PART 4 A YEAR AFTER: MAIN VIOLATIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN CRIMEA 39 Decree and allegedly executed justice in the occupied territory from March till December 2014. These actions of the Ukrainian authorities can be considered as contrary to the in- ternational humanitarian law and the general policy of the state recognizing the presence of Russia on part of its territory (the Crimean peninsula) as an occupation. According to Article 54 of the 1949 Geneva Convention the occupying State is pro- hibited to change the status of public o7 cials or judges in the occupied territories or to apply sanctions to them, to take any coercive measures. Accordingly, Russia, as an occupying country, had no right to change the status of judges of Ukraine in the given territory (which was later done by the Russian Federation by way of re- certiR cation of judges and appointment of new federal judges in Crimea by the RF President’s Decree). That is, the Crimean judges, which have not been appointed as Judges of the Russian Federation by the Decree of the President of the Russian Fed- eration and executed justice in Crimea within March – December 2014, remained in the status of the judges of Ukraine, administrating justice under the occupation. A separate assessment is required with regard to the fact that these judges adopted decisions applying the RF legislation. The policy of the Ukrainian state in relation to other Ukrainian judges which worked in the courts in the mainland Ukraine and after the occupation of the peninsula 39 http://www.gp.gov.ua/ua/news.html?_m=publications&_c=view&_t=rec&id=168943 130