A/HRC/40/CRP.3 73. While the SID continues its work, the investigators have been stripped of labour and social protection guarantees,94 which, according to the SID Head, has had a negative impact on the work of the department.95 74. The Office of the Military Prosecutor completed its investigation into the shooting from the SBU building in Khmelnytskyi on 19 February 2014. The former Head of the Khmelnytskyi SBU, who had allegedly ordered the use of lethal force against the protestors, and the SBU officer, who had allegedly shot and killed one person and injured three protestors, have been indicted on charges of abuse of power, unintentional killing and negligent grave bodily injury. On 18 December 2018, a court ordered house arrest for the SBU officer96 but he was later released.97 2. Accountability for the 2 May 2014 violence in Odesa 75. Delays in the investigation and trial proceedings related to the 2 May 2014 violence in Odesa continue. As of 15 February 2019, almost five years after the events, which led to the deaths of 48 people, none of the state officials have been held accountable. 76. On 16 January 2019, the court of appeals for Odesa region reversed the decision of the Kyivskyi district court of Odesa to return to the prosecutor’s office the indictment against three State Emergency Service officials accused of negligence and ruled to start the trial. 77. OHCHR notes no progress in the case against the only ‘pro-unity’ activist accused of killing: two hearings were adjourned due to the court’s failure to select a jury panel and disruption of the proceedings by ‘pro-unity’ supporters. On 17 December 2018, around 3040 supporters of the defendant disrupted the hearing in the Malynovskyi district court of Odesa. When the panel of judges attempted to leave the courtroom, one of the supporters approached the presiding judge obstructing his movement and began arguing with him. The judge was only able to leave the courtroom after the defendant and his lawyer interfered. 78. The Prymorskyi district court of Odesa has not started to hear the case against three high ranking police officials accused of negligence and endangering others. On 11 October 2018, the judge ruled to merge the case with another legal proceeding against one of the accused related to the 2 May violence in Odesa. However, on 16 January 2019, the case was returned for retrial due to procedural issues. VI. Democratic/civic space and fundamental freedoms 79. During the reporting period, OHCHR documented 16 violations of the rights to freedom of opinion and freedom of expression, freedom to peaceful assembly and association, freedom of religion or belief and the right to non-discrimination. While the Ukrainian authorities were responsible for all 16 human rights violations that OHCHR documented during the reporting period, the space for freedom of expression and freedom of the media remains highly restricted in territory controlled by ‘Donetsk people’s republic’ and ‘Luhansk people’s republic’. 80. The 30-day martial law period declared in ten regions of Ukraine 98 did not lead to significant human rights limitations. However, certain martial law restrictions had direct 94 95 96 97 98 According to p. 5 of Transitional provisions of Law of Ukraine “On the Public Prosecutor's Office”, social and pension guarantees for prosecutors are extended to investigators of the Prosecutor's Office until the State Bureau of Investigations starts operating on 27 November 2018. OHCHR meeting, 13 December 2018. See the ruling of the Podilskyi district court of Kyiv of 18 December 2018 at http://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/78821440. See the ruling of the Pecherskyi district court of Kyiv of 3 January 2019 at http://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/79001111. The martial law was in force between 26 November and 26 December 2018 in ten out of 25 administrative regions of Ukraine: Vinnytsia, Luhansk, Mykolaiv, Odesa, Sumy, Kharkiv, Chernihiv, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson and the internal waters of the Azov Sea and the Kerch Strait. 21