The first decision of the International Court of Justice on Ukraine's suits against Russia was expected to provoke heated discussions and diametrically opposed interpretations. Someone called it a victory, others - the defeat of Ukraine, and someone rightly pointed out that so far neither the first nor the second can not be a speech.

At this stage, we can safely say that the preliminary findings of the court in The Hague are satisfactory for Ukraine. Not all of Kiev's requests were approved, but no one expected it. The main thing is that the court recognized prima facie jurisdiction, which allows considering the complaint in the future. In the details of the first court decision and the prospects for the process as a whole, the "Observer".

Not "zrada" Ukraine accuses Russia of violating two conventions: the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination and the prohibition of the financing of terrorism. The court recognized its jurisdiction over both conventions, but refused to impose temporary measures on the second, finding the evidence of the Ukrainian side inadequate. It is this fact that relishes a number of experts and politicians on the subject of "zrady".

In practice, the recognition of jurisdiction under the convention on terrorism is already a success. For the International Court of Justice, this is an absolutely unexplored territory, because there are no precedents for considering such a complaint, and the very fact of financing terrorists is not as easy to prove as it seems at first glance.

The fact that the court found Ukraine's evidence under the second convention unconvincing is not yet a sentence. Jurisdiction prima facie is not translated as "jurisdiction at first sight". At this stage, the arguments of the parties are considered fluently.

"It is necessary to understand the very nature of this stage of consideration of the case. It is preliminary, and while the court does not go deep into the evidence of the parties. The main legal confrontation will unfold in subsequent meetings. And then you can talk about victory or defeat, "- said in a conversation with us lawyer Mikhail Soldatenko.

As to the first convention, the court called on the Russian Federation to abolish the ban of the Crimean Tatar Mejlis, guarantee the rights of national minorities on the territory of the annexed peninsula and restore opportunities for learning in Ukrainian.

Legal Matter does not Hurry The main risks of the process are now connected with the adoption of a final decision on jurisdiction. After the Russian aggression against Georgia in 2008, Tbilisi's claim on the "anti-discrimination" convention successfully passed the prima facie stage. But a few years later, Georgia lost - the court decided that this issue is not in its competence. For Kiev this is a negative precedent, however, the Ukrainian and Georgian situations are not identical. Tbilisi sued 5 days after the start of Russian aggression, Ukraine - almost 2 years later. And this is not the case when official Kiev should be accused of slowness and untimely. Subtle legal matter does not tolerate haste. Therefore, the preparation of the Ukrainian side still looks much better than in its time the Georgian.

Until the final decision on the claims is still far away - consideration is delayed for several years. Therefore, there is time to strengthen the evidence base for both conventions. To prove the financing of terrorism by Russia is a task of maximum. But the court is unlikely to recognize Russia's violation of this convention without conclusive evidence, for example, without evidence of terrorists and their confessions. With regard to the "anti-discrimination" convention, it is now important to prove the willfulness and massiveness of violations. If this does not happen, the court may not recognize the final jurisdiction.

"The process as a whole at best will end with a decision that recognizes the Russian Federation as a country that has violated its obligations under the" anti-discrimination "convention. I have huge doubts that Russia will be found guilty of violating the convention on the financing of terrorism. At least in full, "- commented to the" Observer "the extraordinary and plenipotentiary ambassador of Ukraine, ex-representative of Ukraine in the United Nations Human Rights Council Vladimir Vasilenko.

Consequences for Russia Even if the final decision of the court is taken in favor of Ukraine, no one can force Russia to fulfill it. At least because to implement it in life, we need resolutions of the UN Security Council, in which the Russian Federation has the right of veto. And in international law there are no appropriate methods of coercion, unlike national systems. The precedents of non-implementation of the decisions of the UN. For example, the US did so on the suit of Nicaragua on June 26, 1986.

However, the trial in The Hague is not a formality. In the case of a positive decision, the most authoritative judicial body recognizes the fact that Russia violated international norms. Failure to comply with the requirements of the ICJ by the Russian Federation is an additional political argument of Ukraine, including in the context of expanding or maintaining sanctions.

As reported by the "Observer", April 19, the International Court of Justice announced several decisions in the case on the suit of Ukraine against Russia. Thus, the court recognized prima facie jurisdiction for the consideration of this case.

In addition, the court stated that Ukraine did not provide sufficient evidence of Russia's financing of terrorism. At the same time, the International Court of the United Nations has agreed to the introduction of measures on the suit of Ukraine against the Russian Federation regarding the protection of national minorities in the Crimea.

Also, the court ordered Ukraine and Russia to fully implement all provisions of the agreements reached in Minsk.

Join the groups "Observer" on Facebook and VKontakte, stay tuned!.