И. В. Ачкинази. – Симферополь : Дар, 2000 – 189с.]

Krymchaks and the destruction by the USSR bodies the

religious authorities of both ethnic groups, which

contributed before to their national consolidation1.

Remnants of these ethnic groups, however, cheered the

national consciousness in the 1989-1992; measures which

had used then by the powers of the Crimean autonomy to

maintain their identity, led to the legal recognition of

these ethnic groups as a “Non-numerous Crimean Peoples.”

Sometimes offers appear to determine Gagauz2 and Urums3

as IPs of Ukraine.

Ethnic groups that have their own national states

(Belarusians, Jews, Poles, and others) or state-like

formations in the independent states (eg. Buryats,

Karakalpaks, etc.) can not be considered as IPs of Ukraine

and are the minorities, even if some relatively small part

of this ethnic group has an indigenous origin for1 Lebedeva E. I. Essays on History of Crimean Karaites-Turks / E. I. Lebedeva.

– Simferopol, 2000. – P. 58-84 (115 p.) [on Russian : Лебедева Э. И. Очерки поистории крымских караимов-тюрков / Э. И. Лебедева. – Симферополь, б.и., 2000 – 115с.]

2 Guboglo M. N. Little Turk-Language Peoples of the Balkan Peninsula (On Question of the Origin of Gagauses) : thesis on PhD dissertation on History / M. N. Guboglo. – M., 1967. – 26 p. ; Anikin N. V. Problems of Ethnic Identification of the Gagauses in Moldova : thesis on PhD dissertation on History / N. V. Anikin. – M., 2009. – 20 p. [on Russian : Губогло М. Н. Малые тюркоязычные народы Балканского полуострова (К вопросу о происхождении гагаузов) : автореферат дисс. ... канд. ист. наук / М. Н. Губогло. – М.,1967. – 26 с. ; Аникин Н. В. Проблемы этнической идентификации гагаузов Молдавии : автореферат дисс. ... канд. ист. наук : 07.00.07 – этнография, этнология и антропология / Н. В. Аникин. – М., 2009. – 20 с.]

3 Garkavetz O. Urums of Up-Azov: History, Language, Tales, Songs, riddles,proverbs, Writing Monuments / O. Garkavetz. – Alma-Ata, 1999. – 624 p. [onUkrainian : Гаркавець О. Уруми Надазов'я: історія, мова, казки, пісні, загадки,прислів'я, писемні пам'ятки / О. Гаркавець. – Алма-Ата : Український культурнийцентр, 1999 р. – 624 с.]

Ukrainian territory. Some ethnic groups of Ukrainian

nation (as Hutsuls) and of ethnic minorities (as Crimean

Armenians) can not be considered as IPs of Ukraine,

because they have no evidences that they are the separate

ethnic groups (peoples) and they aren’t the separate

nationality. In this context, a key issue is the

Ruthenians (Rusyns) problem; their ethnic genesis and

self-consciousness today indicate the possibility of their

existence as a separate people; in this case there is a

real prospect of recognition of Rusyns as IP of Ukraine.

However, historians proves the repeated attempts by

Muscovy State and the Russian Empire to destroy the CTP

and his state by methods similar to colonization by Russia

the regions of Asia. After the forced inclusion of the

Crimean Khanate to Russia in 1783 till 1802, CTP had

territorial autonomy in form of Tauride regional

government; till 1917, CTP had spiritual autonomy in

Russia. Reducing the share of CTP in Crimea's population

was connected with the seizure of their land by the

government and with number of Russian-Turkish wars of the

XIX cent., which resulted the mass the emigration of CTP

in Turkey1.

In 1917-1921 CTP sought to create a national self-

government, autonomy and even independence; particularly

in December 1917, Constitutive Kurultay proclaimed the1 Vozgrin V. Y. Ibid. – P. 156-202.

formation of the People's Republic of Crimean and adopted

the Crimean Tatar Ground Laws as the Constitution of this

republic. Numerical minority of CTP did not allowed to

defend them their own state; both the need to consider

national factor led to the declaration by Soviets in

October 1921 Crimean S.S.R. (later named the Crimean

A.S.S.R.)1.

Founded Crimean A.S.S.R. of 1921-1945 was looked by the

Soviets quite as the national autonomy of the CTP, as it

was evidenced by the order of its formation, official

languages and personnel policies. People’s Commissariat on

Nationalities of Russian S.F.S.R. recognized Crimean ASSR

as playing the CTP statehood role; it was declared two

official languages of autonomy (Russian and Crimean

Tatar); republic was led by ethnic Crimean Tatarian; CTP

were, on the end of 30 years the relative majority in the

autonomy’s government; in the official documents of that

period CTP recognized as indigenous population of the

republic opposing to the national minorities living in

Crimea2; Crimean Tatars and Karaites recognized as IP of

Crimea in academic journals of the period. In addition,

1 Guboglo M. N. Crimean Tatar National Movement. History. Problems.Perspectives / M. N. Guboglo, S. M. Chervonnaya. – M. : Nauka, 1992. – V. 1. – P.79-87 (330 p.) [on Russian : Губогло М. Н. Крымскотатарское национальное движение.История. Проблемы. Перспективы / М. Н. Губогло, С. М. Червонная. – М. : Наука,1992. – Т. 1. – 330 с.]

2 Crimean A.S.S.R. / Little Soviet Encyclopedia in 10 vol. – M., 1936. – V. 5.– P. 1012-1015. [on Russian : Крымская АССР // Малая Советская Энциклопедия: в 10томах. – М., 1936. – Т. 5. – С. 1012-1015.]

they repeatedly recognized as a separate nation in legal

acts of the Russian Empire, the U.S.S.R. and the Crimean

A.S.S.R.

Soviet practice of nation-building did not have cases

of territorial autonomous republics, because all the

soviet autonomies were seen as public education designed

to ensure (declaratively) the right to self-determination

of people or some peoples residing on this territory. All

Soviet national autonomy have national character

(sometimes they were multinational, as Dagestan A.S.S.R.

or binational as the Chechen-Ingush A.S.S.R.); impossible

to imagine that the Russian S.F.S.R. (that included

Crimean A.S.S.R. in 1921-1945) established the autonomous

republic in Crimea through the fact of residence in its

territory of ethnic Russians, even autochthon ones.

Deportation of CTP in May 1944 took place by order of

the People's Commissariat of Defence of U.S.S.R.; in June

1944 most of traditional national minorities (Bulgarians,

Armenians and Greeks) also were deported from the Crimea.

This illegal events led to the transformation of the

Crimean A.S.S.R. into the simple Crimean region of the

Russian S.F.S.R. Presidium of the Supreme Council of the

U.S.S.R. on June 30, 1945 adopted the Resolution approving

the Law preceded by the Russian S.F.S.R. on June 25, 1945

which directly convert transforming the Crimean ASSR into

the simple region (oblast) in connection with the

deportation of the CTP.

The formal lifting of restrictions from the CTP was in

the Decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Council of the

U.S.S.R. on September 5, 1967, when the Crimean region was

in the Ukrainian SSR for a long lime (since 1954). Soviet

policy toward the CTP in the years 1967-1989 was based on

the doctrine of pointlessness of their resettlement back

in Crimea with simultaneous recognition of their identity

as people and reproduction of cultural autonomy of CTP in

the Uzbek S.S.R. where the deported persons lived at.

Human Rights Movement of CTP in Soviet period

contributed some attention to this problem outside the

U.S.S.R. and consolidated this ethnic group on the basis

of consistent rejection of Soviet ideology and coherent

self-organization. However, the authorities of the U.S.S.R

and the Crimean region strongly opposed attempts to return

of CTP in Crimea, such returning became widespread in

1989, when such resistance in conditions of cracking the

Soviet system was impossible. This contributed to the

approval by the Supreme Council of the U.S.S.R. the

Declaration on November 14, 1989 at which the Soviet

normative acts on deportation of CTP were defined as

illegal and all formal and informal restrictions on

resettlement the CTP in Crimea were canceled1.

Real prospects of restoring the Crimean Tatar statehood

and the Soviet government's desire to weaken the position

of a sovereign Ukrainian S.S.R. led to an escalation in

the Crimean separatist sentiments among the Russian-

speaking immigrants, who were settled in 1950-1980 in the

Crimea (previous Russian-speaking population of Crimea was

almost completely destroyed during the Soviet repressions

and World War II also as by the postwar famine).

Therefore, by the resolution of the Oblast Council of the

Crimean oblast on November 13, 1990 Temporal Provision on

the referendum and the procedure for its conduct in the

Crimean oblast of the Ukrainian S.S.R. were approved.

This Temporal Provision was designed to hold a

referendum on January 20, 1991, which submitted the

question about "reconstitution the Crimean A.S.S.R. as a

subject of U.S.S.R. and of Union Treaty”. Provision

indicated that such reconstitution is an implementation of

“the right of peoples of the Crimea on the self-

determination”; also the pointed resolution of November

13. 1990 contained a request to the authorities of five

1 Crimean Tatars: Company of the Civil Protest against Discrimination of theIndigenous Peoples of Crimea. Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People. Legal-politicDepartment. Informational Service. – Simferopol, 2000. – P. 44-65 (106 p.) [onRussian : Крымские татары: кампания гражданского протеста против дискриминациикоренного народа Крыма. Меджлис крымскотатарского народа. Политико-правовой отдел.Информационная служба. – Симферополь: Б.и., 2000. – 106 с.]

Soviet republics (Ukrainian, Uzbek etc.) “to provide

necessary assistance to conduct a referendum among the

Crimean Tatars and other peoples deported from Crimean

region”.

Thus recognized certain political rights of CTP;

however, the referendum was held without the participation

of the deportees. After approval by referendum the pointed

question Supreme Council of Ukrainian S.S.R. without

waiting for decision of U.S.S.R. authorities adopted the

Law № 712-XII on February 12, 1991 “On the Restoration of

the Crimean A.S.S.R.” which transformed the statute of the

Crimean oblast of the Ukrainian S.S.R. 1. Soon after the

Resolution of the Supreme Council of the U.S.S.R. on March

7, 1991 № 2013-1 was adopted; it canceled the Decree of

the Presidium of the Supreme Council on June 30, 1945 for

conversion the Crimean A.S.S.R. to the oblast (but the law

of Russian S.F.S.R. on June 25, 1945 was not canceled)2.

