A/HRC/28/64/Add.1 law and were unaware of its status. Ethnic Russians expressed concern that allegedly antiRussian officials of Svoboda would have a substantive role in formulating the new law. VII. Situation of internally displaced persons and Crimean Tatars 44. The Special Rapporteur attempted to gain access to the Autonomous Republic of Crimea to assess the situation of minorities and to consult with the de facto authorities and minority and other community actors. Regrettably, she did not receive the required assurances to enable her to travel. The general human and minority rights situation in the Republic is of concern as administrative authority over the region has been illegally assumed by the Russian Federation following a disputed referendum on 16 March 2014.21 On 27 March, the General Assembly underscored in its resolution 68/262 that that referendum had “no validity” and upheld the territorial integrity of Ukraine, including the Autonomous Republic of Crimea. 45. The 2001 census revealed that ethnic Russians made up 58.3 per cent of the total population in Crimea (1,180,400 people, although that percentage has declined from 65.6 per cent in 1989). Ukrainians accounted for 492,200 people or 24.3 per cent (a decline from 26.7 per cent in 1989), and 243,400 were Crimean Tatars (reflecting an increase from 1.9 per cent in 1989 to 12 per cent in 2001 owing to the significant return of Tatars to the peninsular). The number of returning Crimean Tatars reportedly peaked at 41,400 in 1991, and has been rapidly falling since.22 46. The Special Rapporteur interviewed several people who had left the Autonomous Republic of Crimea. Some mentioned uncertainty, social and political pressure and fear for their security and rights as the reasons for their decision to leave. They reported a tense and threatening environment, including via social media, against those who opposed or criticized the events surrounding the “referendum” and some stated that they knew about incidents of physical and verbal abuse. Some interviewees stressed their desire to remain Ukrainian and not to live in the Russian Federation. Some stated that Ukrainian language media in Crimea had been “switched off”. In the current political circumstances, the human rights situation of ethnic Ukrainians who remain in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea as a de facto minority requires close monitoring; some reports suggest that there has been intimidation of those who openly oppose Russian control of the region or use the Ukrainian language in public. 47. Some individuals stated that concerns over maintaining Ukrainian citizenship and passports had been a contributing factor in their decision to leave. They expressed fears that those who wished to remain Ukrainian in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea would face discrimination as “foreigners” with implications for their economic, social and cultural rights and their right to participate in political life. Crimean residents were given one month, until 18 April 2014, to submit applications declaring that they did not wish to become Russian citizens. Some reported procedural difficulties that apparently made it difficult to meet the necessary requirements to keep their Ukrainian passports, including a shortage of registration offices, and suggested that those were deliberate barriers. 48. Concern exists regarding the implications of not accepting Russian citizenship and passports, including loss of property, restrictions on freedom of movement, provision of 21 22 Pro-Russian authorities claimed that 97 per cent of voters supported the proposal to join the Russian Federation, a figure that was disputed by the Ukrainian authorities. Minority Rights Group International, “Ukraine overview”, available from www.minorityrights.org/5053/ukraine/ukraine-overview.html. 13