Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2014 - Ukraine (Crimea)

In February Russian forces entered Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula in stealth operations to take over key facilities and subsequently occupied the peninsula militarily. On March 18, Russia announced the peninsula had become part of the Russian Federation. On March 27, the UN General Assembly adopted Resolution 68/262, “Territorial Integrity of Ukraine,” which called on states and international organizations not to recognize any change in Crimea’s status and affirmed the commitment of the United Nations to recognize Crimea as part of Ukraine. On April 15, Ukraine’s parliament (Verkhovna Rada) adopted a law attributing responsibility for human rights violations in Crimea to the Russian Federation as the occupying state. The United States does not recognize the attempted “annexation” of Crimea by the Russian Federation. For detailed information on the laws and practices of the Russian Federation that have been imposed on Crimea, see the Country Reports on Human Rights for Russia.

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY    

Occupied Crimea is administered by a local authority installed by the Russian government, and led by Sergey Aksenov as “head of republic” of the “state council of the republic of Crimea.” The “state council” has taken over day-to-day administration and other functions of governing. In March Russian occupation authorities staged a “referendum” on Crimea’s political independence and fabricated the results in an effort to legitimize Russia’s planned annexation. Following Russia’s purported “annexation,” legal and economic structures in Crimea were required to conform to Russian laws by 2015. In September occupation authorities held “parliamentary elections” in which only Russian political parties won seats. The election was closed to independent observers and was not free and fair. Russian authorities maintained control over Russian military and security forces deployed in Crimea.

Following Russia’s purported “annexation” of Crimea, occupation authorities employed Russian troops without insignia and organized “self-defense” groups with alleged ties to organized crime as security forces to consolidate their control. The “self-defense” groups included some loyalists of former president Yanukovych, former members of the Berkut riot police, and Interior Ministry internal forces. Residents of Crimea faced broad restrictions on their human rights, as occupation authorities imposed repressive federal laws of the Russian Federation on the Ukrainian territory of Crimea.

The most significant human rights problems in Crimea during the year were directly related to the Russian occupation.

• Since February, Russian soldiers supported by “self-defense” groups used force and intimidation to suppress dissent and opposition to the occupation. This included extrajudicial killings, kidnappings, disappearances, arbitrary detention, physical abuse, torture, and deportation. Russian occupation authorities also imposed an illegitimate government on inhabitants, organized elections with no legitimacy, used force to disband protests, and imposed Russian citizenship on Ukrainian citizens.

• Russian occupation authorities sought in particular to deprive Crimean Tatars of their human rights. Tatars were killed, kidnapped, and arbitrarily detained. The Tatar Mejlis, the legally recognized representative council of Crimean Tatars, was forcibly seized and shut down. Russian occupation authorities banned Tatar leaders Mustafa Dzemiliev and Refat Chubarov from Crimea for five years; closed most Tatar media and information sources; and raided Tatar mosques, other religious institutions, libraries, and schools.

• Occupation authorities deprived Crimeans of their freedom of speech through a violent crackdown on dissent, journalists, and media institutions. In February and March, local and international journalists were detained and abused. In August occupation authorities closed independent media organizations and threatened others with prosecution for either supporting separatist activities or speaking out against the occupation.

Other problems under Russian occupation included poor conditions in prisons and pretrial detention facilities; political interference in the judicial process; limitations of freedom of movement; displacement of thousands of individuals to mainland Ukraine; failure to allow Crimeans to exercise their right to vote in periodic and genuine elections to choose their leaders; official corruption; discrimination and abuse of ethnic and religious minority groups; discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) persons; kidnapping and transport of orphans to Russia by occupation authorities; and employment discrimination against persons who did not hold a Russian passport.

Russian occupation authorities took few, if any, steps to investigate or prosecute officials or individuals who committed human rights abuses, creating an atmosphere of impunity and lawlessness. Occupation forces and local “self-defense” forces often did not wear insignia and committed abuses with impunity.

