Opinion; Subjects: UKRAINE, ARBITRARY DETENTION; [WGAD: UNO-Arbeitsgruppe über willkürliche Inhaftierung, willkürliche Haft; Groupe de travail sur la détention arbitraire; Gruppo di lavoro sulla detenzione arbitraria]
Volltext (verifizierbarer Originaltext)
GE.16-19268(E)
Human Rights Council
Working Group on Arbitrary Detention
Opinions adopted by the Working Group on Arbitrary
Detention at its seventy-sixth session, 22-26 August 2016
Opinion No. 37/2016 concerning Maxim Sakauov, Evgeniy Mefedov,
Volodymyr Zibnytskyy, Pavlo Kovshov, Oleksandr Sukhanov,
Vladislav Ilnytskyy, Sergey Korchynskyy, Vladislav Romanyuk,
Oleksandr Dzubenko, Sergey Doljenkov and others (Ukraine)1
1.
The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention was established in resolution 1991/42 of
the Commission on Human Rights, which extended and clarified the Working Group’s
mandate in its resolution 1997/50. Pursuant to General Assembly resolution 60/251 and
Human Rights Council decision 1/102, the Council assumed that mandate and most
recently extended it for a three-year period in its resolution 24/7 of 26 September 2013.
2.
In accordance with its methods of work (A/HRC/30/69), on 27 May 2015 the
Working Group transmitted a communication to the Government of Ukraine concerning
Maxim Sakauov, Evgeniy Mefedov, Volodymyr Zibnytskyy, Pavlo Kovshov, Oleksandr
Sukhanov, Vladislav Ilnytskyy, Sergey Korchynskyy, Vladislav Romanyuk, Oleksandr
Dzubenko, Sergey Doljenkov and others. The Government replied to the communication on
30 July 2015. The State is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights.
3.
The Working Group regards deprivation of liberty as arbitrary in the following
cases:
(a)
When it is clearly impossible to invoke any legal basis justifying the
deprivation of liberty (as when a person is kept in detention after the completion of his or
her sentence or despite an amnesty law applicable to him or her) (category I);
(b)
When the deprivation of liberty results from the exercise of the rights or
freedoms guaranteed by articles 7, 13, 14, 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights and, insofar as States parties are concerned, by articles 12, 18, 19, 21, 22,
25, 26 and 27 of the Covenant (category II);
1 In accordance with rule 5 of the methods of work, Vladimir Tochilovsky did not participate in the
discussion of the present case.
United Nations
A/HRC/WGAD/2016/37
General Assembly
Distr.: General
4 November 2016
Original: English
A/HRC/WGAD/2016/37
2
(c)
When the total or partial non-observance of the international norms relating
to the right to a fair trial, established in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in
the relevant international instruments accepted by the States concerned, is of such gravity
as to give the deprivation of liberty an arbitrary character (category III);
(d)
When asylum seekers, immigrants or refugees are subjected to prolonged
administrative custody without the possibility of administrative or judicial review or
remedy (category IV);
(e)
When the deprivation of liberty constitutes a violation of international law for
reasons of discrimination based on birth, national, ethnic or social origin, language,
religion, economic condition, political or other opinion, gender, sexual orientation or
disability, or other status, that aims towards or can result in ignoring the equality of human
beings (category V).
Submissions
Communication from the source
4.
Messrs. Sakauov (born in 1976), Mefedov (born in 1983), Zibnytskyy (born in
1983), Kovshov (born in 1986), Sukhanov (born in 1975), Ilnytskyy (born in 1995),
Korchynskyy (born in 1973), Romanyuk (born in 1995), Dzubenko (born in 1986) and
Doljenkov (born in 1988) are currently held in police custody pending trial in the main
pretrial detention centre in Odessa, Ukraine. All of them, except Mr. Mefedov, are citizens
of Ukraine. Mr. Mefedov is a citizen of the Russian Federation. Ten other people are being
charged in the case but are not detained. They are all members of the opposition pro-
federalism movement and have been charged with mass riots under section 294 of the
Criminal Code. Mr. Sukhanov has also been charged with unlawful possession of weapons,
ammunition or explosives under section 263 of the Criminal Code. In total, there are 20
defendants in the same criminal case.
5.
On 2 May 2014, 48 people were killed and 247 injured as a result of clashes in
Odessa between members of the political opposition pro-federalism movement — who
support the establishment of a new federal State with larger regional autonomy and greater
respect for the rights of the Russian-speaking population — and pro-unity supporters —
who want to maintain a unitary State. Reportedly, the main clashes occurred on
Grecheskaya Street in the centre of the city, where 6 people were killed, including 4 pro-
federalism supporters and 2 pro-unity supporters, and on Kulikovo Square, where 42 pro-
federalism supporters were killed inside the Trade Union House, which was set on fire
allegedly by Molotov cocktails thrown by individuals from both sides. Reportedly, 11
people died after jumping out of windows, 2 of whom died later in the hospital, and 31 died
of suffocation and burns inside the building. Many more pro-federalism activists, who had
been besieged by their opponents in the Trade Union House, were severely injured.
6.
The source reports that the casualties in Odessa could have been prevented that day.
However, the police officers present at the scene failed to act with due diligence or take
effective action to prevent or contain the violence, in particular in the vicinity and inside the
Trade Union House, reportedly because they had not received any formal order to
intervene. Also, a fire brigade based 650 metres from the Trade Union House did not arrive
until 40 minutes after it was first alerted by telephone about the fire.
7.
Four official investigations have been initiated to look into the incidents of 2 May in
Odessa: the Ministry of Internal Affairs has investigated the mass riots that took place in
the city centre and the Trade Union House; the General Prosecutor’s Office has opened
criminal cases against several high-ranking police officers for negligence; the
Ombudsperson has evaluated violations of human rights by law enforcement agents during
A/HRC/WGAD/2016/37
3
the mass riots; and the Parliament has carried out a comprehensive investigation. However,
there have been no measurable results from the investigations into police and fire brigade
negligence.
8.
According to the source, prior to the 2 May 2014 violence, an opposition movement
in favour of federalism had emerged in Odessa in the wake of the Euromaidan events in
Kyiv that had resulted in ousting of the President Yanukovich in February 2014. The pro-
federalism movement had been called anti-maidan by its opponents and local authorities
because it had opposed the use of the Euromaidan movement by nationalist Ukrainians
against the country’s Russian-speaking Ukrainian minority. Apparently, the anti-maidan
movement had emerged after the derogation of the 2012 Law on the Principles of the State
Language Policy. Although vetoed in practice, those steps had created anxiety in the South-
East regions of Ukraine, as Russian-speaking minorities were concerned that new
amendments would weaken their linguistic rights. This had fostered support for the pro-
federalism movement in Odessa and other regions in the South-East of Ukraine.
9.
The source asserts that, from February to April 2014, members of the pro-federalism
movement had organized demonstrations every Sunday and had set up a permanent tent
camp at Kulikovo square in Odessa, opposite the Trade Union House. They had organized
the camp’s protection in a paramilitary manner. The authorities in Odessa and Kyiv had
sought to negotiate an agreement whereby the camp would be dismantled and moved to an
area outside the city centre by 9 May 2014, before the annual commemoration of World
War II. “Odesskaya Drujina”, a paramilitary wing of the pro-federalism movement, which
had been organized for the protection of the camp in a Euromaidan manner, had agreed and
had left for another location outside the city, but the majority of activists had remained at
Kulikovo Square.
10.
On 2 May 2014, a football match between the clubs Metalist Kharkiv and
Chernomorets Odessa had been planned to take place in Odessa. Early in the morning of 2
May, at least 600 football fans had arrived from Kharkiv to Odessa. Football fans from both
teams were known to have strong pro-unity sympathies. A pre-match rally for “united
Ukraine” had been planned for 3 p.m. on Sobornaya Square; at least 2,000 people had
gathered, including supporters of the two football teams, “Right Sector” and “Svoboda”
activists, members of the so-called “self-defence” units and other pro-unity supporters.
11.
Reportedly, as the pro-unity rally had been perceived as radical, the use of force had
been decided upon to remove the camp on Kulikovo Square. The pro-federalism supporters,
in anticipation of the demolition of the tents, had decided to counter that force. According
to the source, both sides had been prepared for confrontation. Pro-unity supporters had
brought masks, helmets, axes, wooden sticks, non-lethal guns and firearms. At around 3
p.m., about 200 activists of “Odesskaya Drujina”, similarly equipped in paramilitary gear,
attacked the rally in the vicinity of Grecheskaya Street.
12.
The clashes there lasted for several hours and resulted in the deaths of six persons
(two pro-unity and four pro-federalism protesters), with injuries sustained to numerous
others. The pro-federalism supporters were apparently outnumbered and dispersed. Some
47 pro-federalism activists took refuge in the Afina shopping centre, then taken away for
protection reasons by police special forces and transferred to two police stations outside
Odessa (Ovidiopol and Bilhorod-Dnistrovskyi), where they were detained and questioned.
13.
Having defeated the pro-federalism activists on Grecheskaya Street, the pro-unity
supporters moved to Kulikovo Square at the end of the afternoon; the violent confrontation
continued late into the night. Pro-unity activists, supported by the extremist paramilitary
militias, burned the camp tents and chased away pro-federalism campers. Nevertheless,
several dozen of them sought refuge by barricading themselves in the Trade Union House.
The attackers and defenders threw Molotov cocktails into and out of the building, setting it
A/HRC/WGAD/2016/37
4
on fire. Some of the pro-federalism activists escaped from the burning building, but were
caught and beaten by the attackers. Altogether, 42 pro-federalism supporters died in the
incident, either from jumping from the windows (some of them were beaten, apparently to
death, after they reached the ground) or from burns and smoke intoxication or suffocation.
These are the official figures based on official autopsies, which have been questioned.
14.
On 2 May 2014, the Odessa Regional Police Investigation Department of the
Ministry of Internal Affairs launched a criminal investigation into the incidents of mass
riots, violence and significant loss of life in Odessa. On 6 May 2014, responsibility for the
investigation was transferred to the Main Investigation Department of the Ministry of
Internal Affairs in Kyiv.
15.
The source reports that, on 2 May 2014, 47 pro-federalism activists were detained by
police agents. For 48 hours, they were not given food or water. On 4 May 2014, they were
transferred to a police station in Vinnitsa, 424 km from Odessa. During the transfer, which
lasted for 12 hours, they were neither given food or water, nor allowed to use toilet
facilities. Allegedly, they had to urinate in the detention van. Upon arrival at the police
stations in Ovidiopol and Bilhorod-Dnistrovskyi, medical care was not provided to those
detainees who required assistance owing to illness or injuries.
16.
On 6 May 2014, the video recorded court hearings of the pro-federalism activists
were organized at the Primorsky District Court in Odessa. All were charged with
committing offences under section 294 of the Criminal Code. According to the Court’s
decisions, of the 47 detainees, 14 were placed in the Vinnitsa pretrial detention centre. Four
of those, after appealing the Court’s decision, were placed under house arrest and have
since reportedly returned to Odessa. The remaining 33 individuals have been under house
arrest as of 10 June 2014.
17.
In September 2014, the investigation by the Ministry of Internal Affairs into the 2
May 2014 violence in Odessa was split into different criminal proceedings into (a) the mass
riots on Grecheskaya Street; (b) the mass riots at the Trade Union House on Kulikovo
Square; and (c) a single case against a pro-unity activist charged with voluntary homicide.
Mass riots on Grecheskaya Street
18.
On 2 May 2014, 47 pro-federalism activists who had taken refuge in the Afina
shopping centre were arrested by police special forces. Following the Court’s decision, 10
were taken into custody, while 37 were placed under house arrest. According to section 181
of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, house arrest as a preventive measure cannot
last more than 6 months. According to section 197 (3) (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code,
the total duration of holding a person under custody in the course of pretrial investigation
shall not exceed 12 months.
19.
On 6 May 2014, Mr. Sergey Doljenkov (1988), the head of “Odesskaya Drujina”
and one of the leaders of the pro-federalism movement, was arrested in Odessa and
transferred to the Kyiv pretrial detention centre. He was charged with mass riots under
section 294 of the Criminal Code and placed under custody as a measure of restraint.
20.
On 24 September 2014, the pretrial investigation into the mass riots in the city
centre was completed. As a result, 21 pro-federalism activists were charged with mass riots
under section 294 of the Criminal Code and 13 suspects were put on a wanted list. An
investigation against one of them was split into a separate proceeding for security reasons.
Of the 20 accused activists, 9 have been in custody since 2 May 2014, including Messrs.
Sakauov, Mefedov, Zibnytskyy, Kovshov, Sukhanov, Ilnytskyy, Korchynskyy, Romanyuk,
and Dzubenko. Mr. Doljenkov has been in police custody since 6 May 2014. Despite
numerous appeals by the defence lawyers to release the defendants, their detention has been
extended by the Court several times at the request of the prosecution. The most recent
A/HRC/WGAD/2016/37
5
extension, for an additional 60 days of detention, was made on 23 May 2015 by the
Malinovskyi District Court in Odessa. The source reports that all 10 detainees continue to
be held in detention conditions below the minimum standards.
21.
In November 2014, the indictment was transmitted to the Primorsky District Court
for trial. However, the jurisdiction was moved to the Malinovskyi District Court, where, on
16 January 2015, during preliminary court hearings, lawyers for the defendants (mostly
pro-federalism activists) drew attention to human rights violations and procedural
omissions contained in the indictment. They included failure to provide Russian Federation
citizens with a Russian translation of the indictment; failure to specify the action of each of
the accused during the mass riots; failure to indicate information on the investigation
conducted; and incorrect personal data of the participants in the trial. On 2 February 2015,
the panel of judges of the Malinovskyi District Court returned the case to the General
Prosecutor’s Office for additional investigation to correct the errors made during pretrial
investigation.
22.
On 25 March 2015, the General Prosecutor’s Office resubmitted a corrected
indictment against 20 pro-federalism activists for organizing mass riots in the city centre to
the Malinovskyi District Court. On 27 April 2015, during the preliminary hearings, owing
to the numerous omissions and violations of the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code,
the Court ruled for the second time to return the indictment to the General Prosecutor’s
Office for revision and correction. The source asserts that, notwithstanding its own findings
about violations of the due process standards by General Prosecutor’s Office, the Court
failed to release the detainees upon its two rulings to return the case for additional
investigation.
23.
On 14 May 2015, on the appeal of the General Prosecutor, the Appellate Court of
Odessa region overruled the 27 April 2015 decision of the Malinovskyi District Court and
ordered it to resume its consideration. On 23 May 2015, the trial panel of the District Court
completed the preliminary hearings and decided to schedule the first trial hearing on 29
May 2015.
24.
The source submits that, in January 2015, the Malinovskyi District Court began a
separate proceeding under section 294 of the Criminal Code against a pro-federalism
activist who was also arrested in the Afina shopping centre. His criminal case was separated
for security reasons, because of his testimony against other pro-federalism defendants. His
indictment was also returned to the General Prosecutor’s Office for correction. It was not
clear, however, if that defendant/witness remained in detention.
Mass riots at the Trade Union House
25.
Late in the evening of 2 May 2014, 67 pro-federalism activists were arrested at the
Trade Union House and transferred to the Odessa City Police Station, where they were
detained for two days. On 2 and 3 May, all detainees were charged with voluntary homicide
and mass rioting, under sections 115 and 294 of the Criminal Code, respectively. On 4 May
2014, at 5 p.m., the Odessa City Police Station was stormed by relatives and supporters of
the pro-federalism detainees. All of the 67 detainees were released by police. It was not
clear, however, whether the charges had been dropped against them.
26.
On 22 April 2015, the First Deputy Prosecutor General of Ukraine reported that the
investigation had found no evidence of the use of any toxic gases at the Trade Union
House. He also reported that no evidence had been found of an intentional or planned arson
attack. According to him, the fire had started from the inside. Allegedly, the people inside
had thrown a Molotov cocktail to prevent their opponents from entering. The First Deputy
Prosecutor General considers that the fire had been caused by the so-called chimney effect,
and the deaths were attributable to carbon monoxide poisoning.
A/HRC/WGAD/2016/37
6
27.
According to the source, since 2 May 2015, the General Prosecutor’s Office had
shown no significant progress in the investigation into the deaths of 42 persons at the Trade
Union House. Moreover, according to the Head of the Investigation Team, the Ministry of
Internal Affairs had not yet identified any suspects for the crime. The source asserts that the
failure to conduct an effective investigation in to the deaths of 42 opposition members at
the Trade Union House, as opposed to the cases brought against the 20 pro-federalism
defendants for mass rioting on Grecheskaya Street, demonstrates bias and the politically
motivated attitude of the Government towards political opponents.
28.
As an example of the politically motivated attitude of the Government towards the
investigation into the 2 May 2014 events and bringing the perpetrators to justice, the source
reports that, on 27 May 2014, a pro-unity activist was arrested for allegedly firing at the
pro-federalism activists who had taken refuge in the Trade Union House. He had been
accused under section 294 of the Criminal Code and transferred to Kyiv. On 29 May 2014,
the Pecherskiy District Court in Kyiv placed him under house arrest as a preventive
measure. On 15 February 2015, he died in Odessa hospital apparently of a respiratory
disease. This death was highly suspicious, leading to the assertion that it had been faked
and covered up to avoid justice.
29.
On 19 August 2014, another pro-unity activist was arrested for allegedly beating
pro-federalism activists who had jumped out of the burning Trade Union House, and was
transferred to the Kherson pretrial detention centre. On 26 August 2014, the Kherson
District Court placed him under custody as a preventive measure. On 30 August 2014,
because of pressure from the pro-unity activists, the Kherson Court of Appeal region
changed the preventive custody to a personal obligation not to leave Odessa without
permission from the investigation department. On 9 February 2015, the criminal
investigation against him was closed because of lack of evidence.
Case against a pro-unity activist charged with voluntary homicide
30.
On 18 May 2014, a pro-unity activist was arrested and accused of firing at and
injuring several people, including police officers, pro-federalism activists and journalists,
on Grecheskaya Street on 2 May 2014. He was transferred to Kyiv and charged with
voluntary homicide and mass rioting under sections 115 and 294 of the Criminal Code,
respectively. On 21 May 2014, he was placed under house arrest in Odessa. In November
2014, the term of the house arrest expired. In April 2015, the Ministry of Internal Affairs
completed the criminal investigation and, on 20 April 2015, transmitted the criminal case
materials to the Primorsky District Court.
31.
The source argues that the deprivation of liberty of Messrs. Doljenkov, Sakauov,
Mefedov, Zibnytskyy, Kovshov, Sukhanov, Ilnytskyy, Korchynskyy, Romanyuk and
Dzubenko is arbitrary and falls under categories II, III and V of the arbitrary detention
categories referred to by the Working Group when considering cases submitted to it. In
particular, their deprivation of liberty resulted from the exercise of fundamental rights
protected by international law, in particular the rights to freedom of opinion and expression,
political participation and association (category II). They were deprived of their liberty in
violation of due process rights and in the absence of minimum detention conditions
(category III). Furthermore, the source argues that they were arrested, detained and put on
trial because of their political opinion, which was critical of and contrary to the
Government. The source asserts that the failure of the Government to conduct an effective
investigation into the deaths of 42 opposition members at the Trade Union House, and its
failure to apply the same treatment to pro-unity suspects as the criminal cases brought
against and detention of the 10 pro-federalism defendants for mass rioting on Grecheskaya
Street, demonstrates its complete bias and politically motivated attitude towards its political
opponents. Hence the deprivation of liberty of those individuals constitutes a violation of
A/HRC/WGAD/2016/37
7
international law for reasons of discrimination based on political or other opinion (category
V).
Response from the Government
32.