However, the authorities of the newly created A.S.S.R.

were the former government (executive committee) of the

Crimean oblast; representatives of CTP in was not involved1 On the Restoration of the Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialistic Republic :

Law of the Ukrainian S.S.R. on February, 12, 1991 № 712-XII [on Ukrainian : Провідновлення Кримської Автономної Радянської Соціалістичної Республіки : закон УРСРвід 12 лютого 1991 р. № 712-XII] ; URL : http://zakon4.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/712-12

2 On Cancel of the Legislative Acts in Connect to the Declaration of theSupreme Council of the U.S.S.R. on November 14, 1989 : resolution of the SupremeCouncil of the U.S.S.R. on March 7, 1991 № 2012-І [on Russian : Об отменезаконодательных актов в связи с Декларацией Верховного Совета СССР от 14 ноября1989 г. : постановление Верховного Совета СССР от 7 марта 1991 г. № 2012-І //Ведомости Верховного Совета СССР. – 1991. – № 23. – С. 653.]

this system. From the analysis of these documents should

be assumed that Russian separatists hoped to use the CTP

movement with its own purpose for secession from the

Ukrainian S.S.R. and then conclude with him a certain

model of cooperation.

However, a reconstitution the Crimean A.S.S.R. without

the participation of the CTP brought enough opposite

effect. In July 1991 Kurultay (Congress) of the CTP

objected to the appropriate state construction in Crimea

and formed a Mejlis as a representative body of the CTP1;

in December, 1991 this Mejlis approved the draft of the

Constitution of the Crimean Republic as a state of the CTP

and offered it to the public debate2.

After the relevant events pro-Russian authorities of

the Crimean A.S.S.R. refused from any cooperation with the

representative institutions of the CTP and took action for

the formation of Republic of Crimea, i.a. by approval on

May 6, 1992 its Constitution. Political rights of the CTP

were considered by that pro-Russian power not in terms of

the state building, but only in the context of the1 Declaration on the National Sovereignty of the Crimean Tatar People on June

28, 1991 / Documents of the Curultay June 26-30, 1991 [on Russian : Декларация о национальном суверенитете крымскотатарского народа от 28 июня 1991 г. / Документы Курултая 26-30 июня 1991 г.] ; URL : http://qtmm.org/public/images/ckeditor/file/quick-folder/dokumenty_1_sessii_2_kurultaya.doc.

2 Constitution of the Crimean Republic : project, adopted by the Mejlis of theCrimean Tatar People on December 29, 1991 // Guboglo M. N. Ibid. – V. 2 – P. 144-177 [on Russian : Конституция Крымской Республики. Проект, принят Меджлисомкрымскотатарского народа 29 декабря 1991 г. // Губогло М., Червонная С. Указработа. – Т. 2.– С. 144–177.]

restoration of the rights of deportees, with speculation

on the political rights of other deported groups (Germans,

Armenians, etc.). For example, electoral quotas for

deportees` representatives were set for elections to the

Supreme Council of Crimea by Crimean Law on October 14,

19931 and by the Law of Ukraine on April 6, 1995 – for the

local elections in Crimea2.

At the same time the Crimean authorities recognized

Karaites and Krymchaks as IP, obviously not having to

worry about any threats from the side of the ethnic groups

that were on the verge of extinction. Thus, the Council of

Ministers of the Crimean A.S.S.R. on January 21, 1991

recognized the Karaites and Krymchaks as a Non-numerous

Crimean Peoples and established a list of measures to

maintain their cultural identity3.

Ethnic legal processes that began after Ukraine gained

independence in 1991, were due to factors beyond

1 On Amendments to the Law of the Republic of Crimea “On Elections of theSupreme Council of Crimea” : Law of the Republic of Crimea on October 14, 1993 [onRussian : О дополнениях к Закону Республики Крым «О выборах Верховного СоветаКрыма»: Закон Республики Крым от 14 октября 1993 г. // Ведомости Верховного СоветаКрыма. – 1993. – № 5. – Ст. 220.]

2 On Specific of the Participation of Citizens of Ukraine, ConsideringDeported from Crimea, in Elections of the Deputes of Local Councils in AutonomousRepublic of Crimea on April 6, 1995 № 124/95-вр [on Ukrainian : Про особливостіучасті громадян України, з урахуванням депортованих з Криму, у виборах депутатівмісцевих рад в Автономній Республіці Крим: Закон України від 6 квітня 1995 р. №124/95-вр] ; URL : http://zakon4.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/124/95-вр

3 On Measures on Preserving the Cultural Heritage of Karaites and Krymchaks :resolution of the Council of Ministers of the Crimean A.S.S.R. on January 21, № 5[on Russian : О мерах по сохранению культурного наследия караимов и кримчаков :постановление Совета Министров Крымской АССР от 21 января 1992 г. № 5 // ВестникСовета Министров Крыма. – 1992. – № 1. – С. 6-11.]

multiculturalism Ukrainian people and entering into its

structure above non-titular ethnic groups that are

indigenous to the country of origin. These processes led

to adoption by Ukrainian parliament the Declaration of the

Rights of Nationalities, 1991 and to the application by

the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine the Call for Citizens of

Ukraine of All Nationalities, 1991, with recognition by

those and many other acts the existence some “peoples”, as

a part of the Ukrainian People, including the CTP, and the

presence of the collective rights guaranteed by the state

for such ethnic groups.

After the politic decision of problem of the Crimean

autonomy, the Constitution of Ukraine, 1996 did not bound

the status of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (ARC) with

CTP; Constitution of the ARC, 1998 also avoided to mention

on the grounds of autonomy statute (however, the status

of official languages of the ARC was fixed both for the

Russian and Crimean Tatar languages).

 

The development of the democratic social and legal

state institutions and civil society in Ukraine

objectively necessitated the providing of legal status of

IP Ukraine as an integral part of the multinational

Ukrainian people and created preconditions for their

development. So the Constitution of Ukraine, 1996 launched

a national constitutional institute of IPs. According to

Art. 11 of the Constitution of Ukraine, the state promotes

the development of ethnic, cultural, linguistic and

religious identity of all IPs of Ukraine; under its art.

92 rights of IPs should be determined by the laws of

Ukraine; Section 3 of art. 119 of the Constitution states,

that local state administrations provide on relevant

territory, in areas where IPs live, implementation of the

programs of their cultural development. However, the

similar rights were secured by the Constitution for the

national minorities.

Adding to the text of Constitution those norms of art.

11, 92 and 119 with the "IP" term become possible due to

the peculiarities of the process of adoption of the

Constitution in June 1996, in particular through

democratic discussion of amendments to the draft

Constitution within the framework of parliamentary

Constitutional commission. Alas, Ukraine has not passed

the legislation that would specify those provisions of the

Constitution. The rights of some ethnic communities living

in Ukraine can not be provided by the laws on national

minorities, including the historical, socio-cultural and

political factors that have resulted from their indigenous

origin.

According to the governmental draft of the Concept of

the State Ethnic Policy of Ukraine, IP – is autochthonous

ethnic community, which had the ethic genesis on the

territory in the boards of contemporary Ukraine and is an

ethnic minority in the composition of Ukrainian population

and does not have own state formation outside the

Ukrainian state. Some Laws of Ukraine approved in the

1990s, contain the term “IPs”, in particular the Law "On

Local State Administrations" on April 9, 1999 and the Law

“On the Supreme Council of the ARC” from January 10, 1998;

also we can point to the some regulations of the ARC on

period 1998-2003, that established de facto for CTP

special status.

In independent Ukraine representatives of the Karaites,

Krymchaks and Crimean Tatars required to be recognized as

IPs. Interestingly, the political movement of Ruthenians

(Rusyns) never applied to the idea of recognition of

Rusyns as IP. National movements Karaite and Crimean

Tatars have specific organizational forms. Thus, the CTP

national movement created a system of representative

bodies that represent the interests of a large part of

this ethnic group. These bodies are elected by democratic

procedures of the National Congress – Kurultay of the CTP,

by a representative body that it chooses - Mejlis of the

CTP and Mejlises system in administrative-territorial

units of Crimea and of some other regions of Ukraine;

these structures are active from 1991. Karaite ethnic

group has the also representative council – Ulu bolik

chosen Karaites National Congress in 2003. Unfortunately,

the actual extinction of Krimchaks makes no the real

respective of considering this ethnic group as a carrier

of the IP rights of in the future1.

Compliance of Karaites and Crimean Tatars to the

international requirements on the characteristics of IPs

is the basis for the recognition of IP of Ukraine,

through:

- the nascence and development of this IPs as separate

ethnic groups in Ukraine, their lack of own historical

country except Ukraine and absence of other state or

public education, with which they could connect their own

national identity (autochthon character of these ethnic

groups);

- the presence of indigenous` traditional territory of

residence (Crimea) in Ukraine, with whom this IPs have a

close organic historical and cultural communication;

- national, linguistic, cultural and religious identity

of this IPs;

- self-consciousness representatives of ethnic groups

indigenous peoples.

1 Babin B. V. Ibid. – P. 203-212.

Features of these ethnic groups are inherent in the

national ethno-political situation (loss of specified

ethnic groups traditional forms of farming and nature, the

lack of a long tradition of existence of modern

representative institutions, a relative minority the CTP

in Crimea and absolute scarcity of Karaites), did not

allow Ukraine to decide the possibility of the

establishment the national-territorial autonomy in

traditional and modern territories of their residence of

to give them all natural resources and lands of Crimea to

the ownership. Even the formal final recognition of those

ethnic groups as IPs did not occur within 23 years of

independence of Ukraine.

At the same time Ukraine de facto perceived CTP as the

IP of Crimea, with appropriate political rights. To

provide organizational and financial forms of appropriate

assistance “deported” legal institute was used. As we know

the deportation of peoples was a form of mass repressions

historically, deportations widely used by the powers of

U.S.S.R. In particular, there was a deportation of the

Crimean Tatars, as their eviction of the Crimean A.S.S.R.,

conducted by central Soviet authorities in May 18-20, 1944

Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R. adopted a Declaration on

November 14, 1989 “On Recognizing as Illegal and Criminal

the Repressive Acts against the Peoples Who were

Resettlement by Force, and Protection of their Rights” so

term “deported peoples” was introduced to the legal

practice. Resolution of the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R.

on March 7, 1991 repealed the soviet legislation on the

status of deportees that restricted their rights. On

October 9, 1992 a number of former Soviet countries signed

an Agreement on Issues Connected with Restoration of

Rights of Deported Peoples, National Minorities and

Peoples (Bishkek Agreement). This Agreement was ratified

by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine by Law № 3736-XII on

December 17, 1993, the ten-year term of the Agreement was

extended until 2013 by the Protocol on May 30, 2003.

Unfortunately, during the 2012-2013 Yanukovych regime did

not contribute to the possibility of another extension of

this Agreement, as it was evidenced in letter of the MFA

of Ukraine № 72/14-612/2-304 on February 1, 20131.

