The UN International Court of Justice recognized Russiaʼs violation of some articles of the Convention on the Financing of Terrorism

The UN International Court of Justice in The Hague passed a decision in the case of Ukraine against Russia.

This was reported by Babel correspondent Oksana Kovalenko.

The court recognized that the Russian Federation violated certain articles of the UN Convention on the Prevention of Financing of Terrorism and on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. This satisfied part of Ukraineʼs requirements. At the same time, the court rejected Russiaʼs arguments that it should reject Ukraineʼs lawsuit as a whole.

It is, in particular, about the fact that Russia did not investigate the financial support of pro-Russian militants in eastern Ukraine, starting in 2014. Thus, the Russian Federation violated Article 9 of the Convention. 13 judges agreed with this, three more did not.

In this part of the case, Ukraine proved that Russia not only did not prevent the Russians from financing pro-Russian militants in the east of Ukraine, but also encouraged them. The Kremlin supported the unrecognized "republics" in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, supplied the militants with weapons that they used in terrorist attacks against the civilian population. An example is the MH17 passenger plane shot down by a Russian Buk.

The International Court of Justice of the United Nations also determined that Russia violated the requirements of Articles 2 and 5 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination in terms of banning Ukrainians living in occupied Crimea from teaching children in junior high school in the Ukrainian language. 13 judges agreed, two were against.

At the same time, the court recognized that Russia violated the temporary measures, which the court decided in 2019. Then the Russian Federation banned the Mejlis, and the court demanded that this ban be lifted. Russia did not fulfill the demand. 11 judges voted for, four voted against. Another requirement of the court was that Russia should refrain from any actions that would complicate the resolution of this dispute. However, according to the head of the court, Joan Donohue, Russia did make it difficult — it launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Ten judges were in favor, five were against.

The court found most of Ukraineʼs accusations unfounded. Regarding the interpretation of the Convention, the judges decided that the transfer of money should be considered terrorist financing. The transfer of military equipment and weapons does not fall under this definition. The court also refused to determine reparations and compensations in this case, as requested by Ukraine.

In 2017, Ukraine filed a lawsuit against Russia at the UN International Court of Justice for violating the Convention on the Prohibition of the Financing of Terrorism and the Convention on the Prohibition of Racial Discrimination. Ukraine accuses Russia of the following:

• provision of weapons and other types of assistance to illegal armed groups;
• downing of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17;
• shelling of residential areas of Mariupol and Kramatorsk;
• destruction of a civilian passenger bus near Volnovakha;
• an explosion during a peaceful gathering in Kharkiv;
• discrimination of the Ukrainian and Crimean Tatar communities;
• prohibition of Mejlis activity;
• waves of disappearances, murders, arbitrary searches, detentions;
• restrictions on the teaching of the Ukrainian and Crimean Tatar languages.

In general, we are talking about the fact that Russia supports militants and controls them in the occupied parts of Donbas, and also oppresses and represses Ukrainians and Tatars in the occupied Crimea. In 2019, the UN International Court of Justice recognized its jurisdiction in the case of Russiaʼs violation of two conventions. This was the first dispute between Ukraine and Russia that reached a substantive hearing.

• The UN International Court of Justice was created by UN member states, and judges were elected at the first session of the General Assembly. The court must resolve disputes between states regarding international treaties they have signed, as well as obligations under these treaties and conventions. The court can also interpret these treaties and conventions. Decisions of this court are binding.