The Parties shall create the conditions necessary for the effective participation of persons belonging to national minorities in cultural, social and economic life and in public affairs, in particular those affecting them.

Lack of Recognition of Representative Body of Crimean Tatar People Self-Government

216.	Mejlis of Crimean Tatar People is institution close to that one which is described at the official Comment to the article 15 of the Framework Convention (p.80).
217.	The Mejlis of Crimean Tatar People (the National Assembly) is a traditional institution of Crimean Tatars, the only highest plenipotentiary representative body of the national Self -Government of Crimean Tatars, which has been restored at the Kurultay of Crimean Tatar People (the National Congress) in 1991 after more than 70 years long interval. It consists of 33 members, headed by the Chairman of the Mejlis.
218.	Despite the Mejlis has not been currently recognized de-jury by the Ukrainian government, it is de - facto involved in to the activity concerning representation and assertion of rights of the Indigenous People of Crimea both at the regional and the state wide level, have earned indubitable trust and support of whole Crimean Tatars residing in Ukraine.
219.	At present, the Mejlis acts with a board of members were elected at the third Kurultay in 1996 and have been partially overlapped on the extraordinary session in 1997.
220.	Mr. Mustafa Dzhemilev is a Chairman of the Mejlis of Crimean Tatar People. He had got 1998 Hansen's Award of UNHCR for his struggle for the rights of the formerly deported Peoples.
221.	The Kurultay and Mejlis were re-established in 1991. Before that the authorities had been saying that Crimean Tatars had not any organ which could express the opinion of the people in order to have the partnership with the State for the negotiations and looking for the solution. But after that the Government started to say that Mejlis is illegal body, which has not the analogues in the practice of the democratic States and Rule of Law. The Government is failure to legalize the Kurultay and Mejlis of Crimean Tatar People because it would be made to have them as partners for the settlement of the Crimean Tatar problem in Ukraine. Now the Highest Government Officials and bodies including the President of Ukraine have the information about the legal precedents (for example the Assembly of Sami in Norway or the Congress of Comi People in Russia) but try to escape from the recognition of Mejlis. Now the authorities propose to register the Mejlis in the status of NGO. It is done in order to deny the representative nature of Mejlis and try to reduce the necessity of the dialog to the consultations with different NGOs on the choice of Government. Sometimes particularly in the periods of the mass protests of Crimean Tatars Government threaten to prohibit the Mejlis and to arrange criminal prosecution against its members.
222.	Nevertheless the Mejlis of Crimean Tatar People is widely recognized by the International NGOs and is involved to the activity of the Working Group on Indigenous Populations, Working Group on Elaboration of the Draft of the Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the Working Group on the Permanent Forum for Indigenous Peoples (see the list of the participants beginning from the 1994 till now).
223.	Time by time Government imitates the involvement of Crimean Tatars through the persons who differently from Mejlis didn't receive their mandate from Crimean Tatar People but are selected by the authorities on the basis of their own criteria.
224.	About political representation see article 4.

Unemployment

225.	Currently, about 270.000 Crimean Tatars live in the Crimea. 136623 out of them are capable of work, but only about 55000 of them work for state and private enterprises. More than 60% of Crimean Tatars are unemployed. For the comparison, unemployment rate among other nationalities in Crimea constitute 80291 of persons out of more then 2,5 millions.
226.	Many Crimean Tatars were not registered as unemployed, because they do not have Ukrainian citizenship or residence permit as well as due to the fact that the labor exchanges are located tens of kilometers away from the palaces of residence.
227.	The sociological pools show, that around 25% of Crimean Tatars have higher and secondary education below than other habitants of the Crimea. Example, in 1992, only 39% of Crimean Tatars with higher education of Krasnogvardeysky district and 43% with secondary one, were working by specialty. The analogous situation is in other regions of the Crimea.
228.	Skilled workers are frequently undergoing discrimination when they get a job. 0,5% of Crimean Tatars are in sphere of science.
229.	There are 53 Ph.D. and 552 Doctors of Sciences among Crimean Tatars. But only 30% of them are employed and only 18% of them work by specialty.
230.	There is a peculiarity of the Soviet and Post-Soviet legal tradition, including in Ukraine, which is the irresistible break between rights proclaimed in official juridical acts including a Constitution and their factual realization. Disparagement, elimination of the rights or disfranchisement toward Crimean Tatars is realized as a rule by decision's officially registered and recorded documentary by the organs of Government or officials. Mostly oral directions or secret decisions establish them.

