ANDREJEVA v. LATVIA JUDGMENT – SEPARATE OPINION 53 obligations of the Soviet Union (see Ilaşcu and Others, cited above, § 378; and also, for example, H. Hamant, Démembrement de l’URSS et Problèmes de Succession d’États, Editions Bruylant, 2007, p. 128). Even if views may differ on the modalities of continuity of the Baltic States, there is almost unanimity that they are not new successor States to the Soviet Union and that they are a case apart from the ex-Soviet republics proper in view of their unlawful occupation by the Soviet Union (see, among many authorities, H. Hamant, op. cit., p. 129; P. Dumberry, op. cit., p. 151; and I. Ziemele, State Continuity and Nationality: the Baltic States and Russia, Leiden, Boston, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2005). Furthermore, both parties in their replies to the questions put forward during the public hearing noted that had the applicant retired in 1990 her pension would have been paid from the means usually assigned from the USSR State budget. The USSR State Bank, and not the Soviet republics, kept control over the State and social-insurance budget. After the demise of the USSR these assets were not divided between the former republics. They were inherited by the Russian Federation. 31. In other words, we are dealing with the consequences of illegal annexation when after the withdrawal of the sovereignty of the predecessor State a portion of the population, as transformed during the occupation, was left in a situation of uncertainty. I do not see why, through the door of the Convention, Latvia, an injured State, and its citizens should be made to compensate for a situation they did not create. However, unlike many other situations of a similar character known in history, the applicant was not stripped of social protection and pension rights, as she received the minimum pension available to all residents of Latvia. In addition, albeit of limited legal value, it should be mentioned that the applicant had two options available to acquire a higher amount of pension but she chose not to use them. She could have registered her Russian nationality or acquired Latvian nationality and her claim would have been taken care of. The majority’s view on her legal status (see paragraph 88 of the judgment) is not entirely correct since it omits to take into consideration the special simplified procedure that the Citizenship Act of the Russian Federation applied to former USSR citizens if they decided to register their Russian citizenship. The statement in the judgment that the applicant had “stable legal ties” with the Republic of Latvia appears without any explanation or elaboration as to the reasons for this view. Regrettably, the majority fail to appreciate the fact that the situation before them concerns the restoration of independence by a State following long years of incorporation that resulted from illegal threats or use of force. It follows that the argument about the possibility of acquiring a nationality in such a context is different as compared to any other normal situation (on this, see A. Eide, “The Rights of ‘Old’ versus ‘New’ Minorities”, European Yearbook of Minority Issues, vol. 2, 2002/3, p. 377).