Although the response from the Government was received after the deadline, the
Working Group decided to consider the information therein, in the best interest of the
victims. In its response of the 30 July 2015, the Government of Ukraine informed the
Working Group that, on 2 May 2014, mass disorder broke out in Odessa following clashes
between fans of the football clubs Metalist Kharkiv and Chernomorets Odessa, with close
to 500 aggressive, organized and armed persons shouting slogans about the federalization
of Ukraine. The clashes left 48 dead and approximately 250 people injured; 18 of whom
had gunshot wounds, which in six cases proved fatal (this took place on Grecheskaya
Street).
33.
In addition, during the fire at the Trade Union House, 42 persons died of carbon
monoxide poisoning and falling from a height, as confirmed by the results of an
investigation.
34.
According to the Government, investigations into the events were being carried out
by the investigation units of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Office of the
Procurator-General, which were considering a number of issues.
35.
It reported that the first matter was the improper discharge of duties by staff of the
internal affairs agencies, who had failed to safeguard public order appropriately, which had
resulted in mass disorder. That situation was being investigated by the Main Investigation
Department of the Office of the Procurator-General.
36.
The second part of the investigation was intended to identify the leaders of the mass
disorder and those who had played an active part in it, carrying out attacks and using
weapons and other means to inflict bodily harm. Those acts were being investigated as
criminal incidents by the Ministry of Internal Affairs Main Investigation Department.
37.
The third part of the investigation concerned establishing the cause of the fire at the
Trade Union House that led to the deaths of 42 persons. That investigation was also being
carried out by the Ministry of Internal Affairs Main Investigation Department.
38.
The Ministry of Internal Affairs Main Investigation Department was handling a total
of five criminal cases related to the events of 2 May 2014 in Odessa:
(a)
Criminal case No. 12014160500003700 concerning evidence of offences
committed by the leaders of the mass disorder and active participants in it, provided for in
the Criminal Code in articles 294 (mass disorder), 115 (premeditated murder), 341 (seizure
of State or public buildings or facilities), 345 (threats or violence against a member of the
law enforcement agencies), 296 (hooliganism) and 194 (criminal destruction or damage to
property);
(b)
Criminal case No. 42014160100000154 concerning dereliction of duty by
members of the State emergency services in Odessa Province when saving lives and
extinguishing the fire during the events of 2 May 2014 in Odessa, and their failure to help
persons whose lives were endangered, on the basis of evidence of criminal offences
provided for in articles 135 (3) and 367 (2) of the Criminal Code;
(c)
Criminal case No. 12014000000000263 concerning I.I. Astakhov, who was
suspected of having committed criminal offences provided for in the following articles of
the Criminal Code: 115 (2 (1), (6) and (9)), 15 (3), 190 (4), 194 (4), 263 (1), 294 (2) and
358 (3);
A/HRC/WGAD/2016/37
8
(d)
Criminal case No. 12014000000000558 concerning A.V. Tananushko and
A.A. Gliznutsa, who were suspected of having committed a criminal offence provided for
in article 294 (2) of the Criminal Code;
(e)
Criminal case No. 12014160500002190 concerning A.A. Fominov, A.V.
Budko, I.M. Vinenko, E.A. Gurev, E.A. Shparaka, S.A. Kulta, A.V. Povar, E.Y. Antipov,
V.S. Barbinov and A.I. Shabalin, who were suspected of having committed a criminal
offence provided for in article 294 (2) of the Criminal Code, and concerning A.V.
Davidchenko, who was suspected of having committed criminal offences provided for in
articles 293 and 294 (2) of the Code.
39.
During the pretrial inquiry with respect to criminal case No. 12014160500003700,
investigating officers arrested 118 persons under article 208 of the Criminal Procedure
Code: 47 in the Afina shopping centre; 64 in the Trade Union House; and 7 after the events
of 2 May 2014. Non-custodial preventive measures were selected for 106 of the persons
arrested.
40.
With regard to the persons named, the Government wished to inform the Working
Group that, on 3 May 2014, the Bilhorod-Dnistrovskyi regional department of the Ministry
of Internal Affairs main office for Odessa province had arrested Oleksandr Dzubenko under
article 208 of the Criminal Procedure Code, on suspicion of having committed a criminal
offence provided for in article 294 (2) of the Criminal Code. On 5 May 2014, the
investigating judge of Primorsky District Court ordered that Mr. Dzubenko be remanded in
custody for 60 days as a preventive measure. On 2 July 2014, the investigating judge
extended the period of his detention by 60 days, until 2 September 2014. A further order of
29 August 2014 extended the period of detention to 180 days, until 29 October 2014. The
investigating judge’s subsequent order, of 23 October 2014, further extended the period of
detention until 1 December 2014.
41.
Pavlo Kovshov was arrested on 3 May 2014 under article 208 of the Criminal
Procedure Code by the Bilhorod-Dnistrovskyi regional department of the Ministry of
Internal Affairs main office for Odessa province on suspicion of having committed a
criminal offence provided for in article 294 (2) of the Criminal Code. On 5 May 2014, the
investigating judge of Primorsky District Court ordered that Mr. Kovshov be remanded in
custody for 60 days as a preventive measure. On 2 July 2014, the investigating judge
extended the period of detention by 60 days, until 2 September 2014. A further order of 26
August 2014 extended the period of detention to 6 months, until 26 October 2014. The
investigating judge’s subsequent order, of 22 October 2014, again extended the period of
detention, until 1 December 2014.
42.
Sergey Korchynskyy was arrested on 2 May 2014 under article 208 of the Criminal
Procedure Code by the Ovidiopol regional department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs,
on suspicion of having committed a criminal offence provided for in article 294 (2) of the
Criminal Code. On 5 May 2014, the investigating judge of Primorsky District Court
ordered that Mr. Korchynskyy be remanded in custody for 60 days as a preventive measure.
On 24 June 2014, the investigating judge extended the period of detention by 60 days, until
30 August 2014. A further order of 27 August 2014 extended the period of detention to 180
days, until 28 October 2014. The investigating judge’s subsequent order, of 23 October
2014, again extended the period of detention, until 1 December 2014.
43.
Vladislav Romanyuk was arrested on 2 May 2014 under article 208 of the Criminal
Procedure Code by the Ovidiopol regional department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs on
suspicion of having committed a criminal offence provided for in article 294 (2) of the
Criminal Code. On 5 May 2014, the investigating judge of Primorsky District Court
ordered that Mr. Romanyuk be remanded in custody for 60 days as a preventive measure.
On 1 July 2014, the investigating judge extended the period of detention by 60 days, until
A/HRC/WGAD/2016/37
9
29 August 2014. A further order of 29 August 2014 extended the period of detention to 180
days, until 27 October 2014. The investigating judge’s subsequent order of 22 October
2014 again extended the period of detention, until 1 December 2014.
44.
