A resolution about human rights abuses brought about by the application of Russian law in Crimea following its takeover by Russia in 2014 has been approved by the UN Human Rights Committee (UN HRC). The UN HRC determined that the imprisonment and criminal convictions of the petitioners in the Bratsylo and others v. Russia case were based on the retroactive application of Russian legislation, which violated Arts 9(1) and 15(1) ICCPR. The UN HRC further acknowledged that the coercive acquisition of Russian citizenship by Ukrainian residents of Crimea constitutes discrimination and a violation of their right to privacy.
The Federal Constitutional Act No. 6-FKZ was approved by the Russian Federation on March 18, 2014, instantly recognizing as Russian citizens all Ukrainian nationals and stateless individuals who were continuously resident in Crimea. The UN HRC questioned whether Crimean nationals, particularly those imprisoned there, could make an informed and free decision about their citizenship. According to the applicants, their private lives were negatively impacted by the automatic awarding of Russian citizenship and the ensuing inability to renounce it, which drove them to adopt a new identity linked to allegiance to the aggressor state. The ICJ's stance on a related issue is different from the UN HRC's decision regarding the discriminatory nature of the automatic imposition of Russian citizenship. Comparatively to the UN HRC, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) focused on a more focused question: would Russia's 2014 introduction of a citizenship regime in Crimea qualify as racial discrimination for the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD)?
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) case brought by Ukraine concerned purported discrimination against the Tatar and Ukrainian ethnic populations as a result of a citizenship statute that declared Crimean permanent inhabitants to be Russian citizens. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) considered the automatic granting of Russian citizenship in Crimea to be a "difficulty" when deciding between the legal ramifications of keeping Ukrainian citizenship or obtaining Russian citizenship. According to the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CERD), there was no racial discrimination involved in the treatment differences depending on this status. Based on information gathered by UN organizations about the coercive character of the automatic imposition of Russian citizenship on inhabitants of Crimea, the International Court of Justice's analysis does not address Ukraine's concerns. The 'foreigner' status of Ukrainian nationals residing on the sovereign territory of their state—a paradox deriving from Russia's actions—is another issue that the ICJ fails to acknowledge.
Additionally, Ukraine brought a complaint against Russia before the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) alleging that the right to respect for private life has been violated. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) deemed Ukraine's lawsuit against the automatic imposition of Russian citizenship acceptable; however, the merits of the case have not yet been resolved. The inability to renounce citizenship obtained against one's will might give rise to concerns under the right to respect for private life protected in Article 17 ICCPR and Art. 8 ECHR. The forceful imposition of citizenship in an annexed area is a unique issue in human rights law.
