A/HRC/40/CRP.3 in order to remove her from the case. 83 Although the judge continues to participate in the trial,84 concerns arise about her bias towards the defendants and a likely re-trial in case of her eventual removal by the High Council of Justice, 85 which would violate the rights of the victim’s relatives and the defendants. The judge’s allegation of the interference into her professional activities merits prompt and effective investigation. 68. In an unrelated case, the car of Valentyn Rybin, a lawyer known for defending conflict-related detainees, was set on fire. 86 According to Rybin,87 the police is reluctant to investigate the attack. 69. During the reporting period, OHCHR observed violations 88 of the right to a public hearing when judges held hearings of conflict-related criminal cases in their offices instead of courtrooms89 without making these changes known to the general public 90 and thus obstructing public presence. B. Accountability for human rights violations in eastern Ukraine 70. OHCHR continued to document Ukrainian authorities’ inaction in prosecuting military officials, suspected of crimes against civilians.91 OHCHR notes that prosecutors fail to enforce defendants’ presence during trials as a general practice. 92 C. Accountability for cases of violence related to riots and public disturbances 71. OHCHR noted limited progress in legal proceedings concerning the 2014 Maidan protests and the violent events of 2 May 2014 in Odesa. 1. Accountability for the killings of protesters during the Maidan protests 72. Five years after violent clashes between law enforcement and Maidan protestors, the Special Investigations Department (SID) of the Prosecutor-General’s Office continues its probe into killings during the protests in early 2014. The SID, however, will lose its investigative functions on 20 November 2019.93 By then, all investigations conducted into the Maidan killings must be completed or transferred to the State Bureau of Investigations, which began its work on 27 November 2018. 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 20 During a session at the High Council of Justice on 9 October 2018, the judge alleged that she was made to fail the test to disqualify her from hearing Buzyna’s case. A video recording of the session is available at: http://www.vru.gov.ua/video/497. Defense lawyers requested the court to remove the judge from the case due to her allegations at the High Council of Justice on 9 October 2018. On 9 October 2018, the High Council of Justice postponed the hearing of the judge’s case. A Сar of a Defence Lawyer Rybin, Who Protected Ruban and Yezhov, Was Burned, UNIAN. Rybin’s speech on 22 January 2018, available at: https://press.liga.net/pressconf/releases/konferentsiya-peresliduvannya-ta-napadi-na-advokativ-sogodenni-realii-derjavi. OHCHR trial monitoring at the Kramatorsk city court, 5 December 2018. Courts must provide for adequate facilities for the attendance of interested members of the public. See Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 32. Art. 14, para. 28. Courts must make information regarding the time and venue of the oral hearings available to the public. See Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 32. Art. 14, para. 28. In the case of eight members of Aidar battalion tried at the Zhovtnevyi district court of Kharkiv, four years later, the court has not yet started to hear the merits of the case. In the case of an SBU officer charged with an Avdiivka resident’s killing on 4 March 2017, the prosecutor failed to enforce the dependent’s participation (via videoconference). In particular, he did not request the court to order the defendant’s detention or suspension from service. The defendant continues to serve in the SBU and has access to service firearms. Parts 1 and 2 of Chapter XI. Transitional Provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine.