CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECGRANDCHAMBER;ENG — 30 novembre 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s65E06E64 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sCF7129D5 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sFA11A832 { margin:8pt 34pt 3pt 17pt; text-indent:-17pt; line-height:12pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s659CE682 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s20F828FF { margin:0pt 34pt 3pt; text-indent:-17pt; line-height:12pt } .s92A5AB2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s695099B3 { width:10.89pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s46CF2500 { margin:0pt 34pt 3pt 51pt; text-indent:-17pt; line-height:12pt } .sB6D33163 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s833B1EA7 { width:7.55pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s4859184F { width:7pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sF86C89AB { margin:0pt 34pt 3pt 70.9pt; text-indent:-19.85pt; line-height:12pt } .s2E3BD715 { width:11.51pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s377A8DAF { margin:0pt 34pt 3pt 87.9pt; text-indent:-19.85pt; line-height:12pt } .s906A663C { width:7.63pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s1B852363 { width:8.19pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sEAB539EC { width:7.83pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s45CE1A90 { margin:0pt 34pt 3pt 106.3pt; text-indent:-21.25pt; line-height:12pt } .s93D37235 { width:12.37pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s3A1A701 { width:10.15pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s554D0A64 { width:4.78pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sE8F9CD70 { width:7.92pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s2F5C2758 { width:7.37pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sB69E1D81 { width:9.59pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sB7656B26 { width:5.15pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sB40DE46A { width:2.92pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sC15FC45D { width:3.55pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sDF290AB { width:6.61pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sC8A0D6E9 { margin:0pt 34pt 3pt 119.05pt; text-indent:-17pt; line-height:12pt } .s31A6B95 { width:4.56pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sC9B5F0A5 { width:4.59pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s2DB5027D { margin:0pt 34pt 3pt 136.05pt; text-indent:-17pt; line-height:12pt } .s91A62531 { width:11.44pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sF8FF5AA8 { margin:0pt 34pt 3pt 153.1pt; text-indent:-17pt; line-height:12pt } .sA485F9B0 { width:13.46pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s72A8FB50 { width:5.34pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s5C7BFF12 { width:4.77pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s645C4858 { width:5.88pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s35B94E0 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s8F14C0C0 { width:0.49pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s1721E4C5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sD6CD6D82 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:106.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-106.3pt; text-align:justify } .s5CA1218A { width:58.96pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s8E78D999 { width:81.63pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s34919C98 { width:72.97pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s7797FA1F { width:82.96pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sD4F9DEC0 { width:79.63pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s7D195FE2 { width:60.31pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sC4149013 { width:88.3pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s53EC6E77 { width:76.97pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sB7106B6C { width:78.3pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sD4F3AB0F { width:87.63pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s9FEA2EA { width:89.64pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sA0F2E026 { width:74.96pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s914BA095 { width:62.3pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sDB90979F { width:72.29pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s132DDEA0 { width:86.97pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s590A3EF4 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:19.85pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-19.85pt } .s275CCCF2 { width:5.86pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sFB4CBB0E { width:216.78pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s98FBE5B1 { width:3.85pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sA46C8414 { width:202.12pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s9A282E2F { width:128.78pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s585F2637 { width:225.48pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s31695B97 { width:215.47pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s402F2D35 { width:227.47pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s4AD0FB96 { width:214.83pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sD707D3B6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:19.85pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-19.85pt; text-align:justify } .sE9B40630 { width:19.85pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s391E78BA { font-family:Arial; background-color:#ffffff } .sAE6FB95D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:32.01pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sB25A0399 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:24.84pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.66pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sF54F3725 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s65DDED6B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s2958D4E { margin-left:6.51pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic; letter-spacing:-0.2pt } .s5291F2FB { letter-spacing:normal } .s2044A09A { margin-left:6.51pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s55F67FD3 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sCD82236A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s28F0D84C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s938C1CCA { padding-right:5.4pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:top } .s8826B900 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:15.7pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s5C5C410E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s879C130D { margin-left:7.05pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .sC0197989 { margin-left:50.21pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:2.99pt; font-family:Arial } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .sD051EF8 { width:3.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s4196892D { width:3.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sBD165FDE { width:5.39pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s6747EE63 { width:0.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s6959B53C { width:1.52pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s67CAFE05 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s7C22C014 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:16.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sFABD3260 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:62.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-19.8pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s16F6432D { width:7.9pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFF8BF293 { width:8.05pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sA6765C01 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:62.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-11.3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sFA550501 { width:6.3pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7A7B69A2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:62.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-11.3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDF850D80 { font-family:Arial; color:#0b0e18 } .s4F150BE5 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:68.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-8.5pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:9pt } .s688BFB4E { letter-spacing:0.25pt } .s25B086D1 { width:5.31pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s3B6FEF8B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:68.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-8.5pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:9pt } .s3CAF9CA4 { width:8.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sEB3FA797 { width:8.43pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s8508A14D { width:8.94pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s4874A9EF { width:7.56pt; display:inline-block } .s3DB046A9 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; background-color:#ffffff } .sD0F961A5 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; letter-spacing:-0.2pt } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s17E903BE { width:3.01pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sF267204E { width:5.67pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s9A6E8000 { width:6.34pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7DEBC00A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4D75056D { width:40.36pt; display:inline-block } .s6E263415 { width:149.08pt; display:inline-block } .s8E02250E { width:160.11pt; display:inline-block } .s1B9C96E3 { width:14.2pt; display:inline-block } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sBA32C63A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 }   GRAND CHAMBER     CASE OF UKRAINE AND THE NETHERLANDS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 8019/16, 43800/14 and 28525/20)               DECISION   STRASBOURG 30 November 2022     Table of Contents LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS PROCEDURE THE FACTS I.   OVERVIEW A.   The chronology of the conflict B.   The incidents forming the basis of the complaints regarding the alleged abduction and transfer to Russia of three groups of children and accompanying adults (no. 43800/14) C.   Relevant individuals D.   Separatist armed groups in the initial stages of the conflict 1.   Donetsk region 2.   Luhansk region E.   Political structures in the “DPR” and “LPR” 1.   “DPR” (a)   Before the May 2014 “referendum” (b)   The May 2014 “government” (c)   Subsequent changes to the “government” (d)   After the first “elections” in November 2014 2.   “LPR” (a)   Before the May 2014 “referendum” (b)   The May 2014 “government” (c)   Subsequent changes to the “government” (d)   After the first “elections” in November 2014 II.   