Maksim Sakauov was arrested on 3 May 2014 under article 208 of the Criminal
Procedure Code by the Bilhorod-Dnistrovskyi regional department of the Ministry of
Internal Affairs on suspicion of having committed a criminal offence provided for in article
294 (2) of the Criminal Code. On 5 May 2014, the investigating judge of Primorsky District
Court ordered that Mr. Sakauov be remanded in custody for 60 days as a preventive
measure. On 3 July 2014, the investigating judge extended the period of detention by 60
days, until 3 September 2014. A further order of 27 August 2014 extended the period of
detention to 6 months, until 27 October 2014. The investigating judge’s subsequent order of
21 October 2014 again extended the period of detention, until 1 December 2014.
45.
Oleksandr Sukhanov was arrested on 3 May 2014 under article 208 of the Criminal
Procedure Code by the Ovidiopol regional department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs on
suspicion of having committed a criminal offence provided for in article 294 (2) of the
Criminal Code. On 5 May 2014, the investigating judge of Primorsky District Court
ordered that Mr. Sukhanov be remanded in custody for 60 days as a preventive measure. On
2 July 2014, the investigating judge extended the period of detention by 60 days, until 1
September 2014. A further order of 22 August 2014 extended the period of detention to 6
months, until 20 October 2014. The investigating judge’s subsequent order of 16 October
2014 again extended the period of detention, until 1 December 2014.
46.
Volodymyr Zibnytskyy was arrested on 3 May 2014 under article 208 of the
Criminal Procedure Code by the Bilhorod-Dnistrovskyi regional department of the Ministry
of Internal Affairs on suspicion of having committed a criminal offence provided for in
article 294 (2) of the Criminal Code. On 6 May 2014, the investigating judge of Primorsky
District Court ordered that Mr. Zibnytskyy be remanded in custody for 60 days as a
preventive measure. On 2 July 2014, the investigating judge extended the period of
detention by 60 days, until 3 September 2014. A further order of 22 August 2014 extended
the period of detention to 6 months, until 20 October 2014. The investigating judge’s
subsequent order of 17 October 2014 again extended the period of detention, until 1
December 2014.
47.
Vladislav Ilnytskyy was arrested on 2 May 2014 under article 208 of the Criminal
Procedure Code by the Ovidiopol regional department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs on
suspicion of having committed a criminal offence provided for in article 294 (2) of the
Criminal Code. On 5 May 2014, the investigating judge of Primorsky District Court
ordered that Mr. Ilnytskyy be remanded in custody for 60 days as a preventive measure. On
27 June 2014, the investigating judge extended the period of detention by 60 days, until 25
August 2014. A further order of 20 August 2014 extended the period of detention to 6
months, until 20 October 2014. The investigating judge’s subsequent order of 16 October
2014 again extended the period of detention, until 1 December 2014.
48.
Sergey Doljenkov was arrested on 6 May 2014 under article 208 of the Criminal
Procedure Code by the investigations department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs on
suspicion of having committed a criminal offence provided for in article 294 (2) of the
Criminal Code. On 8 May 2014, the investigating judge of Pecherskiy District Court
ordered that Mr. Doljenkov be remanded in custody for 60 days as a preventive measure.
On 1 July 2014, the investigating judge extended the period of detention by 60 days, until
29 August 2014. A further order of 28 August 2014 extended the period of detention to 6
months, until 24 October 2014. A subsequent order issued by the investigating judge of
Primorsky District Court on 21 October 2014 again extended the period of detention, until 1
December 2014.
A/HRC/WGAD/2016/37
10
49.
Evgeniy Mefedov was remanded in custody for a period of 60 days as a preventive
measure by order of the investigating judge of Primorsky District Court on 6 May 2014. On
4 July 2014, the investigating judge extended the period of detention by 60 days, until 2
September 2014. A further order of 29 August 2014 extended the period of detention to 6
months, until 29 October 2014. The investigating judge’s subsequent order of 28 October
2014 again extended the period of detention, until 1 December 2014.
50.
Oleksandr Posmychenko (born in 1990) was arrested on 2 May 2014 under article
208 of the Criminal Procedure Code by the Ovidiopol regional department of the Ministry
of Internal Affairs on suspicion of having committed a criminal offence provided for in
article 294 (2) of the Criminal Code. On 6 May 2014, the investigating judge of Primorsky
District Court ordered that Mr. Posmychenko be remanded in custody as a preventive
measure for 60 days from the time of arrest, until 1 July 2014. On 27 June 2014, the
investigating judge extended the period of detention by 60 days, until 25 August 2014. A
further order of 21 August 2014 extended the period of detention by 60 days, until 20
October 2014. The investigating judge’s subsequent order of 16 October 2014 again
extended the period of detention by 46 days, until 1 December 2014.
51.
All persons were arrested under article 208 of the Criminal Procedure Code either at
the time of committing the offences or directly after committing the offences.
52.
The Government stated that the Appeals Courts of Odessa province and Kyiv had
considered and dismissed the repeated appeals lodged by the suspects and their lawyers
against the choice of preventive measure and its extension.
53.
Following their arrests, the suspects were transferred to the State prison service
pretrial detention centres in Vinnitsa, Odessa and Kyiv. From September 2014, they were
all transferred to the Odessa pretrial detention centre in Odessa province, where they were
being held.
54.
From 3 to 5 May 2014, Messrs. Ilnytskyy, Korchynskyy, Romanyuk and Sukhanov
were held in a temporary holding facility of the Ovidiopol regional department, while
Messrs. Dzubenko, Zibnytskyy, Kovshov and Sakauov were held in a temporary holding
facility of the Bilhorod-Dnistrovskyi municipal department of the Ministry of Internal
Affairs.
55.
Thereafter, they were escorted by convoys from military detachment No. 3014,
Odessa, to Vinnitsa province, where they were held at the temporary holding facilities of
Chechelnyk regional department, Trostyanets regional department, Khmelnytskyi
municipal department and Nemyriv regional department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs
and Vinnitsa Correctional Facility No. 1.
56.
On 30 September 2014, they were sent to Odessa Correctional Facility No. 21,
where they remain, with the exception of Messrs. Romanyuk and Sakauov, who were
transferred on 6 March 2015 to a pretrial detention centre at Odessa Correctional Colony
No. 14.
57.
Mr. Mefedov was held on 6 and 7 May 2014 in the temporary holding facility of the
Odessa regional government department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, and had been
held in Odessa Correctional Facility No. 21 since 7 October 2014.
58.
Mr. Doljenkov was held from 6 to 8 May 2014 in Kyiv in the temporary holding
facility of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, and from 8 August to 7 October 2014 in the
Kyiv pretrial detention centre. He had been held in Odessa Correctional Facility No. 21
since 8 October 2014.
59.