Section 1. Respect for the Integrity of the Person, Including Freedom from:    

a. Arbitrary or Unlawful Deprivation of Life

International organizations and human rights groups attributed a number of extrajudicial and politically motivated killings to Russian occupation authorities. In particular, several Crimean Tatars were killed, and at least seven others remained missing.

On October 27, the Council of Europe (COE) commissioner for human rights, Nils Muiznieks, issued a report on his September 10-11 visit to Crimea that highlighted specific cases of deaths and missing persons. On November 17, Human Rights Watch released a report, Rights in Retreat--Abuses in Crimea, which documented the severe curtailment of human rights protections and the abuse of Crimean Tatars and pro-Ukrainian activists by Russian occupation authorities.

On March 3, Crimean Tatar activist Reshat Ametov disappeared and was found dead two weeks later; his body displayed signs of torture. Human Rights Watch reported he was last seen during a protest on Lenin Square in Simferopol before three unidentified men in military-style apparel took him away. Ametov regularly commented on Crimean Tatar issues on his Facebook page and elsewhere.

On April 21, Mark Ivanyuk, a 16-year-old student from Rivne visiting Crimea, was found dead by the side of a highway. His parents alleged he was beaten by police for speaking Ukrainian. Russian occupation authorities attributed the death to a hit-and-run car accident. There was no investigation into the death, and it remained unresolved at year’s end.

b. Disappearance

There were numerous reports of disappearances and abductions attributed to Russian occupation authorities, according to domestic and international observers. In many cases the whereabouts of individuals were unknown for extended periods of time. Human rights groups reported police often refused to register reports of disappearances and in many cases held detainees incommunicado from relatives, friends, or lawyers.

In March Vasily Chernyshev, a Maidan activist, disappeared in Sevastopol. In late May three additional human rights activists--Leonid Korzh, Seiran Zinedinov, and Timur Shaimardanov--disappeared. Zinedinov disappeared after meeting with Shaimardanov’s wife to investigate his disappearance. Civil society activists reported occupation authorities intimidated witnesses to the disappearances. Investigations by both the occupation authorities and the Ukrainian government into the disappearances continued at year’s end. The relatives of the men who disappeared believed the “self-defense” forces were behind their abductions.

Several Tatars were abducted and remained missing. On September 27, Islyam Dzhepparov and Dzhevdet Islyamov were abducted in Belogorsk by uniformed men without insignia. On October 3, two more Tatars, Eskender Apselyamov and Usein Seitnabiev, disappeared. Occupation authorities did not conduct an investigation into the whereabouts of any of the men.

c. Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

There were reports occupation authorities abused Crimean residents, including Ukrainian military officers, who opposed the Russian occupation.

On March 20, Serhiy Haiduk, commander of Ukrainian naval forces in Crimea, and several activists were abducted and detained after Russian troops seized two naval bases. Following negotiations, the next day the Russian military released Haiduk and seven other hostages; most of the captives showed signs of torture.

Also in March, Crimean “security forces” inflicted serious arm and leg wounds on Crimean activists Andriy Shchekun and Yuriy Shevchenko. Shchekun reported he was beaten and put into an electric chair. The “security forces” detained the two men together with six other activists in one cell in a Simferopol military facility. Simferopol “authorities” opened an investigation into the torture charges, but there were no developments by year’s end.

On May 11, Russian Federal Security Service officers (FSB) arrested activist and film director Oleg Sentsov in Simferopol. According to Amnesty International, Russian FSB officers tortured, beat, and threatened Sentsov with rape in an attempt to obtain a confession to planning acts of terrorism in Simferopol. Sentsov denied the accusations. The Russian FSB detained Sentsov for three weeks before transferring him to Moscow’s Lefortovo prison with three other Ukrainian activists held on similar pretexts. Human rights activists in Russia and Ukraine stated Sentsov’s arrest was politically motivated. Sentsov had taken part in the antigovernment “Maidan” protests in Kyiv and had spoken out against Russia’s military seizure of Crimea.

On October 8, Sentsov’s lawyer announced the Investigative Committee, which Russian occupation authorities established in Crimea, had declined to investigate his client’s torture allegations.” (For details on Sentsov’s political prosecution in Russia, see section 1.e. in the Country Report on Human Rights for Russia.)