FACTS ACCORDING TO THE PARTIES A.   According to Ukraine 1.   In respect of the general situation in eastern Ukraine (no. 8019/16) (a)   Political background (b)   The start of the unrest (c)   The build-up of Russian troops along the border (d)   From civil unrest to paramilitary action 2.   In respect of the alleged abduction and transfer to Russia of three groups of children and accompanying adults (no. 43800/14) (a)   First group of children (b)   Second group of children (c)   Third group of children B.   According to the Netherlands 1.   The conflict in the east of Ukraine 2.   Events preceding the downing of flight MH17 (a)   Expansion of the conflict to airspace (b)   The request for and delivery of the Buk-TELAR with crew (c)   The transport to and arrival at the launch location and launch of a missile (d)   Return to the Russian Federation 3.   Flight MH17 (a)   Situation in the airspace above the east of Ukraine (b)   The downing of flight MH17 (c)   Initial responses to the downing of flight MH17 4.   Confirming the use of the Buk-TELAR against flight MH17 (a)   Cause of the crash (b)   The Buk surface-to-air missile system 5.   Aftermath (a)   Immediate international responses and repatriation and identification of the victims (b)   Technical investigation (c)   Criminal investigation and prosecution (i)   The Joint Investigation Team (ii)   The prosecution of individuals C.   According to Russia COMPLAINTS I.   APPLICATION NO. 8019/16 II.   APPLICATION NO. 43800/14 III.   APPLICATION NO. 28525/20 THE LAW I.   PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS II.   SCOPE OF THE CASE A.   Temporal scope of the allegation of administrative practices B.   Scope of responsibility III.   APPROACH TO THE EVIDENCE A.   The evidence in the case 1.   Evidence relied on by the Governments 2.   Request for further factual submissions and supporting evidence 3.   Material in the public domain B.   The parties’ submissions 1.   The respondent Government 2.   The applicant Ukrainian Government 3.   The applicant Dutch Government C.   The Court’s approach 1.   General principles (a)   The burden of proof and drawing of inferences (b)   Assessment of the evidence (c)   The standard of proof at the admissibility stage (i)   Standard of proof in relation to the alleged violations (ii)   Standard of proof in relation to jurisdiction 2.   Approaching the evidence in this case (a)   Burden and standard of proof and the drawing of inferences (b)   How the principal evidence in the case-file should be viewed (i)   Reports of the OSCE and the OHCHR (ii)   Material from the OM and the JIT (iii)   The DSB report (iv)   Reports by NGOs and research collectives (v)   Government reports and intelligence (vi)   Witness statements (vii)   Interviews and press conferences (viii)   Media reports IV.   ALLEGED LACK OF A “GENUINE APPLICATION” A.   The parties’ submissions 1.   The respondent Government 2.   The applicant Ukrainian Government 3.   The applicant Dutch Government B.   The Court’s assessment 1.   Alleged political propaganda 2.   Alleged submission of false evidence 3.   Alleged contempt for the Convention obligations invoked 4.   Alleged involvement in the Myrotvorets website 5.   Alleged hacking attacks 6.   Conclusion V.   JURISDICTION A.   General B.   Article 1 jurisdiction 1.   The parties’ submissions (a)   The respondent Government (b)   The applicant Ukrainian Government (c)   The applicant Dutch Government 2.   Third-party submissions 3.   The Court’s assessment (a)   Introductory remarks (b)   The general principles regarding jurisdiction (i)   Territoriality (ii)   Exception to territoriality: within a State’s own territory (iii)   Exception to territoriality: outside a State’s sovereign borders (α)   The relevance of international armed conflict (β)   The criteria for establishing jurisdiction ‒   Effective control over an area ‒   State agent authority and control ‒   “Jurisdictional link” as regards the procedural obligation under Article 2 (c)   Application of the general principles to the facts of the case (i)   Whether there was effective control over an area (α)   Military presence ‒   The parties’ memorials ‒   The findings of the Court (β)   Military support to the separatists ‒   Influence on military strategy ▪   The parties’ memorials ▪   The findings of the Court ‒   Supply of weapons and other equipment ▪   The parties’ memorials ▪   The findings of the Court ‒   Training ▪   The parties’ memorials ▪   The findings of the Court ‒   Artillery cover ▪   The parties’ memorials ▪   The findings of the Court ‒   Build-up of troops at the border ▪   The parties’ memorials ▪   The findings of the Court (γ)   Political support to the separatists ‒   The parties’ memorials ‒   The findings of the Court (δ)   Economic support to the separatists ‒   The parties’ memorials ‒   The findings of the Court (ε)   Conclusion (ii)   Whether some particular complaints may be excluded from the respondent State’s spatial jurisdiction C.   Jurisdiction ratione materiae 1.   Complaints concerning the armed conflict (a)   The parties’ submissions (i)   The respondent Government (ii)   The applicant Ukrainian Government (iii)   The applicant Dutch Government (b)   The Court’s assessment 2.   Complaint under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (a)   The parties’ submissions (b)   The Court’s assessment VI.   COMPLIANCE WITH ARTICLE 35 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION A.   