Bishkek Agreement condemned unequivocally “the

totalitarian practices of forced migration of peoples,

national minorities and individual citizens of the former

U.S.S.R.," as a crime, contrary to all-peoples humane

principles, and points out that “legislative and other

normative acts, adopted by former U.S.S.R., Soviet

republic and Soviet local governments and administration

1 Agreement on Issues Connected with Restoration of Rights of DeportedPeoples, National Minorities and Peoples on October 9, 1992 [on Ukrainian : Угодаз питань, пов’язаних з відновленням прав депортованих осіб, національних меншин інародів від 9 жовтня 1992 р.] ; URL : http://zakon4.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/997_090

officials on the forced migration of peoples, national

minorities and individual citizens of the former U.S.S.R.,

are illegal and not valid from their adoption”.

The preamble to the Bishkek Agreement confirmed “the

right of deported persons, minorities and peoples to

restore historical justice and return to their place of

residence of the time of deportation, knowing that this

provision of this right is interstate in nature and

requires for coordinated approaches both multilateral and

bilateral”. Bishkek Agreement provided for the deportees

who have voluntarily returned to their place of former

residence, political, economic and social rights and the

conditions for resettlement, employment, education,

national, cultural and spiritual development equal with

other citizens living on this territory. By implementing

these norms and the provisions the rights and legitimate

interests of citizens residing in the territories shall

not be limited – as was pointed in Agreement.

Recommendations of the Ukrainian parliamentary hearings

“Problems of the Legislative Regulation and Implementation

of the State Policy on the Ensuring the Rights of the

Deported Crimean Tatar people and Ethnic Minorities, who

Return Voluntarily to Ukraine” , approved by the Verkhovna

Rada of Ukraine on April 20, 2000 № 1660-III, stated the

duty and importance of the legal issues related to the

restoration of the rights of deported on ethnic grounds.

This resolution stated that “the historic homeland of the

Crimean Tatars in which they were formed as an ethnic

group, is located in the territory and under the

jurisdiction of the Ukrainian state, which should create a

set of political and legal conditions that ensure the

maintenance and development of the Crimean Tatars in

Ukraine and its equal participation in political, economic

and cultural life of the state” 1.

Aspects of the recognition of the Mejlis of the CTP de

facto were implemented in the Decree of the President of

Ukraine on April 7, 2000 № 573/2000, which approved the

Regulations on the Council of Representatives of the CTP,

according to this decree all the Mejlis members were the

members of this Council at the same time. We should also

point on the Prescript of the President of Ukraine dated

December 24, 2002 № 412/2002 on the Days of the Crimean

Tatar culture and on the Decree of the President of

Ukraine on August 26, 2010 № 873/2010, which approved the

new membership of the Council of Representatives of the

CTP. Unfortunately, this decree of Yanukovych government1 On the Recommendations of the Parliamentary Hearings "Problems of the

Legislative Regulation and Implementation of the State Policy on the Ensuring theRights of the Deported Crimean Tatar people and Ethnic Minorities, who ReturnVoluntarily to Ukraine : Resolution of Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine on April 20, 2000№ 1660-III [on Ukrainian : Про рекомендації парламентських слухань "Проблемизаконодавчого врегулювання та реалізації державної політики щодо забезпечення правкримськотатарського народу та національних меншин, які були депортовані ідобровільно повертаються в Україну : постанова Верховної Ради України від 20квітня 2000 р. № 1660-III] ; URL : http://zakon2.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/1660-14

withdrew from cooperation with Mejlis through the Council

of Representatives of the CTP (instead of Mejlis members

some NGO representatives were set to this Council without

the wide presentation of CTP interests), that not helped

to protect the rights of IPs of Ukraine.

Some local elements of restoration the rights of

deported on ethnic grounds are regulated by the acts of

Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, such as: the Procedure of

Providing for Deportees and their Families` Members who

have Returned to Ukraine, the Housing, Built or Purchased

through the Budget Funds, coordinated by the government

Resolution on December 17, 2003 № 1952; the Procedure of

Provision the Drinking Water to Places of Compact

Settlement of Deported Crimean Tatars and other

Nationalities in the ARC, and the Procedure of Payment the

Compensation Costs for Relocation and Transportation the

Luggage to the Deported Crimean Tatars and Persons of

other Nationalities and their Families` Members who have

Returned to Ukraine for Permanent Residence, determined by

the government Resolution on May 13, 2004 № 626.

The Law of Ukraine “On Restoring the Rights of Persons

Deported on Ethnic Grounds”, passed by parliament on June

24, 2004 under № 1872-IV and after vetoed by the President

of Ukraine – defines the deportation as “the forced

migration of peoples, minorities and persons from their

places of residence on the basis of decisions adopted by

the bodies of state government of the former U.S.S.R.” So

we may see that at least during 1991-2010 years the

Ukrainian authorities did not recognized CTP as IP de jure

but tried to promote their political, economic and social

adaptation and ensure their right to peace and development

of the property in the territories of historical habitat.

Such medial policy grounded not only on will of central

government authorities but on a threat of pro-Russian

separatism in Crimea as Russians community settled in

Crimea after deportation contradicted flatly to such

recognition.

Processes of Recognizing the Statute of Indigenous Peoples in

International Relations

Collective rights of IPs are the special institutions

of human collective rights with influence to the personal

human rights mechanisms. Legal institute of IP rights

originated in some national legal systems (USA, Canada,

etc.) and was subsequently developed at an international

level, especially in the framework of ILO, UN and its

relevant structures such as UN Permanent Forum on

Indigenous Issues (that is now the culmination of

attracting attention to the indigenous issues within the

international community).

First collective international act devoted to the

indigenous issues were the ILO Convention № 64 concerning

the Regulation of Written Contracts of Employment of

Indigenous Workers on June 27, 1939 (31 ratifications by

countries) and Convention № 65 concerning Penal Sanctions

for Breaches of Contracts of Employment by Indigenous

Workers on June 27, 1939 (33 ratifications) also as ILO

Recommendation № 58 concerning the Maximum Length of

Written Contracts of Employment of Indigenous Workers and

Recommendation № 59 concerning Labour Inspectorates for

Indigenous Workers, adopted on the same day.

Those acts used the category of indigenous worker and

pointed that he may belong to or assimilate to the

indigenous population of a dependent territory of to the

dependent indigenous population of the home territory of a

state1.

  The ILO concept of indigenous issues was developed in

1957 when Convention concerning the Protection and

Integration of Indigenous and Other Tribal and Semi-Tribal

Populations in Independent Countries was adopted as the

first international legal instrument to protect the set of

IP rights (this act had 27 ratifications). This convention

pointed on the presence of special rights of the

1 ILO Convention № 64 concerning the Regulation of Written Contracts of Employment of Indigenous Workers on June 27, 1939 ; URL : http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO:12100:P12100_INSTRUMENT_ID:312209:NO

indigenous population, but considered as a key reason for

the acquisition of these rights not autochthon nature of a

particular ethnic group, but its isolation from the

achievements of modern civilization1. Such ILO approach2

contradicted to the ideas of conventions №№ 64 and 65 and

was rejected by UN later, but it is firmly entrenched in

Soviet and post-Soviet international legal doctrine.

Furthermore, this approach establishes the marginality

of indigenous population, which entails the denial of IPs`

subjectivity or propose their fictitious subjectivity3.

Additional in Russian doctrine the sign the indigenous

population was its non-numerous character; it is possible

to link with the fact that ethnic group, which is on the

traditional way of life, can not be numerous by any way.

At the same time we should not forget that the issue of

IPs intensified in the XX cent. not because of some

states` philanthropic considerations but across the

national movements of IPs, that were able not to survive

only in conditions of the domination of other groups, but

1 ILO Convention № 107 concerning the Protection and Integration of Indigenousand Other Tribal and Semi-Tribal Populations in Independent Countries on June 26, 1957 ; URL : http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO:12100:P12100_INSTRUMENT_ID:312252:NO

2 Indigenous peoples, living and working conditions of aboriginal populationsin independent countries : International Labour Office. – Geneva, ILO, 1953. – 45р.

3 Bennett G. Aboriginal Rights in International Law / Bennett Gordon. – L. :Royal Anthropological Institute, 1978. – Occasional Paper №. 37 – 88 р.

also to create a national elites and to access to modern

forms of social organization at least partially1.

The concept of “tribal” for IP was revised by ILO

itself, when ILO Convention № 169 concerning Indigenous

and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries was adopted on

June 27, 1989. This act recognized the special rights

separately for IPs and for tribal people not identifying

these two various categories. Unfortunately, many post-

Soviet authors continued to interpret the rules of this

agreement as the identification of IPs and tribal peoples2.

Ukraine did not ratified the Convention ILO № 169 (as the

conventions №№ 64, 65 also)3.

Convention № 169 includes 22 states now, among them –

15 states of Latin America (Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil,

Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador,

Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Peru,

Venezuela,); Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, also

as Nepal, Fiji and the Central African Republic joined

1 Kingsbury B. Indigenous Peoples' and the International Community withParticular Reference to the Right of Self-Determination : Ph.D. dissertation /Benedic Kingsbury. – Oxford, University of Oxford, 1984. – 234 p.

2 Kryazhkov V. A. Indigenous Non-Numerous Peoples of North in the RussianLaw / V. A. Kryazhkov. – M. : Norma, 2010 – 560 p. ; Sokolovsky S. V. Concept“Indigenous Peoples” in Russian Science, Policy and Legislation / S. V. Sokolovsky// Ethnografichne Obozreniye. – 1998. – V. 3. – P. 74-89 [on Russian : Кряжков В.А. Коренные малочисленные народы Севера в Российском праве / В. А. Кряжков. – М. :Норма, 2010. – 560 с. ; Соколовский С. В. Понятие «коренной народ» в российскойнауке, политике и законодательстве / С. В. Соколовский // Этнографическоеобозрение. – 1998. – № 3. – С. 74-89.]

3 ILO Convention № 169 concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in IndependentCountries on June 27, 1989 ; URL : http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO:12100:P12100_ILO_CODE:C169

this act. Therefore, we can confidently assert that the

Convention № 169 reflects primarily the compromise that

emerged between the IPs, governments and the rest of the

population of Latin America.

In parallel with the ILO in the last decades of the XX

cent. issue of IPs was watched by UN. Under its auspices

in 1970-1990 several studies of independent experts were

carried out; they become an important part of the

international legal doctrine and fostered the development

of the legal status of IPs. In 1982 on the grounds of

offers of the UN Special Rapporteur J.R. Martinez-Cobo1 the

UN Working Group on Indigenous Populations was set, the

task of which was to develop the international standards

on the rights of IPs, which resulted the adoption of the

UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples on

September 13, 2007 (after adoption this Working Group was

terminated).