Deprivation of Property

231.	In order to ensure real equal rights for Crimean Tatars this is necessary to solve the problem of the restitution and compensation of material and non-material damage that has occurred to the Crimean Tatar people during the deportation and resulting discrimination.
232.	A group of scholars of Mejlis of Crimean Tatar People under the leadership of the Doctor of Economic Sciences Mr. Khalil Mustafayev studied incomplte database of the Crimean State Archive.
233.	It is known that one of the principal Human Rights is economical ones, the right to property, as well as to compensation for moral damage caused by deportation of 1944, through what Crimean Tatars were deprived their own real and personal estate: over 80 thousand houses, more than 3,4 thousand land plots were taken away from collective farmers, about 500 thousand heads of cattle, whole stock of seeds, saplings, food - stuffs, feeding and building materials. About 4 thousand tons of wheat, corn, barley, grouts and other sorts of farm produce were withdrawn from storehouses. More over, before deportation 40 thousand tons of wheat, 40 centers of tobacco, 95 thousand liters of wine, 314 centers of dried fruits, 43,2 thousand pieces of sheepskins and 554 thousand tons of wool were procured.
234.	Practically it was a deprivation of means to existence of the entire people.
235.	Since there are no legal measures, providing the rights of the deported peoples and individuals, moral and property damage caused by deportation has been very complex issue as in legal, methodological so in methodical senses. There is also no restitution mechanism for the right to illegally confiscated property, as well as to compensation for damage. However, below listed Legislation of Ukraine concerning the right to property, entitles one, whose real and personal estate was illegally alienated, to ask for restitution: - The Constitution of Ukraine - Civil Code of Ukraine - Civil Judicial Code - Household Code - The Law of Ukraine on Property - The Law of Ukraine on Leasing of the State - owned Enterprises and Organizations' Property.
236.	These and other legal acts can be used as a base for drafting and adopting legislation, providing implementation and restoration the right to moral and property damage caused by deportation. However Ukrainian Government does not do it.
237.	In 1944, the Crimea was not under jurisdiction of Ukraine and a deportation was not the result of decision of Ukrainian Government. However, beginning from 1954 all lands, property and houses belonged to the Crimean Tatars till the deportation, were used by Ukraine. Ten thousands of the houses used as a habitation for settlers. Economic base, equipment, plantations of collective farms and enterprises, which Crimean Tatars had working in and which were established by Crimean Tatars had become a foundation for enterprises, which worked in national economy of Ukraine. Thus, Ukraine had received the definite part of national product, incomes and goods, as a result of their exploitation of the lands and properties, which were illegally taken from Crimean Tatar People.
238.	The significant part of rural and urban population of the Crimea, who arrived to peninsula after 1944, still are living in the houses, which were taken from Crimean Tatar owners.
239.	This situation raising, of course, a question of responsibility, restitution and compensation, in accordance with approaches were worked up in-theory and a practice of international law.
240.	Before, the complete privatization of state and municipal property take place in the Crimea, Crimean Tatars are to get the means of subsistence in nature which belonged to them before deportation, and where this is impossible, a just compensation of full value.
241.	While the consideration of the Republican budget the Supreme Rada of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea regularly refuses to allocate any money to finance the return and settlement of Crimean Tatars, in spite of the regional budget is formed by taxes, gathering from Crimean Tatars as well. Thus, the ethnic majority consisted from mew-settlers exploits the ethnic minority consisted from the Indigenous People.
242.	The practice of the implementation of the law of Ukraine "On Rehabilitation of the victims of the political repression" is very significant in this respect, which is to restore the rights of them, who have suffered from Stalin's repression (1920-1930). None of Crimean Tatars who appealed to Republican Commission on the Rehabilitation of the Victims of the Political Repression received his property or house back, although theoretically the law provides it. Compensation has paid for property is not comparable with real cost.
243.	Leonid Yefimenko, Deputy Minister of Justice of Ukraine, stated that Ukraine had fulfilled all its obligations concerning the return of property to persons who was previously the subject to deportation or to former victims of political repression. Compensation was paid and persons were rehabilitated. Cases where persons had received unfair judgements were currently being reconsidered (UNO press release, HR/CERD/98/14 of 10 March 1998). It was direct lie.

