- 36 91. Ukraine also submits that the protections provided by CERD do not exist solely with respect to those rights listed in the Convention, but extend to human rights and fundamental freedoms in other fields of public life. It is Ukraine’s position that the Russian Federation’s arguments on the interpretation of certain provisions of CERD confirm that the dispute between the Parties also concerns the interpretation of that Convention. According to Ukraine, the issues in dispute between the Parties concern the respect of the right of indigenous peoples to maintain their representative institutions, the right of minorities to be educated in their native language, the consideration of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention as a rule relevant to the interpretation of Article 5, paragraph (d) (ii), of CERD, and the relevance of Article 1, paragraphs 2 and 3, to claims relating to the imposition of Russian citizenship in Crimea. Ukraine submits that it is appropriate for the Court to decide these disputed issues at the merits stage of the proceedings. 92. In the alternative, Ukraine argues that, should the Court decide to address such issues at the preliminary objections stage, it should decide them in Ukraine’s favour. The Applicant maintains that targeting the Mejlis constitutes an ethnicity-based distinction having the purpose or effect of impairing the human rights and fundamental freedoms of the Crimean Tatar people. Ukraine further states that Article 5 (e) (v) of CERD provides for a broad right to education and training, which also covers the right to be educated in one’s own native language. Ukraine also clarifies that it is not requesting the Court to make any finding or grant any relief in respect of breaches of CERD resulting from discrimination on religious grounds. The Applicant further maintains that it is not asking the Court to decide claims of discrimination on the basis of political opinion. 93. According to Ukraine, the Russian Federation’s claim that the extension of its laws in Crimea is equated by Ukraine to a violation of CERD is inaccurate; the Applicant argues that, in its Memorial, it referred to the introduction of such laws to describe the means by which the Respondent has pursued a campaign of discrimination in Crimea. Using as an example the breach of freedom of peaceful assembly, Ukraine submits that the alleged violations of CERD do not result from breaches of international humanitarian law, but from the discriminatory application by the Russian Federation of its domestic legislation as a means of repressing the Crimean Tatar and Ukrainian communities in Crimea. * * 94. In order to determine whether it has jurisdiction ratione materiae under CERD, the Court does not need to satisfy itself that the measures of which Ukraine complains actually constitute “racial discrimination” within the meaning of Article 1, paragraph 1, of CERD. Nor does the Court need to establish whether, and, if so, to what extent, certain acts may be covered by Article 1, paragraphs 2 and 3, of CERD. Both determinations concern issues of fact, largely depending on evidence regarding the purpose or effect of the measures alleged by Ukraine, and are thus properly a matter for the merits, should the case proceed to that stage.