The parties’ submissions 1.   The respondent Government 2.   The applicant Ukrainian Government 3.   The applicant Dutch Government B.   The Court’s assessment 1.   General principles under Article 35 § 1 (a)   Exhaustion of domestic remedies (b)   The six-month time-limit 2.   Application of the general principles to the facts of the case (a)   Alleged administrative practices (b)   Complaints alleged to be akin to an administrative practice (c)   Individual violations (i)   Complaints concerning the alleged abduction of children (ii)   Complaints concerning the downing of flight MH17 (α)   Objection as to exhaustion (β)   Objection as to six months (γ)   Conclusion VII.   PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF ALLEGED VIOLATIONS A.   The alleged administrative practice in the application concerning the general situation in eastern Ukraine (no. 8019/16) 1.   The parties’ submissions (a)   The respondent Government (b)   The applicant Ukrainian Government 2.   The Court’s assessment (a)   The applicable tests (i)   Repetition of acts (ii)   Official tolerance (b)   Repetition of acts within the scope of the Convention (i)   Article 2 (ii)   Article 3 (iii)   Article 4 (iv)   Article 5 (v)   Article 9 (vi)   Article 10 (vii)   Article 11 (viii)   Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (ix)   Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (x)   Article 14 (c)   “Official tolerance” (d)   Conclusion B.   The alleged administrative practice in respect of the abduction and transfer to Russia of three groups of children (no. 43800/14) 1.   The parties’ submissions (a)   The respondent Government (b)   The applicant Ukrainian Government 2.   The Court’s assessment C.   The alleged violations related to the downing of flight MH17 (no.   28525/20) 1.   The alleged violation of the substantive limb of Article 2 (a)   The parties’ memorials (i)   The respondent Government (ii)   The applicant Dutch Government (b)   The Court’s assessment 2.   The alleged violation of the procedural limb of Article 2 (a)   The parties’ memorials (i)   The respondent Government (ii)   The applicant Dutch Government (b)   Third-party submissions (c)   The Court’s assessment 3.   The alleged violation of Article 3 (a)   The parties’ memorials (i)   The respondent Government (ii)   The applicant Dutch Government (b)   Third-party submissions (i)   The Government of Canada (ii)   The MH17 applicants (c)   The Court’s assessment 4.   The alleged violation of Article 13 (a)   The parties’ memorials (i)   The respondent Government (ii)   The applicant Dutch Government (b)   The Court’s assessment FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT,   LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS   ARSIWA   ILC Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts ATO   Anti-Terrorist Operation “DPR”   “Donetsk People’s Republic” DSB   Dutch Safety Board FSB   Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation GRU   Russian military intelligence HRMMU   OHCHR Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine ICJ   International Court of Justice ICRC   International Committee of the Red Cross ICRF   Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation ILC   International Law Commission JIT   Joint Investigation Team “LPR”   “Lugansk People’s Republic” OHCHR   Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights OSCE   Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe OM   Public Prosecution Service of the Netherlands SBU   Security Service of Ukraine SMM   OSCE Special Monitoring Mission     The European Court of Human Rights (Grand Chamber), sitting as a Grand Chamber composed of:   Síofra O’Leary,   Georges Ravarani,   Marko Bošnjak,   Pere Pastor Vilanova,   Ganna Yudkivska,   Krzysztof Wojtyczek,   Faris Vehabović,   Iulia Antoanella Motoc,   Jon Fridrik Kjølbro,   Yonko Grozev,   Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström,   Tim Eicke,   Lətif Hüseynov,   Jovan Ilievski,   Jolien Schukking,   Erik Wennerström,   Anja Seibert-Fohr, judges , and Søren Prebensen, Deputy Grand Chamber Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 26 and 27 January 2022 and 30 November 2022, Decides as follows: PROCEDURE 1 .     The case originated in three applications (nos.   20958/14, 43800/14 and 42410/15) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article   33 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by the Government of Ukraine (“the applicant Ukrainian Government”) on 13 March 2014, 13 June 2014 and 26 August 2015 respectively; and an application (no. 28525/20) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article   33 of the Convention by the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands (“the applicant Dutch Government”) on 10 July 2020. 2 .     Application no. 20958/14, which concerned events in Crimea, was allocated to the Third Section of the Court (Rule 52 § 1 of the Rules of Court). On 13 March 2014, the President of the Third Section decided to apply Rule   39 of the Rules of Court calling upon both the High Contracting Parties concerned to refrain from taking any measures, in particular military actions, which might entail breaches of the Convention rights of the civilian population, including putting their life and health at risk, and to comply with their engagements under the Convention, notably in respect of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. On 16   December 2020, that measure was lifted in relation to Crimea in the admissibility decision in Ukraine v.   