The Government stated that, on the instructions of the Office of the Procurator-
General, the procuratorial services of Kyiv, Odessa and Vinnitsa provinces had checked the
A/HRC/WGAD/2016/37
11
information contained in the message from the Chair and Rapporteur of the Working Group
at the institutions in which the individuals were held.
60.
It was established from the checks that all of the individuals were being held in
custody on the basis of orders issued by Primorsky District Court; that the periods of
detention had been extended repeatedly by the courts in line with the current Criminal
Procedure Code; and that they had been transferred on the orders of the Ministry of Internal
Affairs Main Investigations Department.
61.
During their detention in the Ministry of Internal Affairs temporary holding facility
and pretrial detention centres of the State penal correction service, no indications had been
found of any violations of their rights to proper nutrition, everyday necessities and medical
services or of the use of torture.
62.
No violations had been found of the rights of the persons held under house arrest as
a preventive measure during the criminal proceedings.
63.
During his pretrial investigation, Mr. Doljenkov sent multiple complaints to the
Office of the Procurator-General and the courts concerning the preventive measures taken
against him, including what he described as unlawful detention and his transfer to Kyiv, but
no grounds were found for the complaints.
64.
The courts had repeatedly considered complaints by Mr. Mefedov and his counsel
about the translation of documents for him into Russian and the delivery to him of copies
thereof. Some of the complaints had been satisfied by the courts.
65.
The suspects’ detention was in no way linked to their political position. The pretrial
investigation had not been carried out from a prejudicial or discriminatory point of view.
66.
None of the rights of the suspects had been violated during their remand in custody,
detention or conveyance to court, or in the selection of preventive measures. Under the
Criminal Procedure Code, a suspect can be held in custody for no more than 12 months in
the case of criminal proceedings relating to serious or especially serious offences.
67.
On 24 November 2014, the Office of the Procurator-General approved a bill of
indictment against 21 people (11 of whom were being held in custody) for the commission
of a criminal offence provided for in article 294 (2) of the Criminal Code. The case was
being considered by the Malinovskyi District Court. After sending the bill of indictment for
consideration by the court, in accordance with article 315 of the Criminal Procedure Code,
the court extended the measures for launching criminal investigations against the accused,
with the result that their detention in custody had been extended for the period of the
criminal proceedings.
68.
During the pretrial investigation by investigators, individuals representing both
adversarial positions had been held in detention.
69.
Thus, on 26 May 2014, Nikolay Volkov (born in 1981) was detained by the Ministry
of Internal Affairs Main Investigations Department in accordance with article 208 of the
Criminal Procedure Code on suspicion of having committed a criminal offence provided for
in article 294 (2) of the Criminal Code. Following his detention, Mr. Volkov was placed in
the temporary holding facility in Kyiv of the Ministry of Internal Affairs.
70.
By order of the investigating judge of Pecherskiy District Court, Mr. Volkov was
placed under house arrest on 28 May 2014. However, on 27 February 2015, the criminal
proceedings against him under article 294 (2) of the Criminal Code were suspended in
accordance with article 284 (1 (5)) of the Criminal Procedure Code, in connection with the
suspect’s death.
A/HRC/WGAD/2016/37
12
71.
On 18 May 2014, Sergey Khodiyak (born in 1981) was detained by the Ministry of
Internal Affairs Main Investigations Department in accordance with article 208 of the
Criminal Procedure Code on suspicion of having committed a criminal offence provided for
in article 294 (2) of the Criminal Code. Following his detention, Mr. Khodiyak was placed
in the Kyiv temporary holding facility of the Ministry of Internal Affairs.
72.
By order of the investigating judge of Pecherskiy District Court, Mr. Khodiyak was
placed under house arrest on 20 May 2014. On 22 April 2015, the Office of the Procurator-
General approved and submitted to Primorsky District Court a bill of indictment alleging
that Mr. Khodiyak had committed criminal offences provided for in articles 155 (2 (5) and
(7)), 115 (2 (1), (5) and (7)), 294 (2) and 348 of the Criminal Code.
73.
The judicial proceedings were still in progress. On 14 August 2014, a search warrant
was issued for Vsevolod Goncharevskyi (born in 1967). On 14 August 2014, the Kherson
District Court issued an order authorizing the detention of Mr. Goncharevskyi in connection
with his appearance in court.
74.
On 19 August 2014, Mr. Goncharevskyi was detained by the Ministry of Internal
Affairs Main Investigations Department in accordance with article 208 of the Criminal
Procedure Code on suspicion of having committed a criminal offence provided for in article
294 (2) of the Criminal Code. On 19 August 2014, the investigating judge of the Suvorov
District Court ordered that he be remanded in custody as a preventive measure.
75.
On 29 August 2014, the Kherson Court of Appeal province considered a complaint
from Mr. Goncharevskyi’s lawyer against the preventive measure of remand in custody.
The complaint was dismissed. On 30 August 2014, the investigating judge of the Suvorov
District Court ordered the preventive measure to be changed from remand in custody to
release on his own recognizance.
76.
During the pretrial investigation on 9 February 2015, the decision was taken to close
the criminal case against Mr. Goncharevskyi, on the basis of article 284 (1 (3)) of the
Criminal Procedure Code, after insufficient grounds had been found to prove the
defendant’s guilt in court and once all means of finding evidence had been exhausted.
77.
The pretrial investigation into the criminal case was still open. The Office of the
Procurator-General was also responsible for the procedural aspect of criminal investigations
into the dereliction of duty by members of the State emergency services in Odessa province
when saving lives and extinguishing the fire during the events in Odessa on 2 May 2014
and their failure to help persons whose lives were endangered, on the basis of evidence of
criminal offences provided for in articles 135 (3) and 367 (2) of the Criminal Code. The
investigations were being conducted by the Ministry of Internal Affairs Main Investigations
Department.
78.
The investigations had identified all of the officials who might have been
accomplices to the offences. The main parties in the case had been questioned in the
presence of pretrial investigation supervisors from the Office of the Procurator-General and
the forensic expert, and the questionings had been recorded on video.
79.
The Government states that the investigator had collected the necessary official
documents and had viewed video recordings of the events in Odessa on 2 May 2014.
Official investigations into the actions of officials of the main office of the State emergency
services in Odessa province were conducted regularly.
80.
Procedural decisions would be taken in relation to any official’s action or inaction
once the findings were received of an official interdepartmental and interdisciplinary
commission on fire-related inquiries; a study of the oil-based products, combustibles and
lubricants; and a health and occupational safety assessment. They were being conducted by
A/HRC/WGAD/2016/37
13
experts from the Ministry of Internal Affairs State Research Centre for Forensic Sciences
and the Kyiv forensic investigations research institute under the Ministry of Justice.
81.
A letter had been sent by the Office of the Procurator-General to the management of
the State Research Centre for Forensic Sciences asking for the reports to be completed as
soon as possible.
82.
