Some Thoughts on A. Allik's Court Debate Speech in the Rūtenbergs Case

What is set out below is merely part of my thinking process. These are not finalised thoughts. They have no other purpose than to allow me to become aware, to explore and to understand certain patterns which are not at first glance obvious and comprehensible to me, due to my insufficient knowledge in jurisprudence and international law or for some other well-founded reason.

The speech - http://www.pietiek.com/raksti/dainis_rutenbergs_rikojas_satversmigi

Recognition of the occupation and annexation of Crimea as an international crime under the principle ex iniuria ius non oritur.

Ex injuria ius non oritur places upon subjects of international law the obligation not to recognise unlawful situations, including the unlawful annexation of territories to another state. On 27 March, the UN General Assembly adopted by a convincing majority a resolution against the annexation of Crimea. However, in the UN Assembly, which consists of 100 members, 21 voted in favour, 11 against, and 58 (!) abstained. Those voting against were the Russian Federation, Zimbabwe, North Korea, Syria, Sudan, Cuba, Nicaragua, Bolivia, Venezuela, Belarus and Armenia. Although legally the vote took place and the resolution entered into force, one cannot claim that a majority of states voted in favour. The majority simply abstained. Or if one state had voted in favour but 99 had abstained, would that also be considered a legitimate vote? Consequently, the claim that

Russia committed one of the gravest international crimes

although legally true, is debatable - and why in a democratic state should no one wish to debate it? Publicly. In a lawful but, to the greater part of society, unacceptable form.

The picket was directed at threatening the interests of state and public security and the democratic order of the state, and therefore the picket was unlawful, unconstitutional.

The claim is based on an assumption. Has the permission to hold the picket, or the unlawful conduct of the responsible officials, been challenged and proven?

The consequences of this war and the occupation of Latvia with respect to the Latvian people have not yet even been properly comprehended and assessed.

There is the rub - the stated claim about consequences is a necessary but not sufficient argument to prove the existence of those consequences. How can such losses or wrongs be assessed at all? That is, does it make any sense at all to speak of losses that can neither be calculated nor compensated?