Russia ( re   Crimea) ([GC] (dec.), nos.   20958/14 and 38334/18, 16 December 2020). 3 .     On 14   May 2014, in a detailed letter updating the Court on whether the parties were complying with its Rule 39 indication, the applicant Ukrainian Government first advanced allegations concerning events in eastern Ukraine. A supplement to the application formalising allegations of violations of the Convention in eastern Ukraine was lodged on 12 June 2014. On 8 September 2014, further detailed correspondence concerning compliance with the Rule 39 indication, covering events in Crimea and eastern Ukraine from May to September 2014, was received. A final supplement to the application covering developments in Crimea and eastern Ukraine was submitted on 20   November 2014. 4 .     Application no. 43800/14 concerned the alleged abduction by armed separatists in eastern Ukraine of three groups of children and accompanying adults, and their transfer to Russia. It was also allocated to the Third Section. A request for Rule 39 measures was made on 13 June 2014 in respect of the first group of children. On the same day, the President of the Third Section decided to indicate to the Government of Russia (“the respondent Government”), under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, that they should ensure respect for the Convention rights of the persons concerned and their immediate return to Ukraine. On 26 June 2014, following the return of the children to Ukraine, that interim measure was lifted. 5 .     Application no. 42410/15 concerned events in Crimea and eastern Ukraine. It was also allocated to the Third Section. 6 .     Application no. 28525/20 brought by the applicant Dutch Government concerned the downing of flight MH17 causing the deaths of all 298 people on board. It was allocated to the First Section. 7.     The applicant Ukrainian Government were initially represented by their former Agent, Mr I. Lishchyna, succeeded by Ms O. Davydchuk and Ms   M.   Sokorenko, Agent of the Ukrainian Government at the European Court of Human Rights. 8.     The applicant Dutch Government were represented by their Agent, Ms   B.   Koopman, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 9.     The respondent Government were initially represented by their former Representatives, Mr G.   Matyushkin and Mr   M.   Galperin, succeeded by Mr   M. Vinogradov, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights. 10 .     On 20 November 2014 and 29 September 2015, the respondent Government were given notice of applications nos. 20958/14, 43800/14 and 42410/15, lodged by the applicant Ukrainian Government, and were invited to submit observations on the admissibility of the complaints. All three applications were subsequently transferred to the First Section of the Court and observations were filed by both the applicant Ukrainian Government and the respondent Government. 11.     Meanwhile, on 9 February and 29 November 2016, the Chamber divided application nos. 20958/14 and 42410/14 into four separate cases. Complaints concerning events in Crimea remained registered under the above case numbers, while the complaints concerning events in eastern Ukraine were given new application nos.   8019/16 and 70856/16 respectively (see   Ukraine v.   Russia ( re Crimea) , cited above, § 9). The complaints concerning events in Crimea are being examined separately and a decision on admissibility was adopted in those proceedings on 16 December 2020 (see   Ukraine v.   Russia ( re   Crimea) , cited above). 12 .     On 20 February 2018, a Chamber of the First Section composed of Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos, President, Kristina Pardalos, Ganna Yudkivska, Robert Spano, Aleš Pejchal, Dmitry Dedov and Jovan Ilievski, judges, assisted by Abel Campos, Section Registrar, decided to give notice to the parties of its intention to relinquish jurisdiction to deal with application nos.   8019/16 and 70856/16 in favour of the Grand Chamber. On 7 May 2018, the Chamber decided to relinquish jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber, having regard to the fact that neither party had objected to such relinquishment (Article 30 of the Convention and Rule 72 §§ 1 and 4). 13.     The composition of the Grand Chamber was determined according to the provisions of Article 26 §§ 4 and 5 of the Convention and Rule 24. Dmitry Dedov, the judge elected in respect of the Russian Federation, withdrew from sitting in the case as from 1 January 2019 (Rule 28). In accordance with Rule   29, the President decided to appoint Bakhtiyar Tuzmukhamedov to sit as an ad hoc judge as from that date. The latter was subsequently replaced by Mikhail Lobov as national judge (see paragraph 32 below). Robert Spano’s term as President of the Court came to an end. Síofra O’Leary succeeded him in that capacity and took over the presidency of the Grand Chamber in the present case (Rule 9 § 2). When his term of office expired, Robert Spano was replaced in the composition of the Grand Chamber by Erik Wennerström, substitute judge, by virtue of Rule 24 § 3. Ganna Yudkivska continued to sit following the expiry of her terms of office, in accordance with Article 23 § 3 of the Convention and Rule 24 § 4. After the withdrawal of the national judge (see paragraph 39 below), Anja Seibert-Fohr, substitute member, became a full member in accordance with Rule 24 § 3. 