Even at the dawn of the emergence of the trend of treatment of Ukrainian citizens to the European Court of Human Rights, the author had personal experience of applying to this body. The case was relatively new and it was necessary to dive into the statistics of the ECHR. Then in the specialized literature and in official statistical reports it was indicated that more than 90% of applications to the European Court were rejected at the stage of filing documents. On various formal grounds, the court came to the conclusion that the dispute was beyond its competence. Surely, for almost 20 years the situation has changed, and many professional lawyers specialize precisely in such cases, and therefore the percentage of rejected applications has probably decreased.

After a while, fate brought the author to a man who himself was in the role of a judge of the International War Crimes Tribunal in Yugoslavia. He also noted the difficulties with determining the jurisdiction of a case to the international tribunal. This tendency has smoothly migrated to the judicial practice of Ukraine and is fixed in the same Civil Procedure Code by a separate article that does not allow disputes over jurisdiction. That is, the first thing that a court must do when obtaining a claim is to establish jurisdiction.

Only after that other questions of compliance of the claim with the norms of the current legislation are studied. Over time, the requirements for procedural documents, such as: a claim, an appeal or a cassation complaint, have become significantly tougher, and the successful adoption of such a document in court proceedings already gives a significant success rate. Then everything will depend on how the parties will be able to present their arguments, who will have more of them and whose weight will be more significant. We do not consider a variant of a deaf drift of the dough here.

Something similar happened in the UN court, where the lawsuit of Ukraine against the Russian Federation was considered in the framework of international conventions on combating the financing of terrorism and the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination. Yesterday there were two important judicial moments, which are interpreted in different ways and very different ways. Strictly speaking, the most important point was that the United Nations Court generally accepted such a claim, recognizing jurisdiction.

Now it is possible to provide and obtain evidence in the framework of the judicial procedure. Unlike the UN Security Council, Russia has no right to veto and everything that can not be studied and evaluated there can and should be assessed here. That is, the process has gone and this is very important. All efforts of the Russian Federation have been focused on ensuring that the UN Court does not at all take this claim to its proceedings.

Then I would repeat the precedent with Georgia, which was launched with a lawsuit against the Russian Federation for aggression. There, the Georgians lost the battle without even joining it. Now the Russians will have to answer a lot of questions and give a lot of explanations. So far, the processes against Russia have not yet entered.

The second point, which is played out from different sides - preventive measures. That is, the court had the right to demand the performance of certain actions from the party of the process until a final decision was made. This can be compared with the imposition of seizure of property to ensure compliance with the claims. But this comparison is true only in form and absolutely does not fit in the sense. If the arrested property can go into securing the claim, when the case is won, or may return to the original owner in case of rejection of the claim, then in this case, the subject of the claim is a completely different property. Since it is a violation of the provisions of international conventions signed by Russia, the measure of restraint requires action from Russia that already confirm these violations.

That is, the court ordered Russia to take measures to resume the work of the Crimean Tatar Mejlis and restore the possibility of communication and instruction in the Crimean Tatar and Ukrainian languages. That is, if the court provides just such actions, then it finds a violation of the Convention. And if the issue is unpleasant with languages, but does not lead to a situation in the pamphlets of leprosarium, then the measures for suppressing the financing of terrorism should already have specific indications of what exactly Russia should do in this plan, which means - actual transfer of episodes of financing terrorism.

This unambiguously leads Russia to the camp of Iran, Libya and the like marginals. It is clear that it was difficult to expect such a preventive measure, and something like this can be formulated only in the final judicial document. Even an indication of a violation of the convention on racial discrimination is quite unexpected, in relation to the Russian Federation. So here the result is even more than what you could count on. Another thing - what will be the final decision.

Unfortunately, we are witnessing the degradation of the main international organizations designed to ensure the existing world order. First of all, this concerns the OSCE and the UN. These organizations unequivocally surrendered before the fact of the confluence of one of the key members - the RF, into an insane state. They were not ready for this either mentally or technically. We will not talk about the mental, but technical questions should sooner or later be extracted into the light of God.

Surprisingly, even Ukraine, which was subjected to aggression by the Russian Federation, did not start a total purge from the Kremlin agents. The same thing happens in the United Nations, and even more so in the OSCE. When the time comes and this office squeak will be extracted by hundreds from international organizations, the world will find with horror the depth of the mink that the Kremlin rat dug. What can you talk about, if the far from the policy of FIFA was just stuffed with Kremlin moles.

Therefore, today an important step has been taken in the UN court, now serious work of our lawyers and diplomats is due, but, probably, it's time for us not only to do the necessary things in court, but also inside Ukraine. While we are encouraging Medvedchuk, Midrahu and other rubbish, which are directly related to the Crimean and Lugandon, it will be difficult for us to explain to the court why we are asking for measures against the Russian Federation supporting terrorists and do not punish our citizens with a similar brand on the forehead.

And then, how can one punish the Russian Federation for financing terrorists, if we did not call them ourselves? How do you understand the UN court that the zaharchenki, carpenters and those who are being sucked through their gums are terrorists?

Maybe it's time to call things by their own names and then they will begin to understand us better? In any case, it's time to make important and sane steps. Having said "a" in the UN court, we should immediately say "b" in Ukraine. This is required by the already started process, which we have no right to lose.

Editorial site is not responsible for the content of blogs. The editorial opinion may differ from the author's.

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