A 2008 decemberében, az EU Miniszterek Tanácsa által életre hívott International Fact-Finding Mission on the Conflict in Georgia (IIFFMCG) tegnap hozta nyilvánosságra tényfeltáró jelentését.
A 44 oldalas első kötet foglalja össze az EU történetében első tényfeltáró bizottság megállapításait. A második kötet tartalmazza a bizottság által felkért szakértők írásait, a harmadik kötet pedig a becsatolt és hivatkozott dokumentumokat. A főbb megállapítások:
“This Report will try to give a fair and even-handed view of the actions taken by the sides to the conflict, and their reasons as well as their consequences. Many of these will be critically reviewed. Nothing, however, will touch upon our respect for either individual fates or the aspirations of the peoples of the region, large or small. These aspirations were not the decisive causes of the hostilities, as similar problems were peacefully solved elsewhere. It was the way in which these problems were handled and sometimes exploited which paved the way to armed confrontation. On this basis of respect and understanding, it is the purpose of this Report to describe the events that occurred, so that conclusions might be drawn for a safer future of the region and beyond.” (Jelentés p. 10)
“According to the overwhelmingly accepted uti possidetis principle, only former constituent republics such as Georgia but not territorial sub-units such as South Ossetia or Abkhazia are granted independence in case of dismemberment of a larger entity such as the former Soviet Union. Hence, South Ossetia did not have a right to secede from Georgia, and the same holds true for Abkhazia for much of the same reasons. Recognition of breakaway entities such as Abkhazia and South Ossetia by a third country is consequently contrary to international law in terms of an unlawful interference in the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the affected country, which is Georgia.” (p. 17.)
“The mass conferral of Russian citizenship to Georgian nationals and the provision of passports on a massive scale on Georgian territory, including its breakaway provinces, without the consent of the Georgian Government runs against the principles of good neighbourliness and constitutes an open challenge to Georgian sovereignty and an interference in the internal affairs of Georgia.” (p. 18.)
“There is the question of whether the use of force by Georgia in South Ossetia, beginning with the shelling of Tskhinvali during the night of 7/8 August 2008, was justifiable under international law. It was not.”
“Even if it were assumed that Georgia was repelling an attack, e.g. in response to South Ossetian attacks against Georgian populated villages in the region, according to international law, its armed response would have to be both necessary and proportional. It is not possible to accept that the shelling of Tskhinvali during much of the night with GRAD multiple rocket launchers (MRLS) and heavy artillery would satisfy the requirements of having been necessary and proportionate in order to defend those villages. It follows from the illegal character of the Georgian military assault that South Ossetian defensive action in response did conform to international law in terms of legitimate self-defence. However, any operations of South Ossetian forces outside of the purpose of repelling the Georgian armed attack, in particular acts perpetrated against ethnic Georgians inside and outside South Ossetia, must be considered as having violated International Humanitarian Law and in many cases also Human Rights Law. Furthermore, all South Ossetian military actions directed against Georgian armed forces after the ceasefire agreement of 12 August 2008 had come into effect were illegal as well. (pp. 22-23.)
“Consequently, the use of force by Georgia against Russian peacekeeping forces in Tskhinvali in the night of 7/8 August 2008 was contrary to international law.” (p. 23)
“It follows from this that insofar as such extended Russian military action reaching out into Georgia was conducted in violation of international law, Georgian military forces were acting in legitimate self-defence under Article 51 of the UN Charter. In a matter of a very few days, the pattern of legitimate and illegitimate military action had thus turned around between the two main actors Georgia and Russia.” (p. 24)
“As for the conflict in South Ossetia and adjacent parts of the territory of Georgia, the Mission established that all sides to the conflict - Georgian forces, Russian forces and South Ossetian forces - committed violations of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights Law. Numerous violations were committed by South Ossetian irregular armed groups, by volunteers or mercenaries or by armed individuals. It is, however, difficult to identify the responsibilities for and the perpetrators of these crimes. The fact
that both Georgian and Russian forces in many cases used similar armament further complicates the attribution of certain acts. If it were not for the difficulties of identification and attribution, many of these acts have features which might be described as war crimes.” (p. 26.)
Nincsenek megjegyzések:
Megjegyzés küldése