14.     On 11 June 2018, the Grand Chamber decided to join application nos.   8019/16 and 70856/16 and renamed the case Ukraine v. Russia ( re   Eastern Ukraine) , no. 8019/16. 15.     On 5 October 2018, the Grand Chamber decided to hold a hearing on both the admissibility and merits of that case (Article 29 § 2). On 20   December 2018, the parties were informed and were invited to submit their memorials on the admissibility and merits of the case. 16.     In their respective letters of 20 March 2019 and 4 April 2019, the Governments of Russia and Ukraine expressed their opposition to the Grand Chamber’s decision to hold a hearing on the admissibility and merits of the case and requested that the hearing be devoted to admissibility issues only. 17 .     On 10 May 2019, the Grand Chamber decided to examine and decide on admissibility separately, as requested by the parties. The parties were informed of the decision on 15 May 2019 and were given a new time-limit to submit memorials addressing admissibility only. They were also invited to provide submissions on what should be the format of any fact-finding in respect of the admissibility of the application and to suggest a preliminary list of witnesses they considered were essential to cover all aspects of their admissibility arguments so that the Court could take a decision on whether, and if so how, a fact-finding exercise at the admissibility stage would be conducted. 18 .     In their letter of 30 August 2019, the Ukrainian Government expressed the view that there was no need for the Court to take any oral testimony during the pre-admissibility phase of the case and that the hearing of witnesses should be envisaged if the case was declared admissible.   On 2   September 2019, the Russian Government submitted that consideration of an evidence hearing should await the outcome of an admissibility hearing conducted in the normal way. 19.     The parties’ initial memorials were received on 8   November 2019. 20 .     Having regard to the parties’ agreement that there should be no fact ‑ finding hearing at this stage of the proceedings, and with a view to facilitating the Court’s task at the admissibility stage, on 12 June 2020 the parties were informed of the President’s invitation to provide further memorials (“supplementary memorials”), focusing on specific aspects of the factual case identified in an annex to the letter. 21 .     Following the lodging of application no. 28525/20 by the applicant Dutch Government (see paragraphs 1 and 6 above), requests for third-party intervention were made by the Government of Canada, the Human Rights Law Centre of the University of Nottingham (“HRLC”), the applicants in the cases of Ayley and Others v.   Russia (no. 25714/16), Angline and Others v.   Russia (no.   56328/18), Bakker and Others v. Russia (no. 22719/19) and Warta and Others v. Russia (no. 3568/20) (who are relatives of the victims of flight MH17), and the MH17 Air Disaster Foundation (“ Stichting Vliegramp MH17 ”) in the Netherlands. 22.     On 27 November 2020, the Grand Chamber decided to join the three applications (no. 8019/16, no. 43800/14 and no. 28525/20) in accordance with Rules 42 § 1 and 71 § 1 of the Rules of Court and in the interests of the efficient administration of justice. 23 .     The supplementary memorials of the applicant Ukrainian Government and the respondent Government (see paragraph 20 above) were received on 7 December 2020. 24.     Also on 7 December 2020, the respondent Government asked the Court to take immediate measures under Rule 39 and Rule 44A of the Rules of Court in respect of their complaint concerning the alleged involvement of Ukraine in the Myrotvorets website (see paragraph 485 below). On 2   February 2021, after considering the parties’ submissions on the matter, the President refused the request on the ground that it was insufficiently substantiated to warrant any measure being indicated. 25 .     The requests for third-party intervention made in application no.   28525/20 (see paragraph 21 above) were treated as requests to intervene in the joined case pending before the Grand Chamber in so far as the complaints in that application were concerned. On 18 December 2020, the Government of Canada and the HRLC were granted permission to lodge amicus curiae submissions. The applicants in the individual cases and the MH17 Air Disaster Foundation (“MH17 applicants”) were recognised as interested third parties and invited to provide joint submissions confined to the factual and legal aspects of the case relevant to the specific interest of the next of kin of the victims of flight MH17. The third parties provided the Court with their written submissions in January and February 2021. 26 .     Meanwhile, on 21 December 2020, after consulting the parties as to the further written procedure in the case, the Court invited them to submit memorials (“first-stage memorials”) in respect of the complaints relevant to them. The parties were subsequently invited to include in their memorials any observations which they wished to make in reply to the third-party submissions (see paragraph 25 above). First-stage memorials were submitted on 12 March 2021. The parties were then invited to submit further, final memorials (“second-stage memorials”) and did so on 21 May 2021. 27.     On 10 June 2021, the parties were notified that a hearing date of 24   November 2021 had been fixed for the hearing on admissibility. On 28   June 2021 they were informed about the composition of the Grand Chamber constituted to consider the case. 28 .     