Initiative E+: Delegates Serving at the Adoption of The indicators of integrity

Background#

The PIC adopted its Indicators of Integrity on 11 January 2019.

At the time of adoption, Dmytro Stryhun served on the PIC’s second composition as a delegate of Initiative E+.

The Provision at Issue#

Paragraph 1.5 identifies as a marker of support for aggression conduct by a judge or candidate who “without urgent need visited the Russian Federation after the start of the armed aggression, temporarily occupied territories.” The two are listed together, with no distinction drawn between the territory of a foreign aggressor state and Ukrainian territory under temporary occupation.

The Indicators provide an exception for travel undertaken out of urgent need, such as visits to close relatives or the resolution of property matters. The exception presupposes the rule: absent urgent need, travel to occupied Crimea is assessed on the same footing as travel to Russia.

Provenance of the wording. The text quoted above is that of the revised Indicators adopted on 16 December 2020. This instance documents the organization’s presence at the adoption of the original Indicators on 11 January 2019 only; it does not attribute the revised wording to its delegate.

The delegate named above left the Council on 16 January 2020, before the revised text of 16 December 2020 was adopted. This instance therefore documents the organization’s presence at the adoption of the original Indicators only, and not at the revision.

What Is and Is Not Documented Here#

The vote was taken by the PIC’s members, not by Initiative E+. What is documented at the organizational level is that the organization had placed the voting members on the Council and did not publicly object to the text they adopted.

Legal Significance#

The Constitution of Ukraine (Articles 2, 73, 133–134), the Law on the Temporarily Occupied Territory (No. 1207-VII, 2014) and UN General Assembly Resolution 68/262 (2014) all treat Crimea as Ukrainian territory under occupation rather than as territory of a foreign state. Paragraph 1.5 assesses conduct as though that distinction did not exist.