32 CATAN AND OTHERS v. MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA JUDGMENT I. JURISDICTION A. The parties’ submissions 1. The applicants (a) The jurisdiction of the Republic of Moldova 83. The applicants submitted that, although Moldova lacked effective control over Transdniestria, the region clearly remained part of the national territory and the protection of human rights there remained the responsibility of Moldova. 84. The applicants considered that Moldova’s positive obligations towards them operated on several inter-connected levels. Moldova had a responsibility to take all feasible measures to restore the rule of law and its sovereign authority in Transdniestria. It also had a positive obligation to take all feasible measures specifically to remedy the situation of the applicants and to protect their freedom to study and have their children study at schools using the Moldovan national language. The applicants alleged that, despite Moldovan lack of overall control of Transdniestria, it did have considerable means available to it in the political and economic sphere that were capable of affecting its ongoing relationship with the “MRT” authorities. (b) The jurisdiction of the Russian Federation 85. The applicants pointed out that the closure of the schools took place in 2004, shortly after the Court delivered judgment in Ilaşcu (cited above). They submitted that the Court’s findings of fact in Ilaşcu, which led it to conclude that Russia exercised decisive influence over the “MRT”, applied equally in the present case. 86. The applicants emphasised that since 2004 there had been no verified withdrawals of Russian arms and equipment. They alleged that Russia had entered into secret deals with the “MRT” leaders in connection with the management of the arms store. In 2003 the Russian Government’s own figures showed that there were 2,200 Russian troops stationed in the region and there was no evidence to show that that figure had diminished significantly. Their presence was justified by Russia as necessary to guard the arms store. The applicants submitted that the presence of both the arms and the troops was contrary to Russia’s international commitments. The applicants further submitted that there was no indication of any clear commitment to the removal of troops and weapons. Instead, official Russian statements tended to indicate that withdrawal was conditional on a political settlement being reached. In the applicants’ view, the continued Russian