On 22 July 2021, the Russian Federation lodged an application under Article   33 of the Convention against Ukraine ( Russia v. Ukraine , no.   36958/21) and requested that it be joined to nos. 8019/16 and 28525/20. The application was allocated to the First Section. 29.     On 19 October 2021, the Grand Chamber decided to reject the Russian Government’s request for joinder on the basis that accepting it would not be in the interests of the efficient administration of justice. 30.     On 8 November 2021, Mr Tuzmukhamedov, the ad hoc judge appointed pursuant to Rule 29 (see paragraph 13 above) informed the Court that he withdrew from sitting in the case, effective immediately. 31.     On 12 November 2021, the President decided to adjourn the hearing and fixed a new date of 26 January 2022 for the hearing on admissibility. 32 .     On 10 January 2022, the judge elected in respect of the Russian Federation, Mikhail Lobov, was sworn in and the composition of the Grand Chamber was duly updated. The parties were informed about the revised composition of the Grand Chamber. 33.     A hearing took place in public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 26 January 2022. There appeared before the Court: (a)     for the respondent Government Mr   M. Vinogradov ,   Agent , Mr   D. Grunis , Mr   A. Devyatko , Ms   A. Khamenkova , Ms   Y. Afanasyeva ,   Advisers ; (b)     for the applicant Ukrainian Government Mr   D. Maliuska , Minister of Justice,   Agent , Mr   B. Emmerson, QC, Mr   P. Hood , Ms   A. O’Reilly ,   Counsel , Ms   V. Kolomiiets , Ms   M. Sokorenko , Ms   O. Kolomiiets, Mr   I. Lishchyna,   Advisers ; (c)     for the applicant Dutch Government Ms   B. Koopman ,   Agent , Mr   R. Lefeber , Ms   L. van Heest , Ms   A. Aagten , Ms   R. de Ruiter,   Advisers ,   Mr   P. Ploeg, Chair of the MH17 Air Disaster Foundation.   34.     The Court heard addresses and replies to judges’ questions by Mr   Vinogradov, Mr Maliuska, Mr   Emmerson, Ms Koopman, Mr Ploeg and Mr Lefeber. 35 .     On 16 March 2022, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, in the context of a procedure launched under Article 8 of the Statute of the Council of Europe, adopted Resolution CM/Res(2022)2, by which the Russian Federation ceased to be a member of the Council of Europe as from 16 March 2022. 36 .     On 22 March 2022, the Court, sitting in plenary session in accordance with Rule 20 § 1, adopted the “Resolution of the European Court of Human Rights on the consequences of the cessation of membership of the Russian Federation to the Council of Europe in light of Article 58 of the European Convention on Human Rights”. It stated that the Russian Federation would cease to be a High Contracting Party to the Convention on 16 September 2022. 37.     On 5 September 2022, the Plenary Court took formal notice of the fact that the office of judge with respect to the Russian Federation would cease to exist after 16 September 2022. This, as a consequence, also entailed that there was no longer a valid list of ad hoc judges who would be eligible to take part in the consideration of the cases where the Russian Federation was the Respondent State. 38.     By letter of 8 November 2022, the respondent Government were informed that it was envisaged, in respect of applications against that State that the Court was competent to deal with, to appoint one of the sitting judges of the Court to act as an ad hoc judge for the Russian Federation (applying by analogy Rule 29 § 2 of the Rules of Court). The respondent Government were invited to comment on that arrangement by 22 November 2022 but did not submit any comments. 39 .     On 23 November 2022, Mikhail Lobov, the former judge elected in respect of the Russian Federation (see paragraph 32 above), decided to withdraw from sitting in the present case (Rule 28 § 2 (c) and (e) of the Rules of Court). 40.     The President accordingly decided to appoint an ad hoc judge among the members of the composition, applying by analogy Rule 29 § 2 of the Rules of Court. THE FACTS OVERVIEW 41.     The present proceedings concern events in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, in the Donbass area of eastern Ukraine, which began in the spring of 2014. The majority of the facts relevant to these proceedings are contested by the parties and their detailed accounts are set out below (see paragraphs 168 ‑ 369). The evidence they have relied on is set out in detail in an Annex to this Decision; references in this Decision in the form “A XXX” refer to paragraph XXX of the Annex. 42.     This section provides an introductory, brief overview of the relevant context. The facts described in this section are either uncontested or are not seriously contested, or are indisputably established on the evidence. For these reasons, there are no cross-references in this section to the evidence or submissions which may be relevant to the facts described here. As explained, a fuller account of the facts as submitted by each of the parties is set out in a subsequent section (see paragraphs 168-369). The chronology of the conflict 43.     