1993 was proclaimed by the UN as International Year of

the World's IPs, and then under the auspices of the UN

Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues was established

(since 2002), as an advisory body to UN ECOSOC and the UN

Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was

formed. Also the UN Special Rapporteur acted on the

situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of IPs

1 Martinez-Cobo J. R. Study of the problem of discrimination againstindigenous populations / J. R. Martinez-Cobo. – NY : United Nations, 1981. – 55 р.

(the modern name of the institution – UN Special

Rapporteur on the Rights of IPs). UN GA Resolution №

59/174 on December 20, 2004 approved the Second

International Decade of World's IPs (2005-2014), and GA UN

Resolution № 60/142 of 16 December 2005 approved the

Programme of Actions for the Second International Decade

and adopted the topic for the this Decade: “Partnership

for Action and Dignity”1.

We should point to the participation of certain ethnic

groups of Ukraine, in particular and above all - the

Crimean Tatars representatives in UN forums and structures

on issues of IPs since 1994. Recognition by the

international community of the rights of pointed ethnic

groups to participate in solving the problems of the IPs

of the world can not be considered as full and strait

recognition of the indigenous status of these ethnic

groups de jure, but it may, with certain reservations, be

regarded as their recognition and perception as IPs de

facto. We must add that the UN and the most of IPs`

organizations look on practice of such recognitions with a

large caution2.

Modern doctrine of international law proposed some

common signs of IPs as criteria for ethnic groups that may1 Rights of Indigenous Peoples : Resolution 67/153 adopted by the UN General

Assembly on 20 December 2012 [on the report of the Third Committee (A/67/454)] ;URL : http://daccess-ods.un.org/TMP/6731386.18469238.html

2 Cohen C. P. Human Rights of Indigenous Peoples / C. P. Cohen. – NY :Transnational Publishers 1998. – 341 p.

be implicated for IPs of Ukraine (the self-consciousness

of themselves as the IP and as the separate ethnic group,

a strong connection with traditional areas of residence,

non-state nature of ethnos, as the absence of state with

title nation that has full national affinity with this

ethnic group) 1. However, the last criterion is eroded in

recent decades because of the practice of some states

(first it is Canada) to give to the IPs the territorial

national autonomy with the attributes of statehood.

Draft of UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous

Peoples (DRIP), 2007 as the key international act to

protect the rights of IPs was developed during 25 years.

In 1993 DRIP project was first presented to the UN in

integral form, with approval by the UN Sub-Commission on

Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities,

then project went for a long discussion. Agreed with

dination consistent version of the DRIP was approved on

June 29, 2006 by UN Human Rights Council (30 states were

“for”; two – against, 12 – abstained and 2 did not vote).

After this statement was made by a vote of the UN GA,

where DRIP was approved by 144 votes “for”; four countries

voted “against” (these were Australia, Canada, New Zealand

and the United States), 11 countries abstained (including

1 Anaya S. J. Indigenous Peoples in International Law / S. James Anaya. – NY :Oxford University Press, 1996. – 408 р. ; Heinz Wolfgang S. Indigenouspopulations, ethnic minorities and human rights / W. S. Heinz. – Saarbrc̈ken :Breitenbach, 1991. – 316 р.

Ukraine, also: Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Burundi,

Colombia, Georgia, Kenya, Nigeria, Russian Federation and

Samoa abstained from voting). Another 13 states were

absent during the vote, among them it is worth to mention

Israel, Romania, Montenegro and Central Asian countries

(Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan).

Despite the lack of a binding obligation of the DRIP,

as the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights pointed,

states should “follow its spirit and implement its

principles”. DRIP received the key political and legal

significance, that even forced the states that voted

against its adoption to reconsider their decision soon

after. Such unusual procedure for UN states-“refusals” was

offered by Minister of Foreign Affairs of Bolivia in his

speech at the UN GA in 2008; such proposition caused the

whole favorable reaction of the international community1.

So in April, 2009 the Australian Government announced

its adherence to the DRIP, Canada joined this act

officially on November 12, 2010. The order of states`

accession to the UN declaration is an interesting

theoretic issue as in this case such act that is a

recommendation does not provide for a special procedure

for its accession. In these occasions, the joining of

Australia and Canada was decided by order of official1 Allen S. Reflections on the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous

Peoples / S. Allen, A. Xanthaki. – Oxford : Hart Publishing, 2011. – 620 p.

statements of authorized representatives of their

governments, which then informed UN about it.

Interestingly, that for New Zealand official statement

for support the DRIP was made by the Minister of Maori

Affairs P. Sharpls in June 2009, but it was refuted

immediately by the government of New Zealand through a

formal refutation. However, in April, 2010 the same

minister again made the appropriate statement in UN; on

this time government has not refuted it. U.S. President B.

Obama in December, 2010 announced his intention to “sign a

Declaration” on official meeting with representatives of

U.S. IPs, but after that the U.S. Government gave any

official statements on this issue.

Except the states that voted “against” the DRIP in

2007, such statements on accession to the Declaration was

made by the governments of Colombia and Samoa, which

together with Ukraine abstained from voting the DRIP. It

is interesting that the corresponding step of Columbia in

April 2009 was caused by a situation of internal armed

conflict, as the government of this state sought to get

the support from IPs who made up 2.5 % of the population

of Colombia, to counter the war threats accordingly. The

Government of Colombia made a relevant statement after the

decision of the Constitutional Court of this state on the

needs to protect the rights of IP in January, 2009, which

obliged all responsible authorities to perform certain

actions.

Seventeen of the 46 articles of the DRIP relates to

cultures of IPs and to ways to protect and promote it by

encouraging the direct participation of IPs in decision-

making and giving them access to resources such as

education on their native language etc. Fifteen articles

of the DRIP concern the participation of IPs in decisions

that affect their lives, including real participation in

the democratic form of government power. The DRIP affirms

the right of IPs to self-determination and recognizes

their right to exist and their rights on the lands,

territories and resources.

The DRIP recognizes that IPs deprived of their means of

subsistence, are entitled to reasonable and fair

compensation. It is important that the DRIP recognizes, as

the unlawful, the discrimination of IPs, encourages the

full and effective participation of IPs in all public

decisions that affect them and their right to develop

separately, according to their own views on economic and

social development. The DRIP emphasizes that IPs have the

right to a decent life, to maintain and strengthen their

own institutions, cultures and traditions, and that they

have the right to develop in their chosen direction in

accordance with their needs and aspirations. The DRIP

referred to as the collective and individual rights, the

rights of IPs on culture and identity, rights to

education, health, work, own language etc.

According to the DRIP, IPs have the right to determine

the structures and to elect members to their institutions

in accordance with their own procedures. IPs also have the

right to determine the responsibilities of individuals in

relation to their communities. IPs have the right to

promote, develop and maintain their institutional

structures and their particular customs, spirituality,

traditions, procedures, practices and, where they exist,

legal systems or customs, in accordance with international

standards of human rights.

According to the Art. 38 of the DRIP states, in

consultation and cooperation with IPs, shall take

effective, including legislative measures, to achieve the

objectives of the DRIP. IPs have the right of access to

financial and technical assistance from States and through

international cooperation in order to exercise their

rights. IPs have the right to access and quick decisions

under fair procedures for resolving conflicts and disputes

with states or other parties, as well as to effective

remedies in the event of any violation of their individual

and collective rights. Such decisions take properly into

account the customs, traditions, rules and legal systems

of IPs and relevant international human rights (art. 39 of

the DRIP). Some of the IPs` rights, enshrined in the DRIP,

require new approaches to address global issues such as

development, decentralization and multicultural democracy.

In order to provide a deep respect for the identity of

IPs, countries will have to adopt a common part to

problems of IPs, which will require conducting effective

consultation and establishment of partnerships with IPs1.

It is necessary to specify that after the approval of

the DRIP in 2007 GA UN has addressed repeatedly the IPs`

issues in procedural acts. This is evidenced by UN GA

Resolutions № 65/198 on December 21, 2010, № 66/142 on

December 19, 2011, № 66/296 on September 17, 2012 and so

on. Thus, UN GA Resolution № 66/296 envisaged organizing a

high-level plenary meeting which was called by UN GA as

“World Conference on IPs”, which will be held on 22-23

September 2014 with the involvement of IPs.

UN GA Resolution № 67/153, adopted without a vote on

December 20, 2012, asked the governments and IPs to

organize international and regional conferences and other

themed events to facilitate preparations for the

Conference by three mechanisms UN, dealing with the IPs.

Interestingly, that Resolution № 67/153 recommended to

1 UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples : adopted by the UNGeneral Assembly Resolution 61/295 on September 13, 2007 [without reference to aMain Committee (A/61/L.67 and Add.1)] ; URL :http://www.un-documents.net/a61r295.htm

those States that have not ratified ILO Convention № 169,

1989, to do so; states also were asked to consider how to

support the UN DRIP; Resolution contained the greetings

for increased support of the DRIP by states. It proposed

to states to support the DRIP through consultation and

cooperation with IPs, and with appropriate measures,

including legislation1.

We may add that Convention on Biological Diversity,

1992 in part “j” of Art. 8 mentioned on the knowledge,

innovation and practice of indigenous communities; this

treaty was ratified by Ukraine by Law on November 29, 1994

№ 257/94-ВР 2. This act is not connected strongly with

modern UN position on IPs` issues as it points on

traditional communities (not peoples) and use a “tribal”

approach.

The tragic events in the Crimea after the February,

2014 led to increased attention of UN institutions to the

problem of IPs in Ukraine. This is shown in a Statement of

IPs Participating in the 13th session of the Permanent

Forum on Indigenous Issues (of IPs` Cocus) on May 11, 2014

“On Emergent Situation Involving IPs of the Crimea”3. In1 Ibid. Resolution 67/153 adopted by the UN General Assembly on 20 December

2012 2 Kitzenko D. M. International Legal Statute of the Indigenous Peoples :

thesis of PhD dissertation, International Law / Denys M. Kitzenko. – Kyiv, 2003. –18 p. [on Ukrainian : Киценко Д. М. Міжнародно-правовий статус корінних народів :автореферат дис. ... канд. юрид. наук : 12.00.11 – міжнародне право / Д. М.Киценко. – К., 2003. – 18 с.]

3 About Urgent Situation of Indigenous Peoples of Crimea Statement ofIndigenous Peoples attending the 13th session of Permanent Forum on Indigenous

this Statement, a representative of the Foundation of

Research and Support of IPs of Crimea, stated that the

region that is “the homeland for the three indigenous

peoples – Crimean Tatars, Karay (Karaites) and Krymchaks”,

that were “deprived of their natural rights by both of the

parties to the conflict”. The application stated that the

IPs of Crimea neither initiated nor supported the Ukraine-

Russian conflict, but appeared as victims of this conflict

against their will.

