- 37 95. At the current stage of the proceedings, the Court only needs to ascertain whether the
measures of which Ukraine complains fall within the provisions of the Convention (see
paragraph 57 above). In this respect, the Court notes that both Parties agree that Crimean Tatars
and ethnic Ukrainians in Crimea constitute ethnic groups protected under CERD. Moreover,
Articles 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the Convention set out specific obligations in relation to the treatment of
individuals on the basis of “race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin”. Article 2,
paragraph 1, of CERD contains a general obligation to pursue by all appropriate means a policy of
eliminating racial discrimination, and an obligation to engage in no act or practice of racial
discrimination against persons, groups of persons or institutions. Article 5 imposes an obligation to
prohibit and eliminate racial discrimination, and to guarantee the right of everyone to equality
before the law, notably in the enjoyment of rights mentioned therein, including political, civil,
economic, social and cultural rights.
96. The Court, taking into account the broadly formulated rights and obligations contained in
the Convention, including the obligations under Article 2, paragraph 1, and the non-exhaustive list
of rights in Article 5, considers that the measures of which Ukraine complains (see paragraph 88
above) are capable of having an adverse effect on the enjoyment of certain rights protected under
CERD. These measures thus fall within the provisions of the Convention.
97. Consequently, the Court concludes that the claims of Ukraine fall within the provisions
of CERD.
B. Procedural preconditions under Article 22 of CERD
98. Having established that the claims of Ukraine fall within the scope of CERD, the Court
now turns to the examination of the procedural preconditions under Article 22 of the Convention.
1. The alternative or cumulative character of the procedural preconditions
99. The Russian Federation argues that Article 22 imposes preconditions to the seisin of the
Court, and that the Court has jurisdiction only if both preconditions are satisfied. According to the
Russian Federation, the conjunction “or” may have an alternative meaning, a cumulative meaning
or both; the Respondent further maintains that, in Article 22, the word “or” indicates cumulative,
not alternative, preconditions. The Russian Federation also argues that interpreting Article 22 to
provide for alternative procedural preconditions would deprive the provision of effet utile, as it
would be meaningless if no legal consequences were to be drawn from the reference to two distinct
preconditions. The Russian Federation adds that conciliation under the auspices of the
CERD Committee cannot be regarded as a kind of negotiation, since, unlike negotiation, it entails
third-party intervention, and that reading Article 22 in its context and in light of the object and
purpose of CERD confirms that the two procedural preconditions are cumulative.
100. The Respondent contends that its interpretation of Article 22 of CERD is supported by
the drafting history of the Convention. The Russian Federation argues that the earliest version of
what subsequently became Article 22, proposed by the representative of the Philippines to the
Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, envisaged that the