Abkhaz Concern Over “Loss of Territory” in Bichvinta Residence Transfer
On December 27, the opponents of the newly ratified agreement on the transfer of the Bichvinta state residence (the so-called “Pitsunda state dacha”) to Russia continued to protest against the law, publishing a statement which stressed that agreeing to the transfer “has resulted in the loss of [so-called] jurisdiction over a part of [Abkhazian] territory.”
The “Statement by members of the public on the ratification of the agreement on the state residence in Pitsunda” points out that the de-facto deputies have yet to disclose to the public the agreed coordinates of the territory transferred to the Russian Federation. The statement reads: “According to the previously established coordinates, this territory is 343 hectares, of which 180 hectares is the water surface of the sea, 155 hectares – the territory of the Bichvinta reserve [the so called Pitsunda-Musser Nature Reserve], 8 hectares – residential neighborhoods of the town of Bichvinta [Pitsunda]. Thus, a part of the territory of Abkhazia was alienated, and as a result, the citizens of Abkhazia lost access to a part of the water borders of the [region], a unique relic reserve, one of the most valuable natural areas in Abkhazia, and the only sea bay with a depth suitable for ships and excellent navigational conditions”.
The statement also notes that the “deputies” showed “absolute [so-called] legal lawlessness” by convening the special session of the de-facto Parliament without explaining to the protesting people the necessity of the transfer and ignoring “the opinion of the public, the conclusions and recommendations of experts, preferring to support the [so-called] unconstitutional and anti-people agreement. As a result, we have an unprecedented case of loss of territory, not in time of war, but in time of peace”.
The statement says that the so-called deputies committed blatant violations, including: “repeated emergency postponement of the session; violation of the regime of [de facto] parliamentary sessions without justified and announced reasons to the voters; violation of the principle of openness of sessions; lack of decision to hold a closed session”.
The letter also underlines that the questionable ratification procedures point to further violations of the law due to the absence of accredited media in the de facto Parliament. The so-called deputies, aiming to maintain the de facto constitutional integrity, accompanied the ratification with additional regulations. One of these so-called laws stipulates that in the event of a conflict between ratified treaties and Abkhazian de-facto laws, the latter shall prevail. It also allows for the termination of treaties if they undermine so-called sovereignty, threaten security, or conflict with public order. However, no enforcement mechanisms have been outlined, and there is no designated oversight or avenue to address these concerns.
Opponents of the agreement point to the fact that the so-called Parliament failed to verify the constitutionality of the agreement before its implementation. Although the so-called Constitutional Court returned the request for verification on August 3, 2022, and offered the opportunity to resubmit it, this chance wasn’t taken. “Thus, a precedent has been set for the ratification of an international treaty that is inconsistent with the [de-facto] Constitution of Abkhazia. We consider these amendments to be an empty declaration if the relevant bodies and applicants are not identified.”
The statement further notes: “We believe that the night of December 26-27 was the night of the surrender of the [de facto] sovereignty of Abkhazia, for which the [so-called] deputies of the Parliament of Abkhazia should be held responsible in accordance with Article 273.1 of the [de facto] Criminal Code of Abkhazia (Violation of the territorial integrity and inviolability of [occupied] Abkhazia)”.
The statement concludes with the demand of the “real mechanism for protection” of the “sovereignty of the republic of Abkhazia” through initiating the changes into its “constitution” and “legislation.”
Also Read:
This post is also available in: ქართული (Georgian) Русский (Russian)
