ODESSA MASSACRE:
COUNCIL OF EUROPE
FINDS KIEV JUNTA
"INVESTIGATIONS"
INADEQUATE:
The report of the International Advisory Panel on its review of the investigations into the tragic events in Odessa of May 2014 has been published by the Council of Europe.
The Panel has found
that the investigations have failed to satisfy the requirements of the European
Convention of Human Rights.
The clashes in the centre of Odessa and the fire in the
Trade Union Building on 2 May 2014 resulted in at least 48 deaths and injuries
to several hundred others.
The Ukrainian Junta in Kiev was obliged by international
pressure to initiate three investigations. The first investigation covers the
conduct of the police on 2 May 2014 and the release of detainees on 4 May 2014
after protesters attacked the local police station. The second investigation
focuses on the mass disorder in the city centre, and the fire in the Trade
Union Building. The third one investigates the conduct of the State Emergency
Service (SES) staff during the fire.
Press release of the Council of Europe:
Investigation of May 2014 events in Odessa failed to
comply with requirements of European Human Right Convention, says International
Advisory Panel’s report
Kiev, 04.11.2015
The clashes in the centre of Odessa and the fire in the
Trade Union Building on 2 May 2014 resulted in 48 deaths and injuries to
several hundreds of persons.
The Ukrainian authorities initiated three investigations. The
Panel found that the investigations faced significant challenges but noted that
these challenges “cannot excuse any failings which did not inevitably flow from
them”. The authorities were, and are under, an obligation to take all
reasonable steps to ensure that the investigations comply with Article 2 (Right
to life) and Article 3(Prohibition of torture and inhuman and degrading
treatment) of the Convention.
The Panel considered that the second and third investigations lacked institutional and practical independence. Given the evidence indicative of police complicity in the mass disorder of 2 May 2014 and the hierarchical relationship between the SES and the Ministry of the Interior, the investigations as a whole should have been carried by an organ independent of the Ministry.
The Panel considered that the second and third investigations lacked institutional and practical independence. Given the evidence indicative of police complicity in the mass disorder of 2 May 2014 and the hierarchical relationship between the SES and the Ministry of the Interior, the investigations as a whole should have been carried by an organ independent of the Ministry.
The Panel further considered that the investigations were
ineffective for a number of reasons: in particular, the division of the
investigative work was inefficient and the resources allocated were inadequate.
The quality of the investigation was also deficient, the authorities failing to
show sufficient thoroughness and diligence in initiating and pursuing the
investigations. The “most striking example of a lack of diligence”, in the
Panel’s view, was that the first real efforts to investigate an unexplained
delay of over 40 minutes in the arrival of fire-fighters to the Trade Union
Building, were not made until December 2014.
The Panel also addressed the question of the prosecution and
trial of suspects. It expressed serious concern about the decisions to
terminate the proceedings against two suspects on the grounds of lack of
evidence and noted that the repeated recusals of judges had delayed the start
of criminal proceedings, and that the decision to charge 21 persons in a single
indictment without individualising the charges against them had had an adverse
impact on the proceedings.
As for the public scrutiny of the investigations and the
involvement of the victims and next-of-kin, the Panel acknowledged that the
authorities had promptly provided the public with basic information and facts
but found some shortcomings, the most serious being the lack of consistency,
evenness and regularity of the information provided. In contrast to the Maidan
investigations, the authorities did not take any co-ordinated measures directly
and regularly to inform the victims and next-of-kin about the progress of the
investigations.
The Panel concluded that, as a result of these investigative
deficiencies, substantial progress had not been made in the investigations into
the violent events in Odessa on 2 May 2014.
The International Advisory Panel was constituted by the
Secretary General of the Council of Europe in April 2014, initially to oversee
the Maidan violence investigations. In September 2014, the Panel’s mandate was
extended to examine whether the Odessa investigations met all the requirements
of the European Convention on Human Rights and the case-law of the European
Court.
SUMMARY OF THE PANEL’S CONCLUSIONS
Based on its review of the investigations into the violent
events in Odessa on 2 May 2014, the Panel has reached the following
conclusions.
