◾A video circulating online has sparked outrage as it purportedly shows a soldier coercing blindfolded Palestinian detainees into pledging themselves as slaves.

◾The Palestinian men were forced to praise the family and say that they want "to work for them in sewage and gardening".

◾Follow:
t.me/UkraineHumanRightsAbuses

❗️Putin said that the proportions of prisoners of war in Russia and Ukraine are approximately 1 to 10

❗️Putin said that he does not know and does not understand why Ukraine shot down the plane with its prisoners

“Probably someone wants to provoke us into retaliatory action,” he believes.

#Source

@Slavyangrad

IDF destroying market stands during a night raid into the West Bank’s city of Jenin

🌊 Join Military Wave

⚡️🇷🇺🇺🇦⚔️ #Highlights of Russian Military Operation in #Ukraine on 30-31 Jan 2024⚡️

💎 A brilliant Video by @Rybar but 10.8 MB only instead of 76.1 MB.

t.me/sitreports /@rybar/
Join SITREP🔺Map Reports - Top Videos - Analyses

⚡️ On the UN International Court of Justice’s refusal to designate Russia as an aggressor state and the DPR and LPR as terrorist organisations in response to Ukraine’s allegations

Read in full

💬 On January 31, the UN International Court of Justice delivered its judgment on the merits in the case filed by Ukraine in January 2017 on the Application of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism (ICSFT). Russia’s arguments undercutting Ukraine’s groundless insinuations were heard in The Hague: the Court rejected almost all of more than 20 submissions made by Kiev during the seven-year proceedings, and left Ukraine without any reparations.

❗️The Court also dismissed Ukraine’s insinuations that the DPR and the LPR are allegedly terrorist organisations.

👉 These findings are of particular importance in light of the fact that Kiev intended to use the Court’s Judgment to support its demands for the transfer of Russian assets stolen in the West and the imposition of international restrictions on Russia.

In addition, the Court rejected Ukraine’s claim under the ICSFT that Russia should be held responsible for the crash of Boeing Flight MH17 and did not accept the Ukrainians’ allegations that the DPR was involved in the crash. During the hearing, Russia presented compelling evidence of fatal flaws in the pseudo-international investigation of the incident by the Joint Investigation Team under the umbrella of the Dutch justice system.

With regard to the events of 2014-2017, the UN International Court of Justice was unable to support Ukraine’s arguments about Russia’s alleged involvement and the guilt of the Donetsk militias in the shelling of the Bugas military checkpoint near Volnovakha, the military airfield in Kramatorsk, where the headquarters of the so-called ATO was located, and AFU positions in Mariupol and Avdeyevka, stating that these incidents did not fall under the ICSFT.

The Russian side highlighted the particular cynicism of the Ukrainian allegations: Kiev tried to present strikes against military targets as “acts of terror,” although the Ukrainian armed forces have been firing on the cities of Donbass with heavy weapons for many years, striking civilian objects, including an air strike on the building of the Lugansk regional administration on June 2, 2014, the killing of civilians in an attack on a public transport stop in Donetsk on January 22, 2015, and many other bloody crimes.

👉 Equally cynical is the way in which the Kiev regime tried to designate humanitarian aid to Donbass residents suffering from Ukrainian shelling and the economic blockade as financing terrorism.

The UN International Court of Justice stated that Russia had complied in good faith with its obligations to cooperate in the field of terrorism financing, including the obligation to identify and freeze assets used to finance terrorism; to extradite or independently prosecute perpetrators of terrorist crimes; to provide mutual legal assistance; and to cooperate in the prevention of terrorist crimes. This is fully consistent with the FATF's earlier conclusions about the high level of Russia's fulfillment of its obligations in this area; the FATF assessed Ukraine's claims as being of a purely political nature.

We were bewildered, against this background, at the Court's conclusion that Russia had failed to take measures to investigate two facts contained in information received from Ukraine regarding persons who have allegedly collected funds in Russia to help the people of Donbass. The Court had to go against its own practice and set an unprecedentedly low bar for proving the applicability of the Terrorist Financing Convention when there was no evidence of either terrorism or its financing.

As a result of the proceedings, Ukraine was completely denied all claims for reparation or other forms of compensation.

⚡️ On the International Court of Justice finding no discrimination against Crimean Tatars and Ukrainians in Russia and completely rejecting Ukraine’s reparations claims

Read in full

💬 On January 31, 2024, the UN International Court of Justice released its final Judgment in the dispute with Russia initiated by Ukraine in January 2017, based on the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD). The court rejected practically all Ukraine’s demands and recognised that Russia’s policy conforms to its commitments under the convention. There is no discrimination against Crimean Tatars and Ukrainians in Crimea.

The main false accusation levelled by Kiev against Russia was that:

• Russia’s law-enforcement actions against members of the terrorist group Hizb ut-Tahrir and the extremist groups Tablighi Jamaat and the Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People constituted persecution of Crimean Tatars on ethnic grounds. The court did not agree with this assessment. It did not find any elements of discrimination in the standards of Russian anti-extremist legislation. Nor did it detect any signs of racial discrimination in the application of these standards by Russian law-enforcement bodies.

• The court did not find that the ban on the Mejlis, which Russia has outlawed as an extremist organisation, violated the Convention. It emphasised in its Judgment that the Qurultay is the representative body of the Crimean Tatar people. It was not banned and continues fulfilling its functions in Crimea.

• The court rejected Ukraine’s accusations of Russia’s alleged involvement in the targeted murders and abductions of Crimean Tatars and Ukrainians in Crimea.

• The court also rejected all Ukraine’s claims on the issues of citizenship. It did not identify any cases of racial discrimination in the Russian laws on granting citizenship in Crimea since 2014.

• Ukraine’s allegations about the infringement of the rights of the Crimean Tatars and Ukrainians to access to their national media, assemblies and rallies and the preservation of cultural heritage sites were also found to lack merit.

• Russia’s restoration of the Khan’s Palace in Bachchisarai was not a “cultural catastrophe” as Ukrainian representatives tried to present it. It was necessary to remedy the effects of negligence on the part of the Ukrainian authorities that had brought this landmark of history and culture to a dilapidated state.

• The International Court of Justice recognised that the residents of Crimea have access to education in the Crimean Tatar and Ukrainian languages. At the same time, a majority on the court ruled that the sharp reduction in the number of schools with instruction in Ukrainian after Crimea’s transfer to Russia’s jurisdiction in 2014, is a violation of its commitments on the right to education under the CERD.

☝️ This finding is controversial enough, especially considering that the court admitted that Crimeans chose instruction in Russian of their own free will. Were the Russian authorities supposed to drag children into Ukrainian schools against their will? All those who want instruction in Ukrainian will be granted this opportunity in one way or another in accordance with current legislation.

***

✅ The case is over. Russia is not supposed to take any special action to fulfil this judgment. All of Ukraine’s demands for reparations have been rejected.