The Panel’s
detailed conclusions are set out below:
A - Conclusions concerning the investigations prior to 22 February 2014
The Panel concludes that there was
no genuine attempt, prior to 22 February 2014, to pursue investigations into the acts of violence during the Maidan demonstrations.
The lack of genuine investigations during the three months of the demonstrations inevitably meant that the
investigations did not begin promptly and this constituted, of itself, a substantial challenge for the investigations which took place thereafter and on which the Panel’s review has principally focused.
B - Conclusions concerning the investigations after 22 February 2014
As regards the challenges facing the investigations:
The challenges confronting those responsible for the Maidan investigations since 22 February 2014 have been significant and their impact on the investigations
cannot be under-estimated. However, these challenges
cannot excuse any failings which did not inevitably flow from them. The authorities of the present government clearly were, and are under, an obligation to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the investigations comply with Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention.
As regards the independence of the investigations:
The Panel notes the numerous calls to introduce an independent and effective mechanism within Ukraine for investigations of crimes committed by law enforcement officers. The need for such a mechanism is highlighted by the crimes committed during the Maidan demonstrations.
The Panel concludes that,
in certain important respects, the investigations into the Maidan cases
lacked practical independence in circumstances where the investigating body belonged to the same authority as those under investigation. The Panel further considers that the appointment post-Maidan of certain officials to senior positions in the Ministry of Interior (MoI) contributed to the lack of appearance of independence and
served to undermine public confidence in the readiness of the MoI to investigate the crimes committed during Maidan.
As regards the effectiveness of the investigations:
Staffing and resources in the PGO. The Panel concludes that
the number of PGO investigators involved in the Maidan investigations during 2014 was wholly inadequate.
Allocation of the investigative work. The Panel
did not consider the allocation of investigative work between the PGO, on the one hand, and the Kyiv City Prosecutor’s Office and the MoI, on the other,
to be coherent or efficient. Nor did the Panel find the PGO’s supervision of the investigative work of the Kyiv City Prosecutor’s Office to have been effective.
MoI co-operation with the PGO. Co-operation by the MoI was crucial to the effectiveness of the PGO investigations.
The Panel concludes that there are strong grounds to believe that the MoI attitude to the PGO has been unco-operative and, in certain respects, obstructive. While the PGO complained to the MoI, the Panel considers that not all necessary steps were taken by the PGO to ensure effective co-operation by the MoI in the investigations.
State Security Service of Ukraine (SSU) co-operation with the PGO. SSU co-operation was also important to the effectiveness of the PGO investigations. While the Panel has noted a reticence on the part of the PGO to investigate thoroughly the possible responsibility of the SSU at an operational level, it considers that
there are grounds to believe that the SSU failed adequately to co-operate with the PGO and that this had a negative impact on the investigations into the counter-Maidan operation of the SSU.
The role of the courts. The Panel concludes that
the decisions of the Pecherskyi District Court, the main court of jurisdiction in many Maidan-related proceedings, failed to comply with the requirements of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, undermined aspects of the effectiveness of the Maidan investigations and, more generally, weakened the deterrent effect of the judicial system in place.
The investigation of Berkut officers - an illustrative example. The Panel considers that
this example, relating as it does to the most serious episode of Maidan-related violence, is illustrative of a lack of co-operation and obstruction by the MoI which seriously impeded progress in this key investigation.
The Panel also has serious concerns about the failure to notify additional Berkut officers of suspicion during the mandate of Mr Yarema, the then Prosecutor General.
Amnesty. The Panel would stress that
the grant of amnesties or pardons to law enforcement officers in relation to unlawful killings or acts of ill-treatment would be incompatible with Ukraine’s obligations under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention.
Och kritiken fortsätter:
As regards requirement of promptness and of reasonable expedition:
As regards public scrutiny of the investigations:
/.../While
some efforts were made, the Panel found that
there was no such communication policy in place, as a result of which the information delivered to the public was insufficient. This failure by the authorities undermined the role of public scrutiny in securing accountability and, in addition, failed to satisfy the public’s right to know what happened during the Maidan demonstrations.
As regards involvement of victims and next-of-kin:
As regards the Panel’s evaluation of the current status of investigations:
The Panel considers that
substantial progress has not been made in the investigations into the violent incidents during the Maidan demonstrations.
While this outcome can be explained to some extent by the contextual challenges to those investigations,
the Panel considers that the serious investigative deficiencies identified in this Report have undermined the authorities’ability to establish the circumstances of the Maidan-related crimes and to identify those responsible.
https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?Ref=DC-PR042%282015%29&Language=lanEnglish&Ver=original&S ite=DC&BackColorInternet=F5CA75&BackColorIntranet= F5CA75&BackColorLogged=A9BACE