The Statement pointed that all the legal steps taken by

Ukraine and Russia “looks like an attempt to use the CTP

in their bilateral opposition, as an additional factor,

and have no real intention to ensure the rights of IPs on

practice”. This document acknowledged that the legal

manipulations of the intent to avoid recognition and

respect for the rights of IPs – the Crimean Tatars,

Krymchaks and Karays and in Crimea, make them vulnerable

to any oppression by the dominant population and the

Russian government, which took control of the Crimean

territory.

By this Statement IPs of the world appealed to the UN

High Commissioner for Human Rights with the proposal to

organize a special international meeting on the situation

of IPs in Crimea. IPs by this Statement offered to the UN

Issues, 11.05.2014 ; URL : http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2014/hr5179.doc.htm

Special Rapporteur on the Rights of IPs made an offer to

visit the region to gather information and facts related

to the situation with IPs. Also they proposed to include a

delegation of IPs of Crimea in the number of required

participants for the forthcoming World Conference on IPs

in 2014.

By this Statement IPs of the world have suggested the

following to the Ukraine and Russia:

- to found exclusively peaceful and diplomatic efforts

to solve their dispute to stop any military action

conducted in Ukraine, and take the most preferred physical

security of IPs;

- to ensure the full participation of IPs of Crimea in

accordance with the concept of free, prior and informed

consent in the settlement of the conflict;

- to refrain from intimidation and harassment of

activists and organizations that protect the rights of IPs

of Crimea by methods of non-violence and public debate;

- to support officially the UN DRIP and use it as the

basis for their policies and legislation relating to the

Crimea and the IPs of Crimea;

- to recognize the right of persons belonging to IPs of

the Crimea, to keep their citizenship or modify it, or

have dual citizenship of their own choice, the opportunity

to come and stay in the Crimea from their exile without

any negative consequences for their civil, political,

economic, social and cultural rights in the Crimea.

The Statement of IPs contained an appeal to members of

the World Community of the IPs of the proposals:

- to emphasize their solidarity with the IPs of the

Crimea, who were in the position of hostages;

- to turn to our partners and governments to assist the

peaceful settlement of the Crimean crisis especially given

the presence of IPs in the region, and the need to

recognize and adhere their rights;

- to exchange and disseminate information on the

situation of IPs in the Crimea in order to improve it and

prevent the possible human rights violations and

bloodshed.

Indigenous issues were the subject of the monthly

Reports on the human rights situation in Ukraine provided

by the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human

Rights, such as reports on April 15 and June 15, 2014. The

Report on April 15, raises the indigenous issues raised in

paragraphs 6, 11, 89, 97 and 103 of its narrative, as in

p. 3 and 19 of its recommendations1.

In particular, UN officials expressed the view that

“because of the promise of recognition the IP status from

the Ukraine” Crimean Tatars boycotted the “referendum” on1 Report on the Human Rights Situation in Ukraine, 15 April 2014 : Office of

the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights ; URL :http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Countries/UA/Ukraine_Report_15April2014.doc

March 16, 2014; also they pointed on cases of

discrimination and violence against the Crimean Tatars as

an IP. UN OHCHR recommended to the “Crimean authorities”

to protect the rights of minorities and IPs in Crimea, in

particular – the rights of the Crimean Tatars. The UN

OHCHR Report stressed doubly on the role of the

international community and the UN for protecting human

rights, including the rights of IPs; authors of this

Report on April 15 recommended to ensure the inclusive and

equal participation the IP in public affairs and political

life and to develop mechanisms to enhance such

participation; to protect the rights of minorities and

IPs, in particular – the Crimean Tatars, in Crimea.

Similar requirements to ensure full and inclusive

participation of Crimean Tatars as the IP contained in the

UN OHCHR Report on June 15, 2014, which even included a

special unit "”Rights of IPs”. This section analyzes the

prohibitions contained by occupation authorities in Crimea

during event in memory of the 70th anniversary of the

deportation of CTP. Authors of this Report mentioned on

the provision of Security Service of Ukraine of documents

on deportation of the CTP to the Mejlis on May 29, 2014

and referred the acts of the occupation authorities of the

Russian Federation (RF) and of the “Crimean parliament”

that declared the partial installation of social security

for deportees1.

Current Threats to Indigenous Peoples of Ukraine in Conditions of

Russian Occupation

The occupation and subsequent annexation of Crimea (ARC

and Sevastopol) by RF held in February-March 2014, greatly

exacerbated the problem of the rights and interests of the

CTP as an IP of Ukraine. Under foreign occupation of the

Crimea, which grew into its annexation, the newly formed

government of Ukraine paid attention to the issue of IPs;

as their natural collective rights, which were not

officially recognized, but actually implemented by Ukraine

in Crimea, were rejected by the authority of RF and of

separatists “government” of the Crimea.

Therefore, the Ukraine Parliament adopted the draft of

Statement of Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine on the Guarantees

of the Rights of the CTP as a Part of the Ukrainian State

(proposed by p.d. P. Poroshenko), which was approved by

Resolution on 20 March 2014 р. № 1140-VII. The preamble to

the Statement contained a reference to the objectives and

principles enshrined in Arts. 3, 11, 15 of the

Constitution of Ukraine, in Art. 1 of the UN Charter and

in the UN International Covenant on Economic, Social and

Cultural Rights also as in the Vienna Declaration. 1 Report on the Human Rights Situation in Ukraine, 15 June 2014 : Office of

the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights; URL :http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Countries/UA/HRMMUReport15June2014.pdf

We suggest that the Statement’s authors had in mind the

provision of part 2 of art. 1 of the UN Charter on the

development of "friendly relations among nations based on

respect for equal rights and self-determination of

peoples" referring to norms of the Art. 1 of the mentioned

Covenant, 1966 on the right of peoples to self-

determination1, also as provisions of the Constitution of

Ukraine on IPs and about that public life in Ukraine is

based on the basis of political diversity (parts 1, 4 of

Art. 3 of the Constitution of Ukraine) also as on the

state guarantees of freedom of political activity not

prohibited by the Constitution and laws of Ukraine (Art.

15).

The Statement pointed that Ukraine guarantees the

preservation and development of ethnic, cultural,

linguistic and religious identity of the CTP as an IP and

provides similar guarantees to all the national minorities

of Ukraine. At the same time Ukraine guaranteed protection

and realization of the inalienable right to self-

determination of the CTP as a part of a sovereign and

independent Ukrainian state. By this Statement Ukraine has

recognized the Mejlis of the CTP, as the executive body of

Kurultay of the CTP and as the highest representative body

of the CTP.1 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights : adopted by

UN General Assembly Resolution 2200A (XXI) of December 16, 1966 ; URL :http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/cescr.aspx

By this Statement (point 4) Parliament of Ukraine has

declared its support for the UN DRIP; interestingly, that

in the initial version of the Statement’s draft Parliament

only had to charge the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine “to

begin the process of Ukraine’s accession” to this

Declaration (this should be explain by the uncertainty of

the procedure of accession to the DRIP).

Parliament also instructed the Cabinet of Ministers to

submit urgently the drafts of laws and other legal acts of

Ukraine that will define and confirm the status of the CTP

as an IP of Ukraine. Development of relevant projects

foreseen as matter in consultation with the Mejlis of the

CTP, “in close cooperation with the UN, OSCE, Council of

Europe in accordance with international law and standards

of human, IPs and national minorities` rights”. Verkhovna

Rada of Ukraine also instructed the Government of Ukraine

to develop the practical mechanisms for cooperation

between the state authorities of Ukraine and the Mejlis of

the CTP.

Also Ukraine strongly condemned in Statement any

attempt to limit the political and social rights, civil

liberties of Ukrainian citizens of different ethnicities

living in Crimea, in particular, Ukrainian, Russian,

Crimean Tatars, Armenians, Bulgarians, Greeks, Germans,

Karaites, Krymchaks observing as a result of

unconstitutional referendum in the ARC. The explanatory

memorandum to the draft of this Statement considered as

the legal basis for its approval the aforementioned

parliamentary resolution of 20 April 2000 р. № 1660-III,

which allegedly “pointed out the need to address issues

related to the restoration of rights of the CTP as an IP

of Ukraine, forcibly resettled from the Crimea”. This

memorandum directly recognized the approval of this

Statement as the response to the adoption of the

Resolution by the Supreme Council of ARC № 1702-6/14 "On

Conduction the All-Crimean Referendum” and to the next

events in the Crimea.

We must note that the Resolution № 1660-III and other

acts of Ukrainian legislation till March 2014 did not

recognize straightly the CTP as IP; this presumption

displayed indirectly. For example, the Decree № 1660-III

on Council of CTP attributed to the President of Ukraine

“to order to study the question of signing the ILO

Convention № 169”1.

That is why the Statement on March 20, 2014 has the

historical character; implementation of the Statement was

done by Ukraine on the international scene during the

regular annual session of the UN Permanent Forum on

1 Ibid. Resolution of Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine on April 20, 2000 № 1660-III[вказ. вище постанова Верховної Ради України від 20 квітня 2000 р. № 1660-III] ;URL : http://zakon2.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/1660-14

Indigenous Issues in May 20142. Permanent Mission of

Ukraine to the UN organized event of support for the CTP

in Crimea during the forum; on May 13, 2014 the

representative of Ukrainian mission made the formal

announcement on a Forum for support by Ukraine the UN

DRIP. We should add that this announcement was made on

behalf of the Government of Ukraine; it managed to get rid

of ambiguity designed to that fact that usually unilateral

acts of states, as their international solutions, are

issued from national Government (as it was made by

Australia, Columbia, Canada and New Zealand governments

for DRIP issue), not the Parliament.

Relevant adverse events in Crimea contributed to

approval some regulations, especially the Law of Ukraine

on April 15, 2014 р. № 1207-VII “On Ensuring the Rights

and Freedoms of Citizens and Legal Regime for the

Temporarily Occupied Territory of Ukraine”. The preamble

of the Act the basis declared the “protection and full

realization of national, cultural, social and political

rights of citizens of Ukraine, including IPs and national

minorities” as the ground of the humanitarian, social and

economic policy in relation to the population of

temporarily occupied territory. This design suggests that

Ukraine thus considers the collective rights of IPs as a2 Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues Thirteenth Session 3rd & 4th Meetings

(AM & PM) ; UN Economic and Social Council, HR/5179 ; URL :http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2014/hr5179.doc.htm

form of exercising the rights of citizens of Ukraine,

which is not perfect in terms of some theoretical

considerations, according to which collective rights may

be considered as human rights but not as the rights of

citizen.