The pretrial investigations were ongoing. The Main Investigations Department of the
Office of the Procurator-General was conducting the pretrial investigation into criminal
case No. 2014160000000186, which had been registered by the investigations department
of the Office of the Procurator-General of Odessa province on 2 May 2014, with respect to
the failure on that same day to take essential and exhaustive measures to guarantee the
protection of public order during the demonstration by pro-unity supporters and the mass
riots that occurred in Odessa because employees of the Ministry of Internal Affairs main
office in Odessa province did not carry out their duties properly, resulting in fatalities, and
thus serious consequences, with indications of an offence provided for in article 367 (2) of
the Criminal Code.
83.
Investigations into this case also concern:
(a)
A negligent attitude to duties by officials of the Odessa Municipal
Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, which led on 4 May 2014 to the seizure by
the anti-Maidan movement of rooms of the regional administrative building of the main
Ministry of Internal Affairs office of Odessa Province, also with serious consequences for
State interests, and constituted an offence under article 367 (2) of the Criminal Code;
(b)
Improper exercise of official authority by members of the Ministry of Internal
Affairs main office in Odessa Province, leading to the release on 4 May 2014, in violation
of legislation on criminal procedure, of 63 individuals who had been detained on 2 May
2014 for especially serious offences (Criminal Code, arts. 115 and 294) from the temporary
holding facility of the regional government department. This also had serious consequences
as it constituted an offence under article 365 (3) of the Criminal Code.
84.
The criminal cases of 6 June 2014 were combined as case No. 42014160000000186.
85.
On 13 May 2014, Mr. D. B. Fuchedzhi, the deputy chief and acting chief of the
Ministry of Internal Affairs main office in Odessa Province (the chief of police) was
informed that he was suspected of having committed offences under articles 365 (3) and
367 (2) of the Criminal Code. The charges related to the improper organization and
coordination of forces and resources under his authority, which had been protecting public
order as reserves in Odessa on 2 May 2014 during the mass riots at Grecheskaya Street,
Kulikovo Square and around the Trade Union House that had led to the deaths of 48 people,
and to the issuance of an order to release from the temporary detention facility of the
regional government department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs 63 persons who had
been detained as suspects in relation to the mass riots.
86.
On 15 May 2014, a search warrant was issued for Mr. Fuchedzhi, with the State
security service responsible for the search. On 16 May 2014, the investigating judge was
granted authorization to detain Mr. Fuchedzhi so as to ensure his attendance during
consideration of the appeal for a preventive measure to be used.
87.
On 17 October 2014, the criminal proceedings regarding Mr. Fuchedzhi became a
separate case.
88.
On 9 January 2015, the General Secretariat of the International Criminal Police
Organization (INTERPOL) denied the request for an international search warrant for Mr.
Fuchedzhi on the grounds of article 3 of the Organization’s constitution (i.e., that the
prosecution was political in nature). A pretrial investigation into the case was stopped, in
A/HRC/WGAD/2016/37
14
accordance with article 280 (1 (2)) of the Criminal Procedure Code, owing to concealment
of the suspect’s whereabouts from the investigating bodies.
89.
Furthermore, criminal case No. 42014160000000186 was split into separate
criminal cases concerning:
(a)
Mr. A. A. Netrebskyi, the former chief of the Odessa Municipal Office of the
Ministry of Internal Affairs, under article 367 (1) of the Criminal Code, for dereliction of
duty resulting in the seizure of the administrative building of the State police department,
and article 365 (1) of the Criminal Code, for acting outside the scope of his powers and
abusing his official authority by releasing detainees from the local authorities’ temporary
holding facility;
(b)
Mr. V. P. Pryima, the former chief of the regional government’s temporary
holding facility of the Ministry of Internal Affairs main office in Odessa Province, and Mr.
R.V. Kondratov, the former inspector on duty at the facility, under article 365 (1) of the
Criminal Code, for unlawfully acting outside the scope of their powers and abusing their
official authority by releasing detainees from the facility.
90.
Following the preliminary investigations on 27 October 2014, bills of indictment
concerning Messrs. Netrebskyi, Pryima and Kondratov were transferred to the Primorsky
District Court for the merits to be considered. The trial was ongoing.
91.
In criminal case No. 42014160000000186 of 30 April 2015, it had been reported
that Mr. P. S. Lutsyuk, the former chief of the Ministry of Internal Affairs main office in
Odessa Province, was suspected of having committed an offence under article 367 (2) of
the Criminal Code. The Government confirmed that the actions of middle management at
the internal affairs agencies would be assessed once investigations had been completed and
evidence had been collected.
Further comments from the source
92.
The response from the Government was transmitted to the source on 17 August
2015.
93.
The source informed the Working Group that the mass disorder in the centre of
Odessa on 2 May 2014 had consisted of clashes between pro-unity supporters and fans of
the football clubs Metalist Kharkiv and Chernomorets Odessa and pro-federalism
supporters.
94.
The source alleges that the response of the Government of Ukraine places the
emphasis only on the role of pro-federalism supporters and does not pay attention to the
role of pro-unity supporters involved into the clashes. In its opinion, both sides of the
conflict had been wearing helmets and masks, had been armed with shields, axes,
wooden/metal sticks and in some cases firearms, and had participated intensively in the
clashes. Furthermore, of the 48 victims of the 2 May violence, 46 had been supporters of
the pro-federalism movement.
95.
The Government of Ukraine informed the Working Group about five criminal cases
related to the events of 2 May 2014 in Odessa. The source stated that, in 2014, criminal
case No. 12014160500003700 had been divided into several separate cases. It should be
underlined that the majority of the criminal cases initiated by the Ministry of Internal
Affairs had been opened against pro-federalism activists and supporters. Furthermore, of
the 118 suspects detained in relation to case No. 12014160500003700, 115 belonged to pro-
federalism supporters. Only three persons had been pro-unity activists.
96.
In its response, the Government of Ukraine did not provide any detailed information
in relation to the apprehension of Messrs. Sakauov, Sukhanov, Zibnytskyy, Ilnytskyy,
A/HRC/WGAD/2016/37
15
Posmychenko, Dzubenko, Kovshov, Romanyuk or Korchynskyy. In addition, the response
of the Government of Ukraine contained inaccuracies regarding the date of the detention of
those individuals. According to the source, all of them had been detained in the Afina
shopping centre on 2 May 2014, while the Government reported that Kovshov, Sakauov,
Sukhanov and Zibnytskyy had been detained on 3 May 2014. By mentioning an incorrect
time of detention, law enforcement could have violated the due process rights of the
detainees, namely, their rights to have access to legal aid and not to be held in custody
without a court ruling for more than 72 hours.
97.
