- 46 Guinea v. Democratic Republic of the Congo), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, I.C.J.
Reports 2007 (II), p. 599, para. 42; see also Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for
Internationally Wrongful Acts with Commentaries, Report of the International Law Commission on
the work of its fifty-third session, Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 2001, Vol. II,
Part Two, pp. 120-121; Draft Articles on Diplomatic Protection with Commentaries, Report of the
International Law Commission on the work of its fifty-eighth session, Yearbook of the
International Law Commission, 2006, Vol. II, Part Two, p. 44).
130. The Court notes that, according to Ukraine, the Russian Federation has engaged in a
sustained campaign of racial discrimination, carried out through acts repeated over an appreciable
period of time starting in 2014, against the Crimean Tatar and Ukrainian communities in Crimea.
The Court also notes that the individual instances to which Ukraine refers in its submissions
emerge as illustrations of the acts by which the Russian Federation has allegedly engaged in a
campaign of racial discrimination. It follows, in the view of the Court, that, in filing its Application
under Article 22 of CERD, Ukraine does not adopt the cause of one or more of its nationals, but
challenges, on the basis of CERD, the alleged pattern of conduct of the Russian Federation with
regard to the treatment of the Crimean Tatar and Ukrainian communities in Crimea. In view of the
above, the Court concludes that the rule of exhaustion of local remedies does not apply in the
circumstances of the present case.
131. This conclusion by the Court is without prejudice to the question of whether the
Russian Federation has actually engaged in the campaign of racial discrimination alleged by
Ukraine, thus breaching its obligations under CERD. This is a question which the Court will
address at the merits stage of the proceedings.
132. The Court finds that the Russian Federation’s objection to the admissibility of
Ukraine’s Application with regard to CERD must be rejected.
*
133. It follows from the findings made above that the Russian Federation’s objections to the
jurisdiction of the Court under Article 22 of CERD and to the admissibility of Ukraine’s
Application with regard to CERD must be rejected. Accordingly, the Court concludes that it has
jurisdiction to entertain the claims made by Ukraine under CERD and that Ukraine’s Application
with regard to those claims is admissible.
*
*
*