However, this configuration let us to suggest that the

rights of IPs of Ukraine in Crimea are covered by the

rules of parts 1, 3 of Art. 5, parts 1, 2 of Art. 17 of

this Law, under which Ukraine is taking all necessary

measures to guarantee the rights and freedoms of man and

citizen foreseen by the Constitution and laws of Ukraine,

by international treaties, to all the citizens of Ukraine

who live in the temporarily occupied territory. Thus the

responsibility for the violation of such rights in the

temporarily occupied territory relies on Russia as on the

state-occupier in accordance with the norms and principles

of international law1.

According to the rules of Law № 1207-VII in case of

violation of its provisions, state bodies of Ukraine

should use the mechanisms provided by the laws of Ukraine

and international law, to protect the peace, security,

human rights, freedoms and legitimate interests of

citizens of Ukraine who are located on the temporarily1 On Ensuring the Rights and Freedoms of Citizens and Legal Regime for the

Temporarily Occupied Territory of Ukraine : Law of Ukraine on April 15, 2014 №1207-VII [on Ukrainian : Про забезпечення прав і свобод громадян та правовий режимна тимчасово окупованій території України : Закон України від 15 квітня 2014 р. №1207-VII] ; URL : http://zakon4.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/1207-18

occupied territory. Also, Ukraine is obliged to take all

possible measures, including prescribed by international

law, to restore rights and freedoms of man and citizen

disturbed as a result of the occupation. It should be

added that the DRIP, of course, can be regarded as a

collection of relevant norms of international law that can

be applied by Ukraine to implement the requirements of the

Law № 1207-VII. Also norms of part 7 of Art. 5 of the Law

№ 1207-VII, under which responsibility for the protection

of cultural heritage in the temporarily occupied territory

relies on Russia as on the state-occupant, according to

the norms and principles of international law, must

certainly be disseminated on the cultural heritage of the

indigenous peoples of Ukraine.

Also adverse events in the Crimea Ukraine caused the

Law on April 17, 2014 № 1223-VII “On Restoration of the

Rights of Persons, Deported on Ethnic Grounds” In this act

there is no the term “IP”; il mention both deported

peoples and the CTP; it may be explained by the universal

character of the document trying to cover all the criminal

Soviet deportation on a national basis. The Law № 1223-VII

defines deportation as forced migration of peoples,

minorities and persons on a national basis from their

permanent residence on the grounds of decisions taken by

public authorities or former U.S.S.R. of its union

republics. In Art. 3 of this Law Ukraine recognized the

deportation on the basis of decisions taken by the

government of the former U.S.S.R. and the union republics,

as the illegal and criminal. However, Ukraine did not

noticed in this Law about acts of U.S.S.R. authorities on

the rehabilitation of the former Soviet deportees, violent

displaced from their places of residence and on

restoration of their rights.

This Law № 1223-VII was a continuation of a

paternalistic approach to the deportees, who reigned in

Ukraine, as a welfare state since 1990; however, it is de

facto fixed some rights of the deported CTP – on the

voluntary return to Ukraine, on the adaptation and

integration into Ukrainian society; on the preservation

and development of ethnic, cultural, linguistic and

religious identity; on the return to historic names of

settlements that have been renamed in the U.S.S.R. in

connection with deportation. The relevant rights are named

in Law № 1223-VII as the guarantees to deported persons

whose implementation should not restrict the rights and

legitimate interests of other citizens residing in those

territories1.

1 On Restoration of the Rights of Persons, Deported on Ethnic Grounds : Law ofUkraine on April 17, 2014 № 1223-VII [on Ukrainian : Про відновлення прав осіб,депортованих за національною ознакою : Закон України від 17 квітня 2014 р. № 1223-VII] ; URL : http://zakon4.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/1223-18

We should also point on the Decree of the President of

Ukraine on May 16, 2014 № 472/2014 “On the Day of Struggle

for the Rights of the CTP” approved before the 70th

anniversary of Crimean Tatars deportation. This act stated

that seventy years after deportation due to the actions of

the totalitarian regime of the former U.S.S.R. the CTP

faced the threat of discrimination at own homeland.

Therefore, “in order to support the struggle of citizens

of Ukraine – Crimean Tatars for the realization of their

rights as IP in Ukraine” Decree established the May, 18 as

the day for the rights of the CTP1.

It is worth to point also on the alternative draft of

the Resolution of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine on

November 5, 2013 р. № 3539 introduced by the p.d. V.

Yavorivsky, which supposed to form the 70-th anniversary

since the deportation of Crimean Tatars and other

nationalities from Ukraine and to carry out the

appropriate measures; among responsible contractors were

provided a number of public authorities2. We may point also

1 On the Day of Struggle for the Rights of the Crimean Tatar People : Decreeof the President of Ukraine on May 16, 2014 № 472/2014 [on Ukrainian : Про Деньборотьби за права кримськотатарського народу : Указ Президента України від 16травня 2014 р. № 472/2014] ; URL : http://zakon4.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/472/2014

2 On the 70th Anniversary since the Deportation of Crimean Tatars and otherNationalities from Ukraine (Autonomous Republic of Crimea) : Draft resolution ofthe Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine on November 5, 2013 № 3539, introduced by p.d. V.A.Yavorivsky [on Ukrainian : Про 70-ті роковини з часу депортаціїкримськотатарського народу та осіб інших національностей з території України(Автономна Республіка Крим) : проект постанови Верховної Ради України від 5листопада 2013 р. № 3539, внесений н.д. В.О. Яворівським] ; URL :http://w1.c1.rada.gov.ua/pls/zweb2/webproc34?id=&pf3511=48927&pf35401=281399.

on the draft laws on status of IPs of Ukraine, introduced

to Parliament in March 2014, those are: the draft “On

Restoring the Rights of IPs of Ukraine Forcibly Resettled

from the Crimea” № 4434 on March 13, 2014, submitted by

deputee G. Moskal and the draft “On the Rights of IPs of

Ukraine» № 4501 on March 20, 2014, submitted by deputies

V. Karpuntsov, O. Prodan, R. Pavlenko, T. Corner and I.

Heraschenko.

It should indicate that the project № 4434 was made by

analogy with a number of bills, including governmental,

previously proposed to solve the deported problem1;

actually the category of “deportees” in text was replaced

by the category of “IPs”; most of the rules of the project

was devoted not determine the status of IPs but to

establish the competence of public authorities to organize

their return and resettlement in Ukraine; project

concerned exclusively the CTP (without notices about

Karaites and Krymchaks) 2. These circumstances led to the

rejection of the Bill by the Parliamentary Committee.

1 On Restoration of the Rights of Persons, Deported on Ethnic Grounds : Draftlaw of Ukraine on September 11, 2008 № 3142 [on Ukrainian : Про відновлення правосіб, депортованих за національною ознакою : проект Закону України № 3142 від 11вересня 2008 р.] ; URL : http://gska2.rada.gov.ua/pls/zweb_n/webproc4_1?id=&pf3511=33290

2 On the Restoration of the Rights of the Indigenous People of Ukraine,Forcibly Resettled from the Crimea : Draft law of Ukraine on March 13, 2014 № 4434introduced by p.d. G.G. Moskal [on Ukrainian : Про відновлення прав корінногонароду України, примусово переселеного з території Криму : проект Закону України №4434 від 13 березня 2014 р., внесений н.д. Г.Г. Москалем] ; URL :http://w1.c1.rada.gov.ua/pls/zweb2/webproc34?id=&pf3511=50220&pf35401=293990

Draft Law № 4501, was proposed by a pointed democracy

deputies’ group, is more sophisticated and high-quality

document that puts the purpose of determining the rights

of IPs in Ukraine and the characteristics of their

implementation. In fact, this draft is the maximum

possible implementation of norms of the UN DRIP; it

displays the list of the rights of IPs set in the DRIP.

Therefore, this approach of its authors, provided with

official the acknowledgment by Ukraine the significance of

this DRIP should be considered as productive. According to

Art. 1 of the draft of this law IPs of Ukraine – Is the

autochthonous ethnic community, which is densely populated

and descent from the territory held within the state

border of Ukraine, which is an ethnic minority in the

population of Ukraine and does not have own state

formation outside Ukraine. Project proposes to determine

the Crimean Tatars, Karaites, Krymchaks as IPs Ukraine

“compactly residing in ARC – an integral part of Ukraine”1.

This article (the other provisions of the draft

regulations is the transfer of the UN DRIP) actually was

borrowed by its authors from the draft of the Concept of

1 On the Rights of the Indigenous Peoples of Ukraine : Draft law of Ukraine onMarch 20, 2014 № 4501 introduced by p.d. V.V. Karpuntzov, O.P. Prodan, R.M.Pavlenko etc. [on Ukrainian : Про права корінних народів України : проект ЗаконуУкраїни № 4501 від 20 березня 2014 р., внесений н.д. В.В. Карпунцовим, О.П.Проданом, Р.М. Павленком та ін.] ; URL :http://w1.c1.rada.gov.ua/pls/zweb2/webproc4_1?pf3511=50327

National Ethnic Policy of Ukraine, and causing a number of

observations; as the issue of ethnic genesis is difficult

to be connected with certain territory inside the modern

state borders; in addition, Karaites and Krymchaks now

live scattered across Ukraine not in Crimea mostly. Also

we must not forget that the traditional territory of

residence of the Crimean Tatars in Ukraine, except ARC, is

Sevastopol (also for Karaites) and areas of Kherson and

Zaporizhzhya obtasts. During parliamentary consideration

of this draft Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine sent the project №

4501 for revision and proposed to consider suggestions of

project № 4434, rejected by the parliamentary committee.

As RF as state-occupier watch today the Crimea

territory as its own, RF has extended there its own

national legislation. Therefore, it is necessary to

examine separately the legislation of the RF on indigenous

issues. Imperial nature of Russian state contributed to

the compilation of original solutions to the problem of

the legal status of indigenous non-titular population of

Russia. Historical background of this providing was the by

so-called “inorodetz” law in imperial period; after the

revolution in 1917 the Russian S.F.S.R. and the U.S.S.R.

borrowed the relevant institutions to decide the issues of

the status of the indigenous inhabitants of the North,

Siberia Far East of the Russia; other peoples received the

status of titular nations of autonomous republics, or were

assimilated during the XX cent. to the loss of political

and cultural identity.

Current legal regulations of the RF, including federal

laws and laws of the federation subjects, which now

regulate the legal status of IPs of Russia, were approved

under the banner of the provisions of Art. 69 of the

Constitution, 1993, under which the RF guarantees the

rights of non-numerous indigenous peoples “in accordance

with universally recognized principles and norms of

international law and international agreements of the RF”.

