PART 4 A YEAR AFTER: MAIN VIOLATIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN CRIMEA lation of the freedom of choice of the place of residence, on the contrary, can lead to a intent to or even the need to leave the peninsula. One example of the interference with the freedom of movement is the establishment of control over the entry/exit into the territory of peninsular. The existing conditions (for example, the availability of certain documents or the limitation of the duration of stay for non-Russian citizens) may make the entry or exit impossible. The most obvious interference with the freedom of movement and the freedom to choose the place of residence is a requirement for obtaining a residence permit for Crimeans which R led an application to renounce the Russian citizenship (or according to Art. 4 of the Law No. 6-FKZ, “on the desire to retain the citizenship 7 of Ukraine”) . Being designed for people arriving to the territory of the Russian Federation, these requirements signiR cantly limit the rights of these people to reside in the place, which had been a home for them for many years (probably, since birth). Perhaps, these requirements being deR ned as “when in Rome do as the Romans do” are adequate for those whose home was located in a diT erent location before. But in the case of Crimeans, who refused to allow the occupation authorities to consider them the citizens of Russia, they did not come to a foreign country – Russia came to them with its rules. Moreover, any attempt to temporar- ily travel outside the peninsula for such citizens may lead to the fact that they will be observed by the migration control, with imposition of 90/180 day limited stay applicable to them respectively. Importantly, the passport control is also carried out at the Kerch ferry, so in terms of the freedom of movement Crimea is an island which can be left only upon consent of the occupation authorities. In addition, throughout the Russian Federation there is a fairly tight control over the registration of the place of residence and compliance of such registration with the actual place of residence. If in Ukraine such requirements are rather declarative, in the Russian Federation the violation of migration requirements may entail quite serious responsibility. A good illustration of the absurdity of the situation is an amusing incident occurring to Oleg Zubkov, Director of the famous Yalta zoo “Fairy Tale and the Lions Park Tai- gan” in Crimea. Having supported the actions of the Russian authorities in Crimea, pretty soon he fell victim of a repressive mechanism. Article 322.2 of the Criminal Code of the RF establishes criminal responsibility for the R ctitious registration of the citizen of the Russian Federation at the place of stay or residence in a residential premise in the Russian Federation and the R ctitious reg- 7 See Section 4.4. Involuntary nationality 86