For any analysis it is necessary to understand the key interests of the parties with which they enter into the game, writes in facebook the permanent representative of Ukraine to the Council of Europe Dmitry Kuleba.

At this stage, Russia was interested in the fact that the court did not accept the lawsuit of Ukraine as it rejected the suit of Georgia in 2008. But the court recognized the existence of his jurisdiction prima facie on both Conventions that became the subject of a lawsuit. Personally, I did not believe that the court would recognize the jurisdiction of the Convention on the Financing of Terrorism, because this would be the first time in history and opened to the court the "box of Pandora". And the International Court of Justice traditionally does not take risks where there is no risk. Therefore, the court pleasantly surprised me.

Ukraine's interest was that the jurisdiction was established and temporary measures were taken against Russia. Regarding jurisdiction, we won. Under the Convention on Terrorism, no measures have been established and, moreover, the court openly hinted that everyone must comply with the Minsk agreements. Under the Convention on Racial Discrimination, the court established interim measures. Not all that we asked for, but installed. However, the absence of a temporary measure does not automatically mean that there is no violation.

We are sucked into the lawsuit - and this is the main political and legal result. Roughly speaking, they left the group in the playoffs. Next will be a slow and lengthy legal work, "a bitter struggle on every scrap of the field".

Personally, I believe that our chances in court under the Convention against Racial Discrimination are higher than under the Convention on the Financing of Terrorism. But the very fact of the trial is fundamentally important, because all these are puzzles, which in the end will add up to the legal responsibility of Russia. Namely, they oh, as they do not want.

In the dry balance at this stage, with a score of 3:

1, Ukraine won, where 3 in our favor is the prima facie court's recognition of the jurisdiction of the Convention on Terrorism and the jurisdiction of the Convention with regard to discrimination and temporary measures under the latter convention, and 1 in favor of Russia is the absence Temporary measures under the first convention.

That's all I wanted to say. And now those very clever people who masterly explain, what a bad visa-free regime, will explain to you how bad the ruling of the International Court of Justice.