Prison and Detention Center Conditions

Prison and detention center conditions reportedly remained harsh and overcrowded under the control of occupation authorities.

The October 27 COE report on the human rights situation in Crimea included an account by a local ombudsman, who expressed concern over overcrowding and poor conditions in detention centers and a lack of food and medicine. The report noted that recommendations made by the COE’s Committee for the Prevention of Torture in an April 29 report concerning its visits to detention centers in Alushta, Simferopol, and Yalta in 2013 “remained relevant” under the occupation (see section 1.c. of the Country Reports on Human Rights for Ukraine).

Independent Monitoring: Russian occupation authorities did not permit monitoring of prison or detention center conditions by independent nongovernmental observers or international organizations.

d. Arbitrary Arrest or Detention

Occupation authorities arbitrarily detained protesters, activists, and journalists for hours or days without explanation for opposing the Russian occupation.

Role of the Police and Security Apparatus

Russian occupation authorities applied and enforced Russian law in occupied Crimea. Russian government agencies, including the Ministry of Internal Affairs, FSB, Federal Investigative Committee, and the Office of the Prosecutor General, enforced the “law”; the FSB also conducted security, counterintelligence, and counterterrorism activities and combatted organized crime and corruption. A “national police force” operated under the aegis of the Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs.

In practice law enforcement and the imposition of Russian rule was often carried out by members of the Russian military in uniforms lacking insignia, although regular, uniformed members of Russian law enforcement agencies were also present.

In addition to abuses committed by Russian forces, many human rights abuses were committed by so-called “self-defense” forces consisting of former Ukrainian Ministry of Internal Affairs officers who remained loyal to former president Yanukovych and by entities linked to local organized crime. Some of the former Ukrainian ministry officers were also implicated in human rights abuses during the massive antigovernment protests that took place in central Kyiv. These forces often acted with impunity in intimidating opponents of the Russian occupation and were involved in beatings, kidnappings, detentions, and arbitrarily confiscating property. In June the occupation “parliament” adopted a law that placed the “self-defense” forces under the authority of the “national police,” but they continued to commit abuses.

Arrest Procedures and Treatment of Detainees

Arbitrary Arrest: There were reports Russian occupation authorities committed arbitrary arrests, particularly targeted at Crimean Tatars.

On September 15, Mustafa Asaba, a member of the Tatar Mejlis, was detained and questioned for several hours at a police station while his house was searched for guns and illegal materials.

On October 22, another member of the Tatar Mejlis, Tair Smerdlyaev, was detained for allegedly assaulting a police officer during a protest on May 5. According to his lawyer, the detention was based on accusations made by neighbors who claimed he was an extremist. Two other Tatars, Musa Apkerimov and Rustam Abdurakhmanov, were also detained in October on similar pretexts.

On November 15, occupation authorities reportedly rounded up 60 persons at the Lokomotiv market in Simferopol because of their “non-Slavic appearance.” They were held for one and one-half hours and ordered to appear at the “ministry of internal affairs” for further questioning about their nationality, residence status, and religious views. This was followed by a second round of detentions at the central market in Simferopol, during which occupation authorities detained 100 persons for questioning about possible friends and relatives in Syria and participation in extremist groups.

Pretrial Detention: More than 400 persons who were in pretrial detention in Simferopol before the Russian occupation remained in custody at year’s end. Occupation authorities moved some prisoners convicted of crimes under Ukrainian law prior to the occupation from Ukraine to Russian territory to serve their sentences.

e. Denial of Fair Public Trial

Under the Russian occupation regime, the “judiciary” was neither independent nor impartial and remained susceptible to political interference.

Trial Procedures

See the Country Reports on Human Rights for Russia for a description of the relevant Russian laws and procedures that the Russian government has applied and enforced in occupied Crimea.