Excluding from Process of Privatization

244.	The process of privatization of the state - owned property, started in 1992, is conducted in accordance with Ukrainian legislation, which do not regulate the participation of some strata of population were deported from Ukraine, including Crimea, in 1941-1944. Pertaining to Ukrainian legislation only the citizen of Ukraine is entitled to participate in privatization. As it is know, a half of Crimean Tatars, who have registered their return to historical Motherland are still not able to restore their citizenship of Ukraine.
245.	>From the very beginning of the process the leadership of the Mejlis of Crimean Tatar People had applied to the President and Verkhovnaya Rada of Ukraine, as well as to the authorities of Crimea demanding to stop the privatization of the state-owned property until the right for Crimean Tatars to property will be restored.
246.	So, for instance, during 1993 - 1994 the Mejlis had repeatedly addressed to the State authorities of Ukraine and the Autonomous Republic of Crimea handing concrete proposes and amendments to the Law of Ukraine on privatization of the state property, small enterprises and dwellings and the Law on Securities.
247.	However, these claims and proposes were rejected or just bureaucratically replied
248.	Since the privatization started in Crimea (after 2 year long moratoria) the members of the Crimean Parliament Faction - Kurultay (the name of the Crimean Tatars Crimean MP's group which was existing in 1994 � 1998 while the quota for the guaranteed representation in Crimean Parliament had been taking place), the scholars of the Mejlis, the officers of the Ministry of Treasure and Economy through working groups had designed special projects on participating of the stateless deportees in privatization of the state - owned property and reserving (till 2000) the property for the deportees who are still in the sites of deportation, as well as on creating Restitution Fund on the base of the State Property Fund and the State Committee for Nationalities of Crimea.
249.	Those projects were included in the State Program for the Privatization of the State Property of the Crimea, which were approved by the Supreme Council of Crimea in 1995 - 1996 - 1997. However, except property certificates allotted to all residence of Ukraine (including non- - citizens of Ukraine) the rest clauses (items) of the Program were still on paper. the realization of the Program was snagged by lack of a relevant legislation. In connection with this the bulk of our activity was aimed to legislative, executive organs of Ukraine and Mass Media.
250.	So, in October of 1995 the Chairman of the Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People - Mustafa Dzhemilev, after the meeting with Mr. U.I. Ekhanurov, the Head of State Property Fund of Ukraine, submitted to him an official letter. As a result the Permanent Working Group headed by Mr. A. Tarasenko, the First Deputy of the Head of Ukraine State Property Fund was established. the Deputies of the Kurultay Faction jointly with Working Group worked out a proposition to the mechanism of participation of the formerly dportes in 1996 Privatization Program of Ukraine.
251.	The same time, in 1996 on behalf of ours the Chairman of the Crimean Property Fund, - Mr. A. Golovizin applied to the Cabinet of Ministry of Ukraine (Mr. Pinzenik). Mr. E. Suprunuk, Mr. A. Demidenko, Mr. A. Golovazin submitted the Draft Rgulation on Participation of Deports in Privatization, agreed with all national communities of the deports of Crimea, to the State Property Fund of Ukraine, for further Presidents approval. Later Mr. V. Kiselev and Mr. R. Chubarov addressed to the President of Ukraine, Mr. L. Kuchma.
252.	The Permanent Commissions on National, Economical, Financial and Budget Policy and Deports of the Supreme Council of Crimea, as well as the Government of Crimea forwarded their letters to the State Committee on Land - tenure.
253.	The constant activity was carried out with Verkhova Rada of Ukraine, simultaneously.
254.	So, on the meeting of the Sub-committee of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine for Economical, Political and Administrative Issues in National Economy jointly with our deputies (the Members of Kurultay Faction in Crimean Parliament in 1994 - 1998) the clause - by clause amendments and proposes, drafted by Mejlis to the above mentioned Ukrainian Laws on Privatization of the state-owned property were discussed twice. However they were not adopted.
255.	Twice those demands were discussed on the meeting of the Sub-committee of Ukrainian Parliament for Human Rights, National Minorities and Interethnic Affairs with participation of Kurultay Faction's deputies N. Bekirov, L. Arifov, Kh. Mustafaev, E. Kurtiev and the Deputy of the Chairman of Mejlis - R. Ablayev when the Draft of the Law of Ukraine "About Rehabilitation and Ensuring of Rights for those of National Minorities Who were the Subject to Repression and Expulsion on the territory of Ukraine" was considered. But the Law is still not approved too.
256.	In their reports at the International Scientific Conferences, held in Kiev our deputies and members of the Mejlis pointed out the issues on the restoration of the right for deports to property, proposing the mechanism to provide interests of the formerly deported peoples in privatization process. It was already discussed at the round tables in Yalta, arranged by �the courtesy of the UNHCR, Verkhovna Rada and the Cabinet of Ministers with participation of different NGOs and foundations.
257.	With the view to draw public opinion to the problem of restoration of the right to property and meeting the prerequisites to participate in privatization process the articles and interviews with parliamentarians and experts were publicized and broadcasted through Mass Media (Krym, Golos Kryma (the Voice of Crimea), Yany Dunya (New World) newspapers), Radio and TV.
258.	All our the efforts resulted that in his Decree dated March 19, 1996, � 194/96, para 26, the President of Ukraine ordered the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine "...to draft a bill providing the participation of the representatives of the formerly deported peoples, returning to Ukraine, privatization of, the state - owned property...". Encouraged by the Decree snylis demanded a special item on participation of the compatriots in privatization to be included in the 1996 - 1997 State Privatization Program. But it was far from it! Instead of providing the participation of the entire number of the repatriates returned to Crimea in privatization process, conserving till 2000 the State - owned Property for those who are still in the sites of deportation, creating the Restitution Fund and other conditions, there was the following stated in the 1996 State Program: "The Government shall provide participation of the deportees, returning to Ukraine in privatization. The Mechanism of participation shall be designed by the Cabinet of the Ministers."
259.	The terms of drafting were also determined. However the Cabinet of Ministers had been doing nothing in this respect. The officials had referred to the difficulty to work out the mechanism. We were urged to graft a bill named "The Regulation on Participation of the formerly deported persons in privatization process of the State - owned enterprises" as well as Drafts for the Presidents Decrees and the Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers on enactment the Regulation. All these drafts were dully handed to the Cabinet of Ministers, the State Property Fund of Ukraine, the State Committee on National Migration of Ukraine.
260.	Long - lasted difficulties in agreement of these drafts to numerous Ministries and Departments of Ukraine and Crimea, which in consequence took us 3 years, had begun.
261.	State officials were not willing to adopt any legal acts and entitle our people to participate in privatization process because according to the Official Letter provided by the Cabinet of Ministers, Leonid Kuchma - the President of Ukraine brought this issue out of his control.
262.	The Draft of the Annual Program for privatization of the State - owned Property of Ukraine did not mention about this even.

Non-access to Land

263.	The State property privatization, in particular the privatization of land, in Crimea has almost reached its culmination. However, the participation issue for the formerly deported peoples is unsettled up to nowadays what in fact ignores the interests of persons of a certain ethnic identity which (taking into account the perspective of return of the deportees to Crimea) constitutes about 25 per cent.
264.	Only 4,5 thousand persons out of 87,5 thousand able - bodied Crimean Tatars were jobbed in joint stock, agricultural, co-operative and collective undertakings in 01.01.1999. The most part of Crimean Tatars were deprived the right to land plots and a possibility to place in a job. The Land Reserve Fund of the Republic of Crimea, set up under the President's Decree � 720/95, dated August 8, 1995 possesses 121,6 hectares to be allotted as a private property to all individuals are engaged in the agricultural sphere, farmers and those who are willing to live in rural areas, but deportees.
265.	According to estimations in order to meet requirements of the deportees returning from sites of deportation the Land Reserve Fund is supposed to be widened.
266.	The exclusion of Crimean Tatars from privatization process, particularly land privatization, fraught with unpredictable social consequences. It is remarkable that 70 per cent out of 250 thousand Crimean Tatars who have returned to Crimean are currently residing in rural areas. The point is not only that the most part of the population are deprived of production facilities and favorable living conditions, but also a great potential of traditional skills of Crimean Tatar in agriculture has been unused.
267.	In order to relief or perhaps to eliminate social tension in Crimea, related to the land and state -owned property privatization. It is essential to amend the President's Decree where the interest of the Indigenous People of Crimean would be covered.
268.	Otherwise there is no use for Crimean Tatar to participate in the privatization process by this way.
269.	Those conclusions placed below were received by the search ordered by UNHCR.
270.	"Most pressing is the inability of non-citizens to privatize their household plot or take part in privatization of enterprises. The deadline for free privatization of household plots is January 1, 1998 - though it is expected to be extended since only approximately one third of the plots in Ukraine have been privatized. (Social Assessment of the Formerly Deported Population in Autonomous Republic of Crimea. C.2.p.26)