As regards the challenges facing the investigations:
The challenges confronting those responsible for the
investigations into the events in Odessa on 2 May 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 clearly were, and are, under an obligation to take all
reasonable steps to ensure that the investigations comply with the requirements
of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention.
As regards the independence of the investigations:
Given the evidence
indicative of police complicity in the mass disorder of 2 May 2014 in Odessa,
Articles 2 and 3 require that the investigation into the mass disorder as a
whole be carried out by an organ entirely independent from the police.
Similarly, the investigation into the conduct of the fire service cannot be
regarded as independent, given the structural links between the SES and the
MoI. These concerns again highlight the need for an independent and effective
mechanism for the investigation of serious human rights violations committed by
law enforcement officers and other public officials.
In addition, the Panel considers that it is of central
importance for the purposes of maintaining the confidence of all sectors of the
public in the criminal justice system that the authorities, including the
judicial authorities, are seen to act in an impartial and equal manner in the
conduct of the investigations and court proceedings.
As regards the effectiveness of the investigations:
Organisation of the investigative work: The Panel
finds the division of investigative work between the PGO and the MoI to be
inefficient and detrimental to the effectiveness of the investigations, given
that they concern the same set of closely connected events and overlap to a
certain extent as regards evidence, witnesses and victims. The Panel also finds
that the quality, progress and effectiveness of the investigations were
affected by the decision to allocate the investigation of the actions of the
SES to the local MoI, which remained inactive during the crucial early stages.
Staffing and resources: The Panel finds it
commendable that both the PGO and the MoI have sought to ensure continuity as
regards the main investigators in Odesa. However, it finds that the reduction
of each authority’s investigating team has had a detrimental effect on the
progress, quality and effectiveness of investigations and it considers the
current staffing levels to be inadequate.
Quality of the investigations: The Panel finds that,
in respect of each of the matters under investigation, the relevant authorities
failed to show sufficient thoroughness and diligence in initiating and/or
pursuing the investigations, with the result that their overall effectiveness
was compromised.
Prosecution and trial: The Panel expresses serious
concern about the decisions to terminate the proceedings against two suspects
on the grounds of lack of evidence.
The Panel finds that the repeated refusals of judges led to
delays in the commencement of the criminal proceedings as a whole. The Panel
further finds that the decision to charge 21 individuals in a single
indictment, without individualising the charges, has contributed to the delay
and risks having an adverse impact on the progress of the court proceedings.
As regards requirement of promptness and of reasonable
expedition:
The Panel considers that the investigation into the conduct
of the SES staff was neither promptly commenced nor pursued with reasonable
expedition. The investigations into the mass disorder and the fire on 2 May
2014 and into the conduct of the police on 2 and 4 May 2014, while promptly
instituted, have been subject to a number of deficiencies that have
significantly protracted the investigative response.
As regards public scrutiny of the investigations:
The Panel considers that the events in Odessa on 2 May 2014
were of such importance that the authorities were required to provide
sufficient information about the investigations to facilitate meaningful public
scrutiny. While the authorities provided a considerable amount of information,
there was no effective communication policy in place, with the result that some
of the information provided was difficult to understand, inconsistent, and
unevenly presented and was provided with insufficient regularity.
As regards involvement of victims and next-of-kin:
The Panel’s role is not to determine whether the
investigation of an individual case satisfied the requirements of the
Convention and, in this regard, it limits its conclusions to recalling the
case-law of the European Court relating to the involvement of victims and
next-of-kin in any criminal investigation.
The Panel notes with regret that, in contrast to the Maidan
investigations, the investigatory authorities did not take any co-ordinated
measures directly and regularly to ensure that victims and next-of-kin were
informed about the progress of the investigations. It finds that the information
provided to the general public was not of itself sufficient to protect the
rights and legitimate interests of the 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 events in Odessa on 2 May
2014.While this outcome may be explained to some extent by the contextual
challenges, the Panel considers that the deficiencies identified in this Report
have undermined the authorities’ ability to establish the circumstances of the Odessa-related
crimes and to bring to justice those responsible.
Council of Europe Directorate of Communications
Kiev, 04.11.2015
The Advisory Panel's full report can be accessed here:
No comments:
Post a Comment