Political Prisoners and Detainees

Russian occupation authorities together with local “self-defense” forces detained and prosecuted individuals for political reasons. Occupation authorities also transferred Crimean cases into Russia’s legal system and changed the venue of prosecution for some detainees. For example, film director Oleg Sentsov was detained in Crimea and transferred to Russia for prosecution in apparent retaliation for his opposition to the Russian occupation (see sections 1.c. and 1.e. of the Country Reports on Human Rights for Russia).

According to media reports, Khayzer Dzhemilev, son of exiled Crimean Tatar leader Mustafa Dzhemilev, was arrested in May 2013 after being charged with fatally shooting his neighbor, Fevzi Edemova. Under Ukrainian law prior to the occupation, Dzhemilev was charged with manslaughter. In March occupation authorities refiled the case as first-degree murder and transferred him to Krasnodar, Russia. Human rights activists asserted the change was an effort to put pressure on his father, who opposed the occupation and was banned from Crimea. (For details on Khayzer Dzhemilev’s political prosecution in Russia, see section 1.e. of the Country Reports on Human Rights for Russia.)

f. Arbitrary Interference with Privacy, Family, Home, or Correspondence

There were reports local “self-defense” forces, occupation authorities, and others engaged in electronic surveillance and entered residences and other premises without warrants. According to Human Rights Watch, occupation authorities conducted intrusive searches of at least 15 homes belonging to Crimean Tatars and refused to identify themselves, present search warrants, or allow witnesses to observe the searches.

Section 2. Respect for Civil Liberties, Including:    

a. Freedom of Speech and Press

Freedom of speech and press was significantly restricted during the Russian occupation of Crimea. Threats and physical attacks against international and Ukrainian journalists increased significantly under the occupation.

Freedom of Speech: Individuals could not publicly criticize the Russian occupation authorities without fear of reprisal.

In March approximately 30 members of the Crimean “self-defense” forces raided the Crimean Center for Investigative Journalism in Simferopol and later seized the center’s equipment, forcing it to relocate to Kyiv. The equipment was released in December following a ruling by the Sevastopol “appeals court.”

In August occupation authorities cancelled the press accreditation for Shevket Namatullaev, a reporter with the independent ATR Tatar television station, after he refused to stand for the Russian national anthem at a meeting of the “parliament.”

Press Freedoms: Independent print and broadcast media could not operate freely. Occupation authorities imposed restrictive Russian media laws and required all media outlets to reregister by January 2015.

In August occupation authorities shut down the Chornomorska (Black Sea) television station, a private, independent company. Police seized the station’s broadcast equipment and computers and sealed the building. The shutdown followed a lawsuit, filed by the “Crimean broadcasting authority,” which alleged Chornomorska had not paid outstanding fees. Several weeks later, a “court” overruled the seizure and ordered the release and return of all the station’s assets. On December 22, the “broadcasting authority” returned the seized equipment to Chornomorska’s owners.

On July 29, occupation authorities summoned Shevket Kaibullaev, the chief editor of Advet, the official newspaper of the Crimean Tatar Mejlis, after the newspaper advocated a public boycott of “elections” for a new Crimean “parliament.” On September 16, Advet’s offices (which were colocated with the Mejlis) were closed and searched, and the newspaper was forced to vacate the premises. The following day occupation authorities threatened Kaibullaev for “promoting extremist activity” (see section 6).

In November the occupation “parliament” passed “laws” regulating the press that restrict the number of reporters that can be accredited and require all video and audio recording of government officials to be approved one day in advance. The law also allows occupation authorities to withdraw accreditation from journalists for “biased reporting.”

Violence and Harassment: On March 18, masked, armed men in Simferopol attacked and beat Ibraim Umerov, a journalist for the ATR Tatar television channel. Umerov and a cameraman were live-streaming a raid on a local auto dealership when the assailants confiscated the camera equipment and disabled their cellphones.

On May 18, “self-defense” forces acting on behalf of occupation authorities detained and beat several journalists, deleted information from their cameras and computers, and stole equipment and personal belongings. Osman Pashaev, a Crimean Tatar journalist, was beaten and detained together with Dzhengiz Tizgin, a Turkish cameraman. Dimiter Kenarov, a freelance Bulgarian journalist, was threatened at gunpoint and beaten. The journalists were reporting on the 70th anniversary of the deportation of Crimean Tatars from Crimea.

On September 8, police without insignia detained and interrogated Yelizaveta Bohutskaya, a blogger and contributor to several media outlets. She was questioned about her reporting, which strongly criticized Russian occupation authorities. She later fled Crimea, fearing for her and her family’s safety.

Censorship or Content Restrictions: Following Russia’s occupation of Crimea, journalists were forced to resort to self-censorship to continue reporting and broadcasting. Russian occupation authorities banned most Ukrainian and Crimean Tatar language programming from the airwaves, replacing the content with Russian programming. Occupation authorities threatened stations that remained operational, such as ATR, with closure for promoting extremism if they mention Crimea remains part of Ukraine or use words such as “annexation” or “occupation” with regard to Russia’s attempt to incorporate the peninsula into the Russian Federation.

Russian state channel First Crimea Television was forbidden from mentioning the names of banned Tatar leaders Mustafa Dzhemilev and Refat Chubarov.

Libel Laws/National Security: Authorities used national security laws to restrict the work of journalists critical of the Russian occupation and to harass Crimean Tatar broadcaster ATR. On September 24, the “ministry of the interior” accused ATR of inciting hatred and distrust among Crimean Tatars towards occupation authorities and demanded a review of all its registration documents.

Internet Freedom

Russian occupation authorities restricted free expression on the internet by imposing repressive laws of the Russian Federation on Crimea (see section 2.a. of the Country Reports on Human Rights for Russia).

Academic Freedom and Cultural Events

Russian occupying authorities censored school curricula, restricted academic travel, attempted to restrict cultural events, and closed cultural associations. They closed Ukrainian language schools and sharply restricted teaching of Ukrainian. In April Natalia Rudenko, rector of the Ukrainian Lyceum, was forced to resign under pressure from “self-defense” forces. While the law enforced by the occupation authorities permits instruction in a language other than Russian, there were no longer any schools teaching Ukrainian, even though more than 300 parents applied for Ukrainian language instruction for their children.

In September Nadir Bekir, a Crimean Tatar scholar, reported he was attacked by masked assailants, dragged from his car, and had his telephone and passport confiscated to prevent him from attending the UN World Conference on Indigenous Peoples in New York City. Russian occupation authorities removed another activist, Gayana Yuksel, from a train to Kyiv, seized her passport, ripped a page out, and told her she could not travel to the conference because her passport was damaged.

In November, Russian occupation authorities terminated the lease of the “Chatyr-Dag” cultural association without cause. The group was a proponent of Tatar culture in Crimea.

b. Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and Association

Freedom of Assembly

Organizations representing minority communities reported gross and widespread harassment and intimidation by Russian occupation authorities to suppress their ability to assemble peacefully. Abuses included arbitrary searches, interrogations, threats of deportation, and unsubstantiated accusations of possessing “extremist” literature.

On May 3, more than 5,000 Tatars gathered at the boundary between mainland Ukraine and Russian-occupied Crimea to welcome the return of Mustafa Dzhemilev, whom Russian occupation authorities had banned from returning home to Crimea for five years. The welcome turned into a protest when occupation authorities refused to allow Dzhemilev to enter. Russian-controlled security forces broke up the crowds and threatened participants with mass arrest. Dzhemilev, a Crimean Tatar leader and member of Ukraine’s parliament, withdrew to avoid clashes and returned to Kyiv (see section 2.d.). In the months following these events, occupation authorities cited the supposed “criminal nature” of this protest as a pretext for raids on and harassment of the Tatar community.

On May 18, Crimean Tartars defied a ban that prohibited all public gatherings, including the commemoration of the 70th anniversary of the Soviet Union’s deportation of Crimean Tatars from Crimea. Hundreds of riot police and armored vehicles blockaded the streets of central Simferopol. Tatars, however, held unsanctioned gatherings on the outskirts of the city and in communities around Crimea.

On August 23, Crimeans supporting Ukrainian National Flag Day by flying the blue and yellow banner were detained, harassed, threatened with violence, and had property and passports confiscated.

Freedom of Association

Occupation authorities required all social, religious, and media groups to reregister by January 1, 2015. There was concern occupation authorities would abuse this process to hinder freedom of association by preventing legitimate associations from reregistering, thereby making their actions illegal.

c. Freedom of Religion

See the Department of State’s International Religious Freedom Report at www.state.gov/religiousfreedomreport/.

d. Freedom of Movement, Internally Displaced Persons, Protection of Refugees, and Stateless Persons

Russian occupation authorities did not respect rights related to freedom of movement and travel.

On April 22, occupation authorities prohibited Mustafa Dzhemilev, a former chairman of the Crimean Tatar Mejlis and member of Ukraine’s parliament, from entering Crimea for five years. On July 5, occupation authority “prosecutor” Natalya Poklonskaya prohibited the chair of the Tatar Mejlis, Refat Chubarov, from entering Crimea for five years on the pretext he would incite radicalism. Chubarov, who was on the mainland in Kherson for a meeting of the Mejlis, was stopped at the border while trying to return.

In-country Movement: There were reports occupation authorities selectively detained and at times abused persons attempting to enter Crimea.

On March 9, civil activists Oleksandra Ryazhtseva, Kateryna Butko, and Yevghen Rahno, together with two journalists from the Tyzhden weekly magazine, were detained by “self-defense” forces and interrogated by Russian security forces. One of the journalists was released to a relative with a Crimean residence permit; the others were beaten, harassed, and detained for two weeks before they were released.

Citizenship: In March occupation authorities began issuing Russian passports to confer citizenship on all Crimean residents. Those who did not want Russian citizenship were given 30 days in which to declare their intention to decline and were not provided clear instructions how to decline. Many individuals who declined Russian citizenship were subject to discrimination and loss of employment. Those who retained Ukrainian citizenship were subjected to continuing pressure to renounce it.

Russian occupation authorities made it difficult for persons with Ukrainian passports to leave and enter Crimea. The Russian government announced only 5,000 Russian “permanent residence permits” would be issued to Crimean residents in 2015. Observers noted the policy would allow occupation authorities to expel Crimean residents who have not received a Russian “residence permit” or adopted Russian citizenship after January 1, 2015.

In November occupation authorities ordered a Roman Catholic priest from Poland, who had a Ukrainian residence permit and was living in Simferopol, to leave Crimea. Occupation authorities also denied “residence permits” to all 23 Turkish imams ministering to Tatar Muslim congregations.

Internally Displaced Persons

At year’s end approximately 20,000 Crimeans had registered with Ukraine’s State Emergency Service as internally displaced persons (IDPs) on the mainland, according to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. Local nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), such as KrimSOS and Vostok SOS, believed the actual figure could be twice as high because the majority of IDPs remained unregistered. Many individuals fled out of fear they would be targeted for abuse because of their work as political activists or journalists. Muslims and Evangelical Christians who left Crimea said they feared discrimination on the basis of their religious beliefs.

Crimean Tatars, who made up the largest number of IDPs, said they were concerned about pressure on their community, including an increasing number of arbitrary searches of their homes. In addition, many professionals left Crimea because Russian occupation authorities required them to apply for Russian professional licenses and adapt to Russian procedures in their work.

Section 3. Respect for Political Rights: The Right of Citizens to Change Their Government    

Recent Elections: Russian occupation authorities prevented residents from voting with other Ukrainian citizens in the May 25 presidential elections and the October 26 parliamentary elections by preventing the establishment of district and precinct election commissions and polling places in Crimea.

On March 16, Russian occupation authorities staged a “referendum” to legitimize Russia’s planned annexation of the territory. The “referendum,” which was announced only 10 days before the purported vote was to take place, asked voters to choose between two options: joining Russia or reverting to the short-lived 1992 constitution, which gave Crimea de facto independence. The Crimean Tatar Mejlis called for voters to boycott the “referendum.” The “referendum’s” results, which purportedly showed that a high turnout of voters (83 percent) had overwhelmingly approved incorporation into Russia, were widely regarded as having been fabricated by Russian authorities and had no credibility.

On September 14, Russian occupation authorities held “parliamentary elections” in Crimea that were timed to coincide with local elections in Russia. Crimean Tatars called on voters to boycott the vote. Two Russian political parties, United Russia and the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia, purportedly won the “elections,” which were conducted without oversight by credible local or international observers.

Participation by Women and Minorities: Russian occupation authorities harassed, detained, and denied freedom of movement to members of the Crimean Tatar Mejlis (see section 2.d.). The occupation “prime minister,” Sergey Aksenov, stated the Mejlis was no longer recognized as an official institution. Under Ukrainian law, the Mejlis was the official, recognized, representative council of Tatars in the country.

Section 4. Corruption and Lack of Transparency in Government    

There were no known requirements for Russian occupation authorities or their agents to file, verify, or make public any income or asset disclosure statements. Occupation authorities had not established any mechanism to provide for public access to information about their activities.

Section 5. Governmental Attitude Regarding International and Nongovernmental Investigation of Alleged Violations of Human Rights    

Most independent human rights organizations ceased activities in Crimea following Russia’s occupation. Occupation authorities refused to cooperate with independent human rights NGOs and ignored their views.

Occupation authorities met with UN representatives and other organizations but failed to ensure their security and safety (see section 1.a.). In March the UN special envoy to Crimea, Robert Serry, was forced to abandon his assessment mission after he was threatened by armed pro-Russian gunmen. One week later the high commissioner for minorities of the OSCE, Astrid Thors, was met with hostility from noisy and threatening pro-Russian crowds, forcing her to cut short her fact-finding mission on the status of the rights of Russians and Jews. In early April the country’s ombudsman for human rights, Valeria Lutkovska, reported the ombudsman’s regional office in Crimea was forced to close due to the pressures on its staff and obstruction of their work.

International and local human rights groups expressed concern that application of Russian laws regulating NGOs in occupied Crimea would restrict activities of groups promoting and protecting human rights. For example, NGOs in Russia the government identified as having received foreign funding and engaged in vaguely defined “political activity” were instructed to register as “foreign agents,” a term that connotes treason or espionage (see sections 2.b. and 5 of the Russia Human Rights Report).

Section 6. Discrimination, Societal Abuses, and Trafficking in Persons    

Occupying Russian forces created an atmosphere of impunity, leading to attacks on ethnic Tatars and Ukrainians, creating a hostile environment for members of ethnic and religious minorities, and fostering discrimination and hostility against LGBT persons.

Children

Birth Registration: Under both Ukrainian law and “laws” imposed by Russian occupation authorities, citizenship is determined by birthplace or parentage. Russia’s occupation and purported “annexation” of Crimea complicated the question of citizenship for children born after February 2014, since it was difficult for parents to register a child as a citizen with Ukrainian authorities. Registration in Ukraine requires a hospital certificate, which is retained when a birth certificate is issued. Under the occupation regime, new parents can only obtain a Russian birth certificate. They do not have access to a hospital certificate, which is required to register the birth of a child in Ukraine. The situation was further complicated because Ukrainian border guards did not recognize Russian birth certificates, so bringing a newborn child to Ukraine would be difficult.

Institutionalized Children: According to the local Crimean Human Rights Watch, the “government” of Crimea operated 20 residential institutions that provided education to nearly 3,000 children, including 365 with special needs. There were also approximately 800 children with significant mental and physical disabilities in seven boarding schools.

Russian occupation authorities permitted orphans in Crimea to be kidnapped and transported across the border into Russia for adoption. In October children from Crimea participated in the “train of hope,” an event designed to match kidnapped Crimean orphans with parents in Russia. At least seven children between the ages of 10 months and 10 years were reportedly taken out of Crimea for adoption by Russian families. The Ukrainian government did not know the whereabouts of the children.

Anti-Semitism

According to international Jewish groups, an estimated 15,000 Jews lived in Crimea, primarily in Simferopol.

