home - disinfo cases - detail

The International Court of Justice has taken a principled stand and did not support the numerous and well-known statements of the Ukrainian side about the alleged so-called "aggression" and "occupation" of Crimea, viewing them as being unrelated to the essence of the proceedings. Contrary to the claims of the Ukrainian side, there is not a word in the text of the court’s decision about ‘repression’, ‘persecution’ and the like by Russia in relation to the Crimean Tatars and Ukrainians living in Crimea, or about the requirement ‘to lift the ban of the Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar people.

Summary of Disinformation

The International Court of Justice has taken a principled stand and did not support the numerous and well-known statements of the Ukrainian side about the alleged so-called “aggression” and “occupation” of Crimea, viewing them as being unrelated to the essence of the proceedings. Contrary to the claims of the Ukrainian side, there is not a word in the text of the court’s decision about ‘repression’, ‘persecution’ and the like by Russia in relation to the Crimean Tatars and Ukrainians living in Crimea, or about the requirement ‘to lift the ban of the Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar people.

Disproof

Actually, the International Court of Justice's preliminary ruling confirmed two things: first, that the ICJ has jurisdiction to hear Ukraine's case against Russia; secondly, that there is sufficient evidence to allow Ukraine's case to continue. bit.ly/2onpmZC,

share with
Reported in: Issue 69
Date: 04.05.2017
Language: Russian
Country: Russia, Ukraine
Keywords: ICJ, Crimean Tatars, Crimea
Outlet where the disinformation appeared: RT
share with

Have you found a mistake?
Give us your feedback.

Please don't forget to include facts and data backing your story.