In furtherance of these provisions of the Constitution

some federal law was approved: “On Guarantees of the

Rights of Non-Numerous Indigenous Peoples of the RF” on

April 30, 1999 № 82-ФЗ, “On General Principles of

Organization of Communities of Indigenous Non-Numerous

Peoples of the North, Siberia and Far East of the RF” on

July 20, 2000 № 104-ФЗ and “On Territories of Traditional

Nature Use of the Indigenous Peoples of the North, Siberia

and Far East of the RF” on May 7, 2001 № 49-ФЗ1.1 On Guarantees of the Rights of Indigenous Non-Numerous Peoples of the RF :

the Federal Law of April 30, 1999 № 82-ФЗ ; On Territories of Traditional NatureUse of the Indigenous Peoples of the North, Siberia and Far East of the RF :Federal Law May 7, 2001 № 49-ФЗ ; On General Principles of Organization ofCommunities of Indigenous Non-Numerous Peoples of the North, Siberia and Far Eastof the RF : Federal Law of July 20, 2000 № 104-ФЗ [on Russian : О гарантиях правкоренных малочисленных народов РФ : Федеральный закон от 30 апреля 1999 г. № 82-ФЗ; О территориях традиционного природопользования коренных малочисленных народовСевера, Сибири и Дальнего Востока РФ : Федеральный закон от 7 мая 2001 г. № 49-ФЗ ; Об общих принципах организации общин коренных малочисленных народов Севера,Сибири и Дальнего Востока РФ : Федеральный закон от 20 июля 2000 г. № 104-ФЗ] ;

Some importance for determining the status of IPs in

the RF and with such acts as a List of Places of

Traditional Residence and Traditional Economic Activities

of Non-numerous Indigenous Peoples of the RF, approved by

the Government of the RF on May 8, 2009 № 631-p and the

Concept of Sustainable Development of the Non-Numerous

Indigenous Peoples of the North, Siberia and the Far East

of the RF, approved by the Russian Government on February

4, 2009, № 132-p. These acts of Russian legislation

provides a wide range of collective (ethnic) rights for

non-numerous IPs, but do not recognize the existence of

IPs` rights to political self-determination and limit the

rights of collective ownership on traditional areas of

residence and coherent natural sources for the IPs. Legal

doctrine of the RF recognize the ethnos as IP, according

to autochthon factors and historic grounds, but also with

non-numerous criterion by which IP can be recognized only

if its representatives are no more then 50,000 persons,

and with condition of preserving the traditional forms of

their lifestyle1.

URL : http://constitution.garant.ru/act/right/180406 ;http://base.garant.ru/12122856 ; http://base.garant.ru/182356

1 Kryazkov V. A. Ibid., Ananydze F. R. Indigenous Peoples and Peoples` Righton Self-Determination / F. R. Ananydze // Vestnyk Rossiyskogo Universiteta DruzbyNarodov. – Series “Law”. – 2001. – V. 2. – P. 66-75 [on Russian : Кряжков В. А.Указ. работа ; Ананидзе Ф. Р. Коренные народы и право народов на самоопределение /Ф. Р. Ананидзе // Вестник Российского университета дружбы народов. – Серия:Юридические науки. – 2001. – № 2. – С. 66-75.]

Such conditions do not allow for a number of ethnic

groups in RF to obtain the status of IP – in cases of

excess of quantity of their representatives of 50000

persons or in cases of rejection (even partial) of the

traditional way of life in terms of modern urbanization.

Therefore, in particular, CTP can not get the status of

the IP of RF from occupying power and to use it to protect

their collective rights and interests (as there is

approximately 250000 Crimean Tatars in Crimea).

We should add that the government of the RF sets out an

exhaustive list of non-numerous IPs living in Russian own

territory; first the United List of Non-Numerous IPs of RF

was approved by the Government RF on March 24, 2000 № 255;

abut after the List of IPs of the North, Siberia and Far

East of the RF was approved by the Governmental Prescript

on April 17, 2006 № 536-p. Interestingly, that this List

was amended several times (some ethnic groups were

included and some – excluded without any official

explanation); today this List includes 40 ethnic groups,

of which only 2 (Sami and Vepses) are living in the

European part of RF. During 2009-2011 Russian Government

excluded from List such European nations of RF, as

Besermyans, Vod`, Izhors and Seti; we can assume that the

Sami is still in the List because of their cross-border

status and Vepses – because of ethnic origin of V. Putin.

We must add that the right of a state to determine

which ethnic group is the IP in general is ambiguous (as

it borders on the restriction of the right to self-

consciousness), but this competence of state does not

include any way the possibility of cancellation of such

recognition of ethnic group as IP because of some

subjective factors. Also, noticed Federal law on April 30,

1999 № 82-ФЗ gave special competence to the State Council

of the Republic of Dagestan to establish a separate list

of Republican’s IPs, to determine their quantity and other

characteristics – because of the “unique ethnic

composition of the population of the Republic of Dagestan

by the number of peoples residing in its territory”. List

of IPs of the Republic of Dagestan was approved by the

republican State Council on October 18, 2000 № 191, and

soon was adopted by central authorities of the RF.

Interestingly, that among the 14 IPs of Dagestan this List

was attributed ethnic Russians.

After the attention to the problem of IPs in Crimea its

separatist authorities decided to implement the pointed

legislation of the RF on the Non-Numerous IPs on the

Karaites and Krymchaks. This step has political importance

but on practice it may be seen clearly that less than 100

of assimilated Krymchaks and some hundreds of Karaites are

not looked by separatist regime also as by authorities of

RF as threat. So the SCRC adopted Resolution on June 25, 2014 № 2254-6/14“On Making Representation to the Government of the RF “On the Inclusion the

Crimean Karaites and Krymchaks into the Unified List of Indigenous Non-Numerous

Peoples of the RF”. This Representation recognized that in a multi-ethnic

community of Crimea special position is occupied by non-numerous IPs – Crimean

Karaites and Krymchaks, which formed historically precisely on this territory and

have a complex and multi-layered ethnic genesis, own ethnic identity, cultural

identity and religious independence1. This resolution of separatist powers was the

ground for a project of the Resolution of the Government of the RF that was

officially proposed for a public discussion for June 27 – August 18, 2014 on

governmental web-site but still is not adopted.

The “non-governmental” organizations that today

“unites” officially IPs of the RF, is the Association of

IPs of the North, Siberia and Far East of RF. This

association is actually a tool of influence of federal

authorities as on the IPs themselves, so on the

international structures formed on the problems of IPs.

Despite the active participation of international

organizations in the UN system on indigenous issues, RF as

the state does not use the rules of international

instruments for addressing the issues of IPs residing in

RF; RF did not join the DRIP.

It is necessary to point out that the official attitude

of the RF to the population of ARC and Sevastopol is1 On Making Representation to the Government of the RF “On the Inclusion the

Crimean Karaites and Krymchaks into the Unified List of Indigenous Non-NumerousPeoples of the RF” : Resolution of the SCRC on June 25, 2014 № 2254-6/14 [OnRussain : О внесении представления в Правительство Российской Федерации «Овключении в Единый перечень коренных малочисленных народов Российской Федерациикрымских караимов и крымчаков» : постановление Государственного Совета РеспубликиКрым от 25 июня 2014 г. № 2254-6/14] ; URL :http://regulation.gov.ru/project/17036.html?point=view_project&stage=1&stage_id=6158

defined by the doctrine of the existing the “multinational

people of RF”, and by approaches that have been

distributed in the environment in pro-Russian part of

Crimeans. This is proved by the provisions of so-called

“Treaty between the RF and the Republic of Crimea on

Acceptance the Republic of Crimea to the RF and the

Formation of New Subjects of RF” on March 18, 2014.

This act was based the Russian annexation of the Crimea

by “free and voluntary will of the Peoples of the Crimea

on All-Crimean referendum held in ARC and Sevastopol City

on March 16, 2014, during which the peoples of Crimea

agreed the decision on reunification with Russia on the

rights of subject of the RF”. The thesis on the “Peoples

of the Crimea” is also being in the Art. 3 of this

“Treaty”, under which RF guarantees to all the Peoples

“residing in the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol city of

federal significance”, the right to preserve their native

language and on creating the conditions for its study and

development. In part 2 of this article “Treaty” states

that the state languages of the Republic of Crimea are

Russian, Ukrainian and "Crimean-Tatar" language. It should

be added that the word "Crimean Tatar" is used in modern

Russian official vocabulary with a hyphen (not correct

“krymskotatarsky” but “krymsko-tatarsky”); ascertain the

reason for this is impossible, but we must assume such use

through traditional perception by Russia the Crimean

Tatars as a link of mythical "all-Tatar” ethnos; hyphens

in the name of the people points on it according to this

concept.

It is necessary to point out that the implementation of

the right on self-consciousness by IPs of Ukraine under

occupation is complicated by the anti-humane Russian

propaganda, by quasi-historic “scientific” theories, which

are used by the occupation authorities in order to prove

the “non-indigenous”, “inferiority” of the IPs, to distort

their history. Unfortunately, relevant efforts were

performed before by some state authorities and officials

of Ukraine and ARC, especially during the government of

Yanukovych (though less often and rigid).

This situation is duplicated in the Resolution of the

Supreme Council of ARC “On the Independence of the Crimea”

on March 17, 2014 № 1745-6/14 which indicated on the

“direct expression of the Peoples of the Crimea on a

referendum” which "showed that the Peoples of the Crimea

were in favor of joining within the Russia, and therefore,

for withdrawal from the Ukraine and for establishing an

independent state”.

Interestingly, this model of “Peoples of the Crimea” is

discarded as useless, in the so-called “Constitution of

the Republic of Crimea" (CRC) approved by the Supreme

Council of ARC naming itself now as the “State Council of

the Republic of Crimea” (SCRC), on April 11, 2014. The

preamble of CRC has referred to "the will of the

multinational People of the Republic of Crimea”; Art. 2 of

CRC stated that “the source of power in the Republic of

Crimea is in its People, which is the part of the

multinational People of the RF”. However, part 2 of art. 5

of the CRC stated that land and other natural resources

are the basis of “life and activities of Peoples living in

the Republic of Crimea”; in part 4 of art. 37 CRC stated

that “the Republic of Crimea creates and provides the

equal opportunities for conservation and development of

cultures of all peoples living in it”; in point 4 of art.

83 CRC sets on the preservation and development of ethnic

and cultural diversity of the “Peoples of the RF residing

in the Republic of Crimea”, but also states the

“protection of national minorities”. CRC adopts the

Crimean official languages in part 1 of art. 10 as the

Russian, Ukrainian and Crimean Tatar ones.