On February 28, as Russian forces entered Crimea, an unidentified man spray painted a swastika and other anti-Semitic graffiti on the Ner Tamid synagogue in Simferopol. Jewish community leaders said it was the first anti-Semitic incident at the synagogue in more than 20 years. Michael Kaputsin, the rabbi of the synagogue, opposed Russia’s occupation and expressed concern over a possible rise in anti-Semitic incidents. He later fled to Israel.

National/Racial/Ethnic Minorities

Tatars are an ethnic group native to Crimea, dating to the Crimean Khanate of the 15th century. In 1944 more than 230,000 Tatars were forcibly deported to the Soviet Far East for allegedly collaborating with the Nazis during World War II. Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, many surviving Tatars returned to Crimea. Prior to the Russian occupation, there were approximately 300,000 Tatars living in Crimea.

Since Russia’s occupation began, Crimean Tatars were singled out for discrimination, abuse, and violence, including killings and abductions, by Russian occupation and local “government” authorities (see section 1).

Occupation authorities attempted to pressure and dismantle the Mejlis, the representative council of Crimean Tatars recognized by the Ukrainian government. Russian occupation authorities did not recognize the Mejlis. On September 18, Russian authorities seized the headquarters building of the Mejlis and confiscated computer equipment and other property, effectively shutting down its operation.

During the year Russian occupation authorities raided Islamic mosques and institutions linked to Crimean Tatars. As of October occupation authorities had searched eight of 10 Islamic schools in Crimea for “prohibited items.” In August the leader of one religious school was convicted of possessing “extremist materials.” In September occupation authorities also searched mosques in Simferopol and Yalta. Tatars reportedly also had to face attempts by occupation authorities to supplant local Tatar leadership with pro-Russian Tatar figures and groups.

On June 13, an unidentified individual threw Molotov cocktails at a mosque in Simferopol and painted a swastika on its fence. The building was not damaged.

Institutions linked to ethnic Ukrainians were seized and defaced, and members were harassed. On June 1, Cossacks supported by Russian occupation authorities seized the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kyiv Patriarchate in Perevalne. Since then, the Kyiv Patriarchate has lost control of six of 15 parish churches.

On September 29, Eden Asanov, a Crimean Tatar who disappeared in Saki, was found dead in Yevpatoriya one week after his disappearance. Occupation authorities claim he hanged himself, but Tatar groups believed he was kidnapped and killed.

Acts of Violence, Discrimination, and other Abuses Based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity

Human rights groups and local gay rights activists reported most of the LGBT community fled Crimea after the Russian occupation began. LGBT individuals faced increasing restrictions on their right to peaceful assembly as occupation authorities enforced a Russian law that criminalizes the so-called propaganda of nontraditional sexual relations to minors (see section 6 of the Country Reports on Human Rights for Russia).

In July police in Yevpatoriya, a resort town in western Crimea, opened an investigation into the death of a foreign tourist who may have been a victim of a homophobic killing. Media reports quoted the local police KrymInform news service as stating the deceased was a foreigner of “nontraditional sexual orientation,” who had been visiting Crimea regularly for vacations. Police did not specify the victim's nationality but noted there were “signs of a violent death.”

In September Russian occupation authorities announced LGBT groups would not be allowed to hold public events in Crimea. Sergey Aksenov, “head of the republic,” stated, “we in Crimea do not need such people…our police and self-defense forces will react immediately and in three minutes will explain to them what kind of sexual orientation they should stick to.”

Section 7. Worker Rights    

Russian occupation authorities announced both the labor laws of Ukraine and those of the Russian Federation were to remain in effect until 2015. Occupation authorities, however, stated they would give precedence to Russian laws in any areas where they conflict with Ukrainian law (see section 7 of the Country Reports on Human Rights for Russia).

During the year Russian occupation authorities imposed labor laws and regulations of the Russian Federation on Crimean workers, limiting worker rights and creating barriers to freedom of association, collective bargaining, and the ability to strike. Ukrainians who did not accept Russian citizenship faced job discrimination. Only Russian passport holders could continue to work in “government” and municipal positions.