Poverty

271.	Although poverty was not unknown in Soviet times, the dimensions and definitions of poverty have changed. Respondents generally define their living standards in two ways: over time and comparatively within their community. When living in Central Asia during the Soviet period and afterwards, most FDPs did not consider themselves poor. They were able to afford housing and had enough money to cover basic purchases - food, clothing, utilities, education and medical care. Leisure was a right of the worker and most took vacations. City residents went to cultural events. Many had summer homes. In contrast, today in Crimea, the majority of Crimean Tatar households said that they spend most of their income on food and very little on other basic needs. A poor family is one that does not have enough money to eat
272.	When comparing themselves to other communities, the Crimean Tatars consider themselves poorer than Russians and Ukrainians because: - they lack permanent housing; - they live in crowded, unfinished or temporary construction; - they have lower access to infrastructure, transportation and social services; - many lack formal employment or have had to accept menial, low-paid jobs; - they have less effective networks and local representatives.
273.	When comparing the priorities of Russian, Ukrainian, and Crimean household, it becomes evident that, as a group, Crimean Tatars are in more precarious social-economic situation. However, individual households of all ethnic groups are likely to be in similar situations with regard to incomes, but only a minority - those living in hostels - is a subject to the poor housing conditions. Within the general population, young families starting with no assets find themselves in a similar housing crunch as the Tatars. Pensioners and families with weak or limited support networks also suffer disproportionately from the lack of effective social net.
274.	A comparison between Crimean Tatars communities also reveals relative poverty. Compact settlements settled late (after 1991) reflect the sudden decline in a household's ability to meet basic needs as well as the government's reduced budgetary capacity. The settlements have more incomplete homes and are more sparsely populated. The later compact settlements are also more likely to have the least infrastructure - no piped drinking water supply, electricity, roads, let alone heating, drainage and sewers.
275.	According to our research, absolute poverty exists in both urban and rural areas among Crimean Tatars but varies in its definition. In villages, the definition of poverty was often limited to seasonal hunger. Poor and very poor families run out of food in the late winter and early spring. Seasonal hunger exists because of isolation from markets, lack of cash salaries and unpaid salaries. As a result, families reported routinely eating animal feed in the late spring (April and May when food supplies are exhausted) and stealing for survival. In a village in Belogorskii region, only 26 kilometers from Simferopol, a group of respondents estimated that 20-25 households of a total of 300 Crimean Tatars families eat "otrub"(used, as animal feed, is unprocessed bran left over after milling wheat flour) in spring time. In Vodopolnoe, Thcenomorskii Region, families said that they and their neighbors feed otrub to their children because they run out of wheat flour and other grains. One mother said she had received only 5 per sent of her salary from the collective farm that is 13-15 grivnas to live on the entire winter. As a result, her family went without salt for two months because her husband forbade her to ask her neighbors for handouts and she could not afford to buy it.
276.	This poverty criteria based on food availability reflects lower expectations than urban residents because of long-standing shortages of medical, transportation and educational services as well as acute deficits of consumer goods. In order to compare more accurately urban and rural families, second indicator-other than food-should be used such as shoes for children, foregoing medical treatment and school absenteeism. Rural families commonly lack access to those goods that require cash payment, such as school supplies, medicines, public transportation, utilities (water and electric fees, rent) and government certificates and documents. In Belogorskii region, the head of the collective farm estimated that 20 children (out of 630 children residing in the village) do not attend school regularly because of lack of clothes. He estimated that a family needs to spend approximately 200 grivnas to prepare a child for the first day of school.
277.	Among villagers, distinctions can be made between families that have recurrent cash expenditures, such as families with school - age children or with chronically or seriously ill family members, with grown children and healthy working adults. In Vodopoynoye, parents of school children were significantly worse off than parents of grown children. Parents with school children had regular expenses-shoes, supplies-while others could save these small amounts for a rainy day or use it on transportation. As a result, seven-year-old children were not sent to the first grade because parents did not have the cash for shoes, clothes and other supplies. Village workers on the collective farms commonly forego treatment even of fatal diseases because of their lack of access to cash incomes.
278.	In cities, respondents measure their poverty in terms of quantity but also quality of food, housing, adequate clothing, access to social services, and cultural activities. Most families were poor according to these criteria. Access to production from a household plot -of relatives in villages - has kept many from falling into complete destitution. Cash from self-employment (selling vegetables in the market, frying thcibureki) also provided minimal sums sufficient to meet basic food and education needs. (Social Assessment of the Formerly Deported Population in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, c.3.p.31-34) /improved effectiveness of privatized enterprises is also slowed by privatization conditions. Privatized enterprises are required to retain the same production profile for two to five years and are not allowed to fire employees. These conditions slow the development of the competitiveness and new sectors.
279.	Advantages are given only to full-time employees of enterprises engaged in the privatization process. Therefore, Crimean Tatars are likely to be less well placed for privatization because a greater percentage are not 1) employed full-time or 2) excluded from management positions where they can make important decisions guiding privatization. (Social Assessment of the Formerly Deported Population in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea c.3.p.70-71).

