A/HRC/45/CRP.9 hearings’ in their ‘criminal proceedings’, including bail ‘hearings’, preliminary ‘hearings’ 176 and pronouncements of ‘verdicts’. G. Right to appeal 136. OHCHR is concerned that ‘court’ structures of both self-proclaimed ‘republics’ do not guarantee the review of ‘convictions’ and ‘sentences’ by a higher tribunal, in violation of the right to appeal under international human rights law. 177 137. To ensure the right to a review of a conviction and a sentence by a higher tribunal, the convicted person must have effective access to each of the reviewing instances. 138. In territory controlled by both self-proclaimed ‘republics’, appeals are carried out by ‘supreme courts’, which include ‘appeal chambers’.178 For grave crimes, including crimes against public security, the ‘supreme courts’ act as both a ‘court’ of first instance and an appeal ‘court’.179 This means that appeals can only be heard within the same ‘supreme courts’ and only under a cassation procedure, which prescribes review only for matters of the law. 180 This review procedure does not meet the three guarantees of the right to appeal enshrined in the international human rights law: the right to a review of a sentence by an instance independent from the trial court, the right to access all reviewing instances and the right to a substantive review of a sentence, including the sufficiency of evidence.181 139. In territory controlled by ‘Luhansk people’s republic’, individuals ‘convicted’ by ‘courts of first instance’ who initiated an appeal remained in legal limbo due to the absence of a ‘supreme court’ until 25 October 2018. As a consequence, their sentences did not enter into force and they remained in pre-trial detention facilities, sometimes beyond the duration of their sentences.182 VII. Human Rights Concerns in Conflict-Related Criminal Proceedings in Crimea 140. The UN General Assembly has recognized Crimea as being temporarily occupied by the Russian Federation.183 In the case of occupation, international humanitarian law and human rights law apply concurrently, and place protection obligations on both the occupying Power and the State whose territory is under occupation. As the occupying Power, the Russian Federation must respect its obligations under international human rights law in Crimea from the moment it acquired “effective control” over the territory. 184 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 30 In this regard, OHCHR notes that article 156 of the ‘criminal procedure code’ of the ‘Donetsk people’s republic’ allows for a preliminary ‘hearing’ in absence of the defendant. ICCPR, article 14.5. The ‘appeal chamber’ of the ‘supreme court’ of ‘Donetsk people’s republic’ performs the function of an ‘appeal instance’ until the establishment of a ‘court of appeal’ by 2022, according to the transitional provisions of the ‘law’ of ‘on the judicial system’. Article 33.3 ‘criminal procedure code’ of ‘Luhansk people’s republic’ and article 35.1 ‘criminal procedure code’ of ‘Donetsk people’s republic’. “Where the highest court of a country acts as the first and only instance, the absence of the right to review by a higher tribunal is not offset by the fact of being tried by the supreme tribunal of the State party concerned; rather, such a system is incompatible with the [ICCPR]”. HRC, General Comment No. 32, para. 47. HRC, General Comment No. 32, paras. 45, 47 and 48. See OHCHR, Report on Human Rights Situation in Ukraine 16 February to 15 May 2018, para. 53. Resolutions 71/205, 72/190, 73/263, and 74/168. See ECtHR Judgment in the case of Loizidou v. Turkey (Preliminary objections), 23 March 1995, par. 62, available at hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-57920. See also article 42 of the 1907 Hague Regulations states: “Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.”