Legal rupture is a term suggested by a Brenna Bhandar, a scholar working on the colonial origins of contemporary legislation. Using legal rupture, Bandar discusses resistance strategies which use critique within legislation in order to make clear the inadequacies of the legal process. She gives as an example the defence strategy adopted by the lawyer Jacques Verges for the defence of Djamila Bouhired, a member of the Algerian National Liberation Front. Instead of trying to defend Bouhired before the French colonisers on their own terms, he chose to use the court as an arena to condemn the French colonisation of Algeria. This attracted media attention, which saved Bouhired's life. Such a decolonial strategy has been actively used by Crimean Tatars in the USSR and contemporary Russia, both at the endless hearings in the cases of politically imprisoned Crimean Tatars and in the legal field in general.
Reshat Cemilev, claiming, in his answer to the question about previous convictions, that his imprisonment is deportation, condemned the discrimination of Crimean Tatars by the Soviet government:

"In a short while, a verdict will be read out, formally considered the result of a court hearing, lasting six days. But many – I among them – know very well that the verdict preceded this two-act farce, which is being called 'investigation and trial'. … How much hypocrisy one must have, how much disdain for truth, in order to claim, for instance, that there is no Crimean Tatar problem, and that statements asserting that the rights of Crimean Tatars are being neglected are slanderous lies, directed against the wise policies of the Soviet government!<…> A people deprived of their homeland, their nationhood, the national culture which they have created and maintained for centuries, their holy places, a people which has lost, as a result of a monstrous crime committed against it, a massive percentage of its population, placed on the verge of full assimilation and disappearance as a people, apparently, has no problems and must not have any complaints against those who had doomed them to this state. … Terminally indignant against the cynical arbitrariness and mockery of the government of Crimea, Musa Mamut took a desperate decision: to burn himself alive in protest, to awaken the conscience of those who act with complete disregard for justice at the cost of his own burning flesh and painful death. But the conscience is silent. Instead of stopping this lawless injustice, those who decided to inform the general public about it are repressed"
Aişe Seitmuratova, one of the delegates who condemned the Soviet policy concerning Crimean Tatars during the meeting with Stroganov, was the head of the reception office of the CPSU Central Committee. “In reply to Stroganov's question about who in particular is insulting Crimean Tatars, Aişe Seitmuratova replied: 'First, there is the order of the State Defence Committee from May 11, enacting the deportation of Crimean Tatars, and second – what kind of names do you need? We are insulted by the Soviet regime itself.'” She also represented Tatars at a meeting with Andropov, as a result of which the Crimean Tatar people were cleared of charges, and furthermore attempted to turn Crimean Tatar rights into an item on the international agenda, giving talks in London, Paris, Kuala-Lumpur, Vienna and Madrid.

A speech made by Lilya Gemeci, a lawyer, during the appeal hearings in the case of Hizb-ut-Tahrir on July 11, 2019, rang as follows: “... Today, you are responsible as to whether and to what extent Russian Federation will be governed by the rule of law. You are responsible as to what kind of society your children and your grandchildren will live in, as well as how the seven children of Enver Mamutov, four children of Rustem Albitarov, two children of Remzi Mametov and four children of Zebri Abesitov will feel. You are solely responsible for whether and to what extent will those children believe in the justice of Russian courts. You are solely responsible as to what extent those children, those families and the entire Crimean Tatar people will believe in justice. Taking into account that there has not been a single piece of evidence in favour of my client's guilt, I ask that the decision of the North Caucasus military court be overruled and my client acquitted”.