In its response, the Government did not provide information concerning allegations
of violations of due process rights and the absence of minimum detention conditions with
regard to the pro-federalism detainees who had been detained on 2 May 2014 and
transferred to Ovidiopol and Bilhorod-Dnistrovskyi police precincts. The source alleges
that the Government failed to ensure the right to a fair trial and to minimum detention
conditions for all 47 individuals detained in the Afina shopping centre. Detainees’ relatives
had not been informed in a timely manner about the detention and whereabouts of the
suspects (incommunicado detention); the detainees were not provided with a sufficient
number of legal defenders by the State Legal Aid Centre; Ovidiopol and Bilhorod-
Dnistrovskyi police precincts did not have adequate space for the 47 detainees to meet the
minimum detention conditions for all of them; the detainees were not provided with food
and water on a regular basis. In addition, the Government of Ukraine did not comment
about the allegations of human rights violations during the transfer of the detainees from
Ovidiopol and Bilhorod-Dnistrovskyi police precincts to Vinnytsia region on 4 and 5 May
2014, which took more than 12 hours, during which time the detainees received no food or
water, and were not given access to sanitation facilities or sufficient medical care.
98.
Contrary to the statement by the Government, the source alleges that Yevhen
Mefedov was detained on 2 May 2014 at about 11 p.m. near the Trade Union House. At the
same time, according to the response of the Government, 64 persons were detained at the
House, while on 4 May 2014, only 63 of the persons detained in relation to the 2 May
violence were released illegally from the Odessa police temporary detention facility. This
information may confirm the fact that, at first, Mr. Mefedov had been detained and taken to
the Odessa police temporary detention facility. Later, owing to his bad health condition, he
was taken to the hospital by ambulance. During the medical treatment in the hospital (on 2
to 6 May 2014) he was guarded by security service officers. Therefore, he was detained on
2 May 2014, not on 6 May, as the Government states in its response. Furthermore, on 6
May 2014, security service investigators came to interrogate Mr. Mefedov and, contrary to
his doctor’s recommendations, took him from the hospital and transferred him to the court.
Therefore, Mr. Mefedov’s right to a fair trial was violated by the security service.
99.
The Government of Ukraine informed the Working Group that Sergey Doljenkov
had been detained by police on 6 May 2014, under article 208 of the Criminal Procedure
Code,2 which allows the detention of a person without a court warrant immediately after
committing a crime, on charges of taking part in the mass disorder during the 2 May
violence. Given the fact that he was detained four days after the events, the detention of Mr.
Doljenkov should have been sanctioned by a court’s decision. Furthermore, the response of
the Government did not specify Mr. Doljenkov’s health status, i.e., that he received an
2 According to article 208, a competent official has the right to apprehend an individual suspected of
committing a crime punishable by imprisonment, without a ruling by an investigating judge or court,
only in cases where: (a) the person was apprehended upon committing the criminal offence or
attempting to commit it; (b) immediately after the crime, an eye witness, including the victim, or the
individual’s body or clothing, or the scene indicates that the individual had just committed the crime.
A/HRC/WGAD/2016/37
16
injury during the 2 May violence and was not given adequate medical care after his
detention and during his transfer from Odessa to Kyiv.
100.
The Government of Ukraine did not inform the Working Group that all persons
detained in relation to the cases on the 2 May violence were pro-federalism supporters. On
16 September 2014, separate criminal cases against Sakauov, Sukhanov, Zibnytskyy,
Ilnytskyy, Posmychenko, Dzubenko, Kovshov, Romanyuk, Doljenkov, Mefedov and
Korchynskyy (held in custody since May 2014) and 10 other pro-federalism activists were
combined into one criminal case, No. 12014000000000380, for mass disorder in the city
centre, and transferred to the Primorsky District Court of Odessa. In contrary to this, none
of the pro-unity activists who had been involved into the clashes in the city centre has been
charged for participating in the clashes during the 2 May violence.
101.
Owing to high political pressure, the indictment on criminal case No.
12014000000000380 was transferred to the Malinovskyi District Court of Odessa. The
court trial against Sakauov, Sukhanov, Zibnytskyy, Ilnytskyy, Dzubenko, Kovshov,
Romanyuk, Doljenkov, Mefedov and Korchynskyy, as well as the separate case against
Posmychenko, are still ongoing.
102.
The response of the Government did not mention that the criminal court trial of
Sergey Khodiyak that started on 23 June 2015 had been violently disturbed by pro-unity
activists, mostly men, many in paramilitary uniform. The pro-federalism supporters and
relatives of the victims of the 2 May violence, mostly women and elderly people, had been
violently prevented by pro-unity activists from attending the hearings.
103.
Regarding the Viacheslav Honcharevskyi case, the response of the Government did
not mention that the measure of restraint applied to Mr. Honcharevskyi was changed on 30
August 2014, under high pressure on the panel of judges from pro-unity supporters. On 3
July 2015, following an appeal filed by victims on 17 February 2015, the Primorsky
District Court of Odessa overturned the decision of the General Prosecutor’s Office and
resumed criminal investigation. At present, the criminal case against Mr. Honcharevskyi
was still ongoing without essential progress.
104.
During the 2 May court hearings, the source alleges that numerous violations of the
right to a fair trial where committed. The court trials relating to the 2 May violence were
neither objective nor impartial. From May to July 2015, the judges received pressure from
the pro-unity movement. In addition, the source claims that a comparison between the
above-mentioned criminal cases reveals the biased attitude of the Government towards pro-
federalism activists. In particular, 10 pro-federalism defendants — Sakauov, Sukhanov,
Zibnytskyy, Ilnytskyy, Posmychenko, Dzubenko, Kovshov, Romanyuk, Doljenkov,
Mefedov and Korchynskyy — had been held in custody for more than a year without
proper evidence of their guilt while, regarding the pro-unity suspects, the courts had chosen
to apply only non-custodial measures of restraint.
105.
Criminal case No. 12014100000000154 concerning the negligence of fire brigade
officials had been launched only on 16 October 2014. More than a year after the 2 May
violence, the criminal investigation remained inadequate with poor progress over the
reporting period.
Disposition
106.
The Working Group observes that submissions from the source and from the
Government are not contradictory in nature as far as the facts are concerned. Therefore,
detentions of numerous persons resulted after the clashes between groups during the mass
disorder in Odessa on 2 May 2014.
A/HRC/WGAD/2016/37
17
107.
The Working Group notes that the information received has not been sufficiently
substantiated to enable it to take adequate action in the present case regarding the
arbitrariness of the detention of Messrs. Sakauov, Mefedov, Zibnytskyy, Kovshov,
Sukhanov, Ilnytskyy, Korchynskyy, Romanyuk, Dzubenko and Doljenkov.
108.
In the light of the preceding, the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention does not
possess enough information for a conclusion, and therefore decides to file the case without
prejudice.
[Adopted on 26 August 2016]