In November 2013, the government of Ukraine announced that they would suspend the preparations for signing an Association Agreement with the European Union (EU) and would renew the dialogue on trade and economic matters with the Russian Federation. This led to mass protests against the government across the country. These deteriorated into violent clashes between security forces and protesters. The protest movement became known as “Euromaidan” (after Independence Square (“Maidan Nezalezhnosti”) in Kyiv. See Shmorgunov and Others v. Ukraine , nos.   15367/14 and 13 others, §§ 9-17, 21 January 2021). 44.     Violence escalated sharply on the evening of 18 February 2014. Hundreds of protestors, and some law enforcement officials, were killed or injured over the following days. On 21   February 2014, the then President of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych, and opposition leaders signed a compromise agreement which envisaged early elections by the end of the year. 45.     On 22 February 2014, President Yanukovych left Kyiv and went to the Russian Federation. Later that day, the Ukrainian Parliament voted to remove him from office on account of his failure to perform his constitutional duties. It elected a new speaker, who became acting President of Ukraine pending new elections on 25 May 2014. A new interim government was put in place. It was not recognised by the government of the respondent State. 46 .     Subsequently, unidentified armed men in green military uniforms without insignia began taking over strategic infrastructure in Crimea. On 27   February 2014, armed groups took over the building of the Supreme Council of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea. Later that day, at gunpoint, members of the Supreme Council dismissed the government of Crimea and appointed Sergey Aksyonov as “Prime Minister” (see paragraph 98 below). It was also decided to hold a “referendum” on the future status of Crimea (see   Ukraine v. Russia ( re   Crimea) [GC] (dec.), nos. 20958/14 and 38334/18, §§   32-66 and 149-168, 16 December 2020). 47 .     In early March 2014, pro-Russian protests began across eastern regions of Ukraine, including in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions where a large Russian minority resided. The protestors objected to what they claimed to have been an unconstitutional change of power in Ukraine. 48.     The “referendum” in Crimea took place on 16 March 2014 and according to the published results there was overwhelming support for Crimea joining the Russian Federation. On 18   March 2014, Crimea therefore purported to join the Russian Federation. 49.     From early April 2014, there was a rapid escalation of violence in eastern Ukraine. Some of the protestors formed armed groups which started to take control by force of public buildings as well as police and security facilities in cities and towns across the Donetsk and Luhansk regions. They set up barricades and checkpoints to maintain control of the areas seized. They demanded regionalisation and/or separatism. 50.     On 6 April 2014, separatists in Luhansk seized the building of the Security Service of Ukraine (“SBU”) regional office and declared it to be the headquarters of the “South-East Army”. 51 .     That night, separatists occupied the Regional State Administration building in Donetsk and on 7 April 2014 they declared the independence of the “Donetsk People’s Republic” (“DPR”). 52 .     On 12 April 2014, a group of armed men led by Russian national Igor Girkin (see paragraph 108 below) seized public buildings in Slovyansk, in the Donetsk region. Public administration buildings in a number of surrounding towns were also seized in the following days. 53.     On 14 April 2014, the government of Ukraine launched an “Anti ‑ Terrorist Operation” (“ATO”) to re-establish control over territory controlled by the separatist armed groups, deploying units of the Ukrainian Armed Forces supported by volunteer battalions. Meanwhile, an increasing number of troops of the armed forces of the Russian Federation were deployed in the border area near Ukraine. 54.     On 17 April 2014, following negotiations between the representatives of Ukraine, the EU, the United States and the Russian Federation, the Joint Geneva Statement on Ukraine was published. The parties notably agreed that all sides should refrain from any violence, intimidation or provocative actions; that all illegal armed groups should be disarmed; that all illegally seized buildings should be returned to legitimate owners; and that all illegally occupied streets, squares and other public places in Ukrainian cities and towns should be vacated. 55.     By 20 April 2014, the entire town of Slovyansk was under the control of armed groups. 56.     On 27 April 2014, the “Lugansk People’s Republic” (“LPR”) was declared in Luhansk.   On 29 April 2014, the Luhansk Regional State Administration building was stormed and occupied by separatists. 57.     In the following days and weeks further buildings in towns and cities in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions were taken over by separatists. Meanwhile, on 30 April 2014, the acting President of Ukraine announced that the government was no longer in control of certain parts of those regions. 58 .     In early May, the first detachments of Cossack fighters arrived in Antratsyt, Luhansk region, headed by Nikolay Kozitsyn (see paragraph 114 below). Various groups of Cossacks went on to occupy parts of the west (under the command of two other Cossack commanders, Aleksey Mozgovoy and Pavel Dryomov – see, respectively, paragraphs 117 and 106 below) and the entire southern part (under the command of Mr   Kozitsyn) of the Luhansk region. 59 .     On 11 May 2014, so-