PART 4 A YEAR AFTER: MAIN VIOLATIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN CRIMEA • On July 5, 2014 – Refat Chubarov, Chairman of the Mejlis of the Crimean Tatars, the notiR cation on the prohibition contained a reference to the Federal Law On the Procedure for Exit from the Russian Federation and Entry to the Russian Federation No.114 of 18.07.1996; • On August 10, 2014 – Ismet Yuksel, general coordinator of the Information Agency Crimean News QHA, Advisor to the Chairman of the Mejlis of the Crimean Tatars. The decision on the ban was made by the FSS on the basis of par. 1 of clause 1 of Article 27 of the Federal Law of 15.08.1996 No. 114-FZ On the Procedure for Exit from the Russian Federation and Entry into the Russian Federation. The text of the reasoned decision on the ban on entry was not provided; • On January 23, 2015 – Sinaver Kadyrov, a member of the Committee for the Protection of the Rights of the Crimean Tatars. The decision on the expulsion was adopted by the Armyansk District Court. The reason for the expulsion was that, according to Russian authorities, as a citizen of Ukraine, he violated the 90-day period of stay in the territory of the Russian Federation. Entry bans to permanent residents by the Russia Federation after short-term ab- 9 sence are the cases tried by the European Court of Human Rights. Another example of the violation of the freedom of movement may be cases when the person had already been banned to enter the territory of the Russian Federa- tion, and the ban was automatically extended to the territory of Crimea because of its annexation. For example, this was the situation of Oleg Khomenok, a well- known journalist, media expert and coach, who resided in Simferopol. On October 29, 2012, he was banned to enter the territory of the Russian Federation for a period 10 of 5 years . Since March 2014, the ban applied to the territory of Crimea, and its violation entailed criminal liability. It is clear that the territory of the Crimean peninsula is the territory of Ukraine, and any action of the Russian authorities to restrict the movement between Crimea and the mainland Ukraine should be considered as interference with the right of the citizens of Ukraine to move freely on the territory of their country. Howev- er, the occupation authorities implement an active policy aimed at breaking the links between the peninsula and the mainland Ukraine and suppress the dissent in the occupied territory. The violation of the freedom of movement plays a very important role in it. The people that have been cornered are far more inclined to 9 See the ECHR jusgment on the case Nolan and R. v. Russia (Judgment of 12 February 2009; application 2512/04) 10 http://investigator.org.ua/news/66215/ 88