Restrictions of Choice of a Place of Residence and Manipulations with Re-Settlement

280.	Settlement patterns are shaped by:
281.	-ancestry: Crimean Tatars said that their primary criteria was to return to the village of their ancestors, however, in reality returning families have met with a more complex set of issues;
282.	- afford ability of homes compared to receipts from sales of homes in Central Asia;
283.	-receptivity of local authorities: e.g., pressures on local sellers, refusal to formalize a purchase of a home, refusal to grant propiska (permission for residence), refusal to grant employment;
284.	-legal obstacles to settlement: A formal ban on Tatars settling on the southern coast was only repealed recently; including persisting requirements that Tatars wanting to settle in Yalta demonstrate ancestry in the region. For many, however, proof of ancestry was destroyed when the Soviet army burnt the mosques where birthe records were kept for Tatars born before 1928;
285.	-slow implementation of municipal decisions to distribute household plots for construction. For example, in Yalta, 3,288 household plots had been planned, but only 1,0002, or 31 percent, had actually been distributed by September 1997.
286.	As a result, the Tatar population is well above the Crimean average of the population in many rural region and in the steppe zone of Crimea (See appendix 5) - such as:
287.	-Belogorskiy region (32 percent of the total population of the region);
288.	-Sovietskiy region (26 percent);
289.	-Pervomayskiy region (24.8 percent); and
290.	Simferopolskiy region (22.2 percent)
291.	Meanwhile, certain historically Tatar regions which were closed to resettlement, such as the Southern coast, still have maintained a very lowl Crimean Tatar population in 1997 (See appendix 5). For instance:
292.	only 0.9 percent of the population was Tatar in the city of Yalta (compared to 50 percent in1939);
293.	for the city of Alushta - 4.3 percent Crimean Tatar (compared to 63 percent in 1939); and
294.	for the city and region of Sudak combined - 15 percent Crimean Tatar (compared to 70 percent in 1939).
295.	(from Social Assessment of the Formerly Deported Population in the Aurtonomoius Republic of Crimea, p.p. 9-12).
296.	The policy f authorities is to prevent the very possibility of the appearance of Crimean Tatars in the resort areas of the Southern Coast of Crimea. The special decision of the Region Council of Crimea in 1990 was adopted which strictly prohibited particularly for Crimean Tatars the resettlement in 12 districts of Crimea. The Ukrainian Government supported this decision although it was the open act of the racial discrimination. Nor the General Prosecutor of Ukraine nor any other State body abolished that decision despite the number of the appeals of Crimean Tatars. Only in the beginning of the 1997 the Crimean Tatar faction in Supreme Council of Crimea achieved the abolition of this decision using the inner parliamentarian interests of other deputies groups.
297.	Another very important point of Governmental policy is to prevent the very possibility .the Crimean Tatars to become a majority of population in any Crimean district or city. It allows to the authorities to ignore the political and cultural claims of Crimean Tatars even on the local level and to prevent the victory in elections.

Non-Sharing of Benefit from Natural Resources