It should be considered as interesting the Decree of

President of RF on April 21, 2014 № 268 “On Measures for

the Rehabilitation of Armenian, Bulgarian, Greek, Crimean

Tatar and German Peoples and State Support of Their

Recovery and Development” 1. Obviously this act was adopted1 On Measures for the Rehabilitation of the Armenian, Bulgarian, Greek,

Crimean Tatar and German Peoples and the State Support of their Revival andDevelopment : Decree of the President of the RF on April 21, 2014 № 268 [on

in response as the “response” to the Law of Ukraine on

April 17, 2014 № 1223-VII on the restoration of the rights

of deported persons (because otherwise the decree was

suitable to be approved before or on the day of

deportation (May, 18), not after the anniversary).

This act mentioned in the preamble on the “restoration

of historical justice, the elimination of the consequences

of illegal deportation from the territory of the Crimean

A.S.S.R. Armenian, Bulgarian, Greek, Crimean Tatar and

German Peoples” and on the “formerly allowed violations of

their rights”. However, this decree did not

“rehabilitated” those “peoples” officially (it only

pointed on the illegality of deportation); in fact the

content of Decree was reduced to some abstract orders for

the Russian government on “a set of measures to restore

historical justice, political, social and spiritual

revival” of these ethnic groups; on “promotion the

establishment and development of national-cultural

autonomies, other associations and organizations” of these

groups; on contribution to the public authorities of the

Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol City for conducting

events marking the 70th anniversary of deportation; on

including measures for national cultural and spiritual

Russian : О мерах по реабилитации армянского, болгарского, греческого, крымско-татарского и немецкого народов и государственной поддержке их возрождения иразвития : Указ Президента Российской Федерации от 21 апреля 2014 г. № 268] ;URL : http://www.rg.ru/2014/04/21/reabilitaciya-site-dok.html

revival of these groups to the Federal target program of

social and economic development of the Republic of Crimea

and Sevastopol City till 2020.

Attempts to “dissolve” the problem of CTP by fact of

deportation of the other groups (Armenians, Germans, etc.)

are traditional for pro-Russian forces in the Crimea since

1989 at the same time this attempt has no actuality at

least due to the fact that among the 280 thousand

deportees, who returned to Ukraine (as it officially

mentioned as minimum in the Parliamentary Resolution №

1660-III) 270 thousand were the Crimean Tatars. Moreover,

as historians and authors of Resolution № 1660-III

ascertain rightly only Crimean Tatars were deported from

Crimea as a whole ethnic group. In general, it is

difficult to imagine the events of the “rehabilitation of

the German people” by the government of the RF, including

at least the fate of the German East Prussia. Also the

desire of the authorities of the RF to take appropriate

measures to Armenian, Bulgarian, Greek peoples is absurd –

as Russia not even asked for the positions of powers and

societies of their own national states on such “measures”.

The Decree № 268 received a negative evaluation from

the community of the IPs of the world; so, in the watched

IPs` Statement on May 11, 2014 at UN Permanent Forum on

Indigenous Issues they pointed that specified Decree

“ignores the recognition of CTP as an IP and equates it

with settlers from Europe, located in the Crimea in the

XIX cent., as a component of the displacement policy to

the IP – the Crimean Tatars”. This Statement defined

Decree № 268 as a waiver of recognition de-jure of the

rights of the Crimean Tatars as an IP”; it stated that

“the content of the decree is very weak and is very far

from the norms and principles established by international

law for IP and from the good practices for their

implementation”1.

The implementation of current Russian policy on Crimean

national issues may be seen in the draft of “Law of the

Republic of Crimes” extended by the Crimean deputes L.

Bezaziyev and E. Gafarov on May 21, 2014 р. № 1520/30-10

“On Some Guarantees of the Rights of the Peoples,

Extrajudicially Deported on a National Sign in 1941-1944

from the Crimean A.S.S.R.” This draft even did not points

on the illegality of deportation but mentions only about

the “social protection measures” for repatriated. It is

worth to recall that the U.S.S.R. practice foreseen the

shot as a “highest social protection measure”. The draft’s

authors also offer to propose for the repatriated:

- the reimbursement of expenses for relocation and

transportation the luggage to the Crimea; 1 On Urgent Situation of Indigenous Peoples of Crimea Statement of Indigenous

Peoples attending the 13th session of Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues,11.05.2014 ; URL : http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2014/hr5179.doc.htm

- providing one-time financial assistance to complete

the construction of separate housing;

- the provision the housing or land for construction of

separate housing;

- other Soviet-like measures of social support (such as

priority telephone installation or preferential provision

by the manufactured goods)

- one-time financial assistance of 30 minimum wages.

It is necessary to point out that mostly all of these

“social protection measures” for the deported CTP

contained in the normative acts and organizational

practice of Ukraine in 1992-2010 and were even realized

more or less, so the probosed draft even in conditions of

its approval would be purely propagandist and will not

impact on real situation. On August 2014, this document

was approved in first reading only (Resolution of the SCRC

on June 4, 2014 № 2203-6/14) 1.

Interestingly, that there is no any observed attempt in

the RF to extend on the CTP the Law of the Russian

S.F.S.R. on April 26, 1991 № 1107-1 “On the Rehabilitation

of the Repressed Peoples”, which is still in force in the1 On the Draft Law of the Republic of Crimea "On Some Guarantees of the Rights

of the Peoples Who were Extrajudicially Deported on a National Sign in 1941-1944from the Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic” : Decision "of the StateCouncil of the Republic of Crimea" on June 4, 2014 № 2203-6/14 [on Russian : Опроекте закона Республики Крым «О некоторых гарантиях прав народов,депортированных во внесудебном порядке по национальному признаку в 1941–1944 годахиз Автономной Крымской Советской Социалистической Республики» : постановление«Государственного совета Республики Крым» от 4 июня 2014 г. № 2203-6/14] ; URL :http://www.rada.crimea.ua/ua/app/3449

RF. It is this act all repressed peoples of the Russian

S.F.S.R. were rehabilitated; all the repressive acts

against these people was declared as illegal and criminal

(let us remind that CTP was residing in Crimean A.S.S.R of

the Russian S.R.S.R. in 1921-1944). Art. 2 of this Law

defined, as the repressed people, the nation, nationality

or ethnic group and other historical cultural and ethnic

entities of men (such as Cossacks), for which the state

level policy of slander and genocide conducted on the

grounds of ethnic or other affiliation that was

accompanied by their forced relocation, by the abolition

of their national-state formations, by the mixing the

national-territorial boundaries, by setting the regime of

terror and violence in places of special settlements1.

Traditionally (before 2014), Russian and Ukrainian

legal doctrines pointed that this act does not apply the

CTP because of a finding their historical motherland from

1954 under the jurisdiction of the Ukrainian S.S.R. and

Ukraine (regions of forced settlements of CTP in Central

Asia also were not under the jurisdiction of the Russian

S.F.S.R). However, the act of deportation (repressive act)

against the CTP took place in 1944 when Crimea and CTP

were under the jurisdiction of the Russian S.F.S.R., so

1 On Rehabilitation of Repressed Peoples : Law of the Russain S.F.S.R on April26, 1991 № 1107-1 [on Russian : О реабилитации репрессированных народов : ЗаконРСФСР от 26 апреля 1991 г. № 1107-1] ; URL :http://www.lawrussia.ru/texts/legal_689/doc689a267x252.htm

the Law on April 26, 1991 № 1107-1 is certainly includes

the CTP onto its object of regulation. Law № 1107-1 has no

effect on the territory of Ukraine; at the same time, if

RF extended its jurisdiction in the Crimea since March 18,

2014 as an occupying power, it has to fulfill the

specified own Law № 1107-I on the CTP - or to cancel or

change this law officially.

The key norms of the Law № 1107-1, in addition to the

recognition of the Soviet genocide against the CTP, are

situated in the art. 3, which determines the

rehabilitation of repressed peoples as the recognition of

their right to restore the territorial integrity of that

existed before “unconstitutional policy of violent

redrawing of borders”, including the restoration of the

national-state entities that “have developed their

abolition” as well as the compensation the damage to the

repressed, caused by the state. It is necessary to point

out that these rules require the power of RF, among other

things, to recreate the Crimean A.S.S.R. is in the format

in which it existed before 1945, not as an abstract

“Republic of Crimea”, where, according to the CRC live

some nameless peoples, but as national subject of the RF.

By the way, Ukrainian S.S.R. reconstituted the Crimean

A.S.S.R. in 1991 “within the territory of the Crimean

oblast as part of the Ukrainian S.S.R.” by the Law on

February 12, 1991 № 712-XII. Therefore, paradoxically, but

any state entity that exists in the Crimea under Ukrainian

or Russian (occupational) jurisdiction must continue the

subjectivity of Crimean A.S.S.R. of 1921-1945, as of

national autonomous state of the CTP - on the law of the

Russian S.F.S.R. on April 26, 1991 № 1107-1 or to the Law

of the Ukrainian SSR № 712-XII (according to the position

of Ukraine and the rest of the civilized countries of the

world).

Conclusions

The problem of IPs is based on global issue of the

status of peoples as carriers of a number of collective

rights. The specificity of IPs is caused by practical

impossibility to implement the sovereignty of such peoples

through the formation the national independent state. The

issue of IPs' rights aggravated under conditions of

assault by countries of their residence on property,

ethnic identity and political structure of IPs. Political

and legal fate of IPs of Ukraine, now living in the

occupied Crimea is a striking example of those processes.

Collective political, economic, social and cultural

rights of IPs are recognized by the world community

through the UN DRIP, 2007, which became a huge document of

political and legal power. Legal status and actual

situation for IPs of Ukraine – Crimean Tatars, Crimean

Karaites and Krymchaks – is connected with the tragic

history of their historic homeland. Ukraine since 1991

recognized the rights of this IPs de facto; recognition of

his status for CTP and adherence to the DRIP, 2007 was

done by Ukraine de jure in 2014 after the occupation of

the Crimea by RF.

Occupation authorities of RF in Crimea does not

recognize legal status of Crimean IPs, especially for the

CTP; its protection, restoration and realization are the

actual matter for Ukraine and for the whole international

community also. Ukraine must recognize the Krymchaks and

Karaites as the IPs ()with the procedure in analogy for

Statement on CTP statute on March 20, 2014) and adopt the

Law on the status of IPs with fixing in it the

prescriptions of the UN DRIP on the principles of

subsidiarity. Ukraine must use the UN mechanisms and

international non-governmental IPs` mechanisms for the

protection of the rights of own IPs in the occupied

territories of Ukraine; also Ukraine should protect the

rights of IPs of the RF in conditions of revival the

Russian imperialism.