A YEAR AFTER: MAIN VIOLATIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN CRIMEA PART 4 the conflict of interests meant the kinship with foreign, Ukrainian citizens living in the mainland Ukraine. There were cases of direct intervention of the Russian authorities in the work of the courts. For example, V.M. Koval, the chairman of the Sevastopol Commercial Court of Appeal, was not allowed to enter the court building on the personal instructions of the Sevastopol governor S. Menyailo as of May 2014, and his powers were con- ferred to another person. Since April 2014, under the occupation, the Ukrainian courts previously established on the basis of the laws of Ukraine continued to execute justice with application of the procedural legislation of the Russian Federation. In doing so they not only lost their authority according to the Law of Ukraine ‘On ensuring the rights and freedoms of citizens and the legal regime in the temporarily occupied territory of Ukraine’, but also, the existence of a number of them was not provided by the leg- islation of the Russian Federation (e.g., Economic and Administrative Courts). There were cases in 2014, where the judicial acts of the Crimean courts in the name of the RF were certiR ed by the seal of Ukrainian courts. Since March 2014, the courts located in the territory of Crimea and Sevastopol, ceased to direct the materials on civil, criminal, and administrative cases for review to the higher courts located on the mainland Ukraine. All cases (including crim- inal cases, in violation of Art. 64 of the 1949 Geneva Convention) were reviewed with application of the procedural legislation of the Russian Federation. As a result, the barriers were created to legal review of the previous decisions by the cassation courts of Ukraine, as well as for review of the judicial decisions in connection with the decision of the European Court of Human Rights. As a result of such actions of the Russian authorities, the independence of the judicial system of Crimea was undermined. The powers of the judges appointed in accordance with the laws of Ukraine were suspended, and the status of judg- es became uncertain. In the Russian legislation regulating the judicial system operation, there is no concept of “substitution” of a judge. Accordingly, the per- sons included in this category, as well as their powers, necessary qualification, level of education and knowledge of legislation were not clearly defined. The general policy of coercion to obtaining the citizenship of the Russian Federation under the threat of dismissal, waiting for possible appointment and the absence of a transparent procedure pushed the applicants (Crimean judges appointed by Ukraine) to demonstrate the maximum loyalty to the authorities of the RF. It can be assumed that the judges were particularly required to demonstrate such loyalty in cases of administrative or criminal prosecution of the pro-Ukrainian activists. 127