1. It would in my view be desirable to transform the inter-ministerial committee, once it has completed its tasks, into a permanent high-level committee, composed of representatives of various Ministries of Ukraine, representatives of the partners in Crimea dealing with resettlement of returnees, representatives of the Crimean Tatars to be appointed by the Mejlis, and, as appropriate, representatives of other deported peoples. The task of this committee could be to make recommendations regarding such issues as resettlement, land allocation and the creation of more employment opportunities for returnees. In addition it would have to study ways and means to ensure a more orderly return process for those in Uzbekistan and other states in Central Asia who want to come to Crimea.

2. One of the most urgent questions to be settled is the problem of facilitating the acquisition of Ukrainian citizenship for returnees. At present tens of thousands of those who have returned have not yet been able to acquire citizenship of Ukraine. One of the options which might be worthwhile to consider is that persons who can demonstrate that they are descendants of those who were deported to Central Asia during the Second World War will be granted Ukrainian citizenship if they sign a declaration renouncing the citizenship of the states they have left. Such a declaration could then be sent to the competent authorities of the state concerned.

3. Another question is the problem of fixed representation of Crimean Tatars in the Parliament of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea. My recommendation would be to continue the present quota system as long as the present electoral law of Crimea remains in effect. Under the present electoral system, the Tatars, who are dispersed over the whole of Crimea, might even end up with having no representation at all, notwithstanding the fact that they constitute nearly 10% of the population of Crimea. On the other hand, a continuation of the quota system would not be justified if an electoral system will come into being which would give them a near certainty of having a representation broadly commensurate to their percentage of the total population of Crimea.

4. Regarding the status of the Mejlis, it is in my view necessary to take into acount that in the period between sessions of the Kurultai the Mejlis acts as the supreme representative college of the Crimean Tatars. It is seen as the guardian of the identity of the Tatars. Against this background, it would in my view be very much in the spirit of the OSCE Copenhagen Document if the Mejlis would be given specific responsibilities regarding revival and development of Tatar culture and Tatar schools. It would also be necessary to secure some funds enabling the Mejlis to carry out these tasks. As I mentioned under 1., the Mejlis could also be asked to designate the representatives of the Crimean Tatars in the tripartite high-level committee.

1. In the recommendations I made after the OSCE Round Table in Locarno on 15 May of this year, I made the remark that the law of Ukraine on the demarcation of powers between the organs of state powers of Ukraine and of the Republic of Crimea of 30 June 1992, even though it did not enter into force, contained some important elements for the solution of the problems which have arisen concerning the Constitution of the ARC. In this context I referred, i.a., to Articles 3 and 11 of this law which summarize the competences reserved for the ARC and for the state organs of Ukraine.

2. Article 11 of the law quoted above mentions, i.a., defense, the armed forces and foreign policy as matters within the exclusive competence of the state organs of Ukraine. In my view this corresponds to the usual division of powers between the organs of a central government and those of an autonomous republic. I would recommend, however, that the ARC, taking into account the Ukrainian legal order, will have the right to conclude international agreements regarding commercial and cultural questions, and that it will have a right to open trade offices abroad. Ukraine might also commit itself to consult the ARC before concluding treaties of special relevance for Crimea. Similarly, representatives of Crimea could be included in a number of official delegations to other states.

3. On the subject of citizenship it is my view that there would be no need to stipulate a Crimean citizenship in addition to Ukrainian citizenship for the residents of Crimea, because, according to my understanding of the text of the Crimean Constitution adopted on 21 September last, the only right deriving from such citizenship would be the right to vote in the Crimean elections - a right which the residents of Crimea will have anyway. Moreover, citizenship is another subject which, according to Article 11 referred to above, is reserved for the state organs of Ukraine. I would therefore recommend to delete references to Crimean citizenship from the Constitution of the ARC.

4. In my recommendations of 15 May of this year I referred to the need to start negotiations between the central authorities of Ukraine and those of the ARC on questions relating to the division of property in Crimea. In the light of subsequent events, I should like to add that in my view arrangements will have to be made to ensure that an equitable portion of the revenues of Ukrainian property in Crimea and of the natural resources of Crimea will be used for the benefit of Crimea.

5. According to the Ukrainian Constitution, Sebastopol has a special status. On the other hand, Sebastopol and the other parts of Crimea have many interests and problems in common, especially regarding economic questions and environmental problems. The Crimean Constitution, adopted on 21 September last, foresees a treaty between the ARC and Sebastopol. Also taking into account my comments on the subject of treaties under 2. above, I would suggest an alternative solution. A tripartite commission, composed of representatives of Ukraine, the ARC and Sebastopol, could be set up which would have as a task to come forward with proposals for intensifying the collaboration between Sebastopol and the ARC in various fields.