arrest and any charges against him/her, as well as of the right to have the assistance of legal counsel, receive medical assistance free of charge, not to be compelled to testify against him/herself or confess guilt, inform promptly other persons about his/her arrest or detention and whereabouts, in accordance with the provisions of applicable international human rights law and the Ukrainian Criminal Procedure Code; (d) the failure to provide written notice of charges to the arrested person within 24 hours after the apprehension in accordance with article 278 of the Criminal Procedure Code; (e) the use of psychological intimidation and threats (in some case sexual threats) in order to obtain information. Special Parliamentary Commission Group 122. The Special Parliamentary Commission continues to investigate the facts of mass murder. As of 15 July, it had held 9 sessions. The Head of the Commission informed the HRMMU that the members met with witnesses, victims, relatives and doctors. In addition the commission received a written statement from the former Deputy Head of the Odesa Regional MoI), who remains at large. All the collected documentation has been shared with the Office of the General Prosecutor. In addition, the request for foreign experts was raised. The Commission plans to present its preliminary findings in September. Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights (Ombudsperson Office) 123. The Ombudsperson’s Office has finalized its findings regarding the 2 May violence and concluded that the positive obligations of Ukraine to protect human rights (the rights to life and to liberty and security of the person and the freedom of peaceful assembly) were violated during the 2 May incidents. Moreover, the Ombudsperson concluded that the Head of the Regional MoI Odesa did not fulfil his mandatory duty to initiate the special police tactical plan “Khvylia”. This neglect resulted in a high number of victims. The Ombudsperson appealed to the Office of the General Prosecutor to investigate the law enforcement agencies performance of duty during 2-4 May, and launch a criminal investigation against responsible officials. Independent Commission investigating the 2 May violence 124. The Independent Commission including civil society activists, journalists and experts, continued to gather information on 2 May violence. Witnesses mentioned to the HRMMU that they feel more comfortable to share information with this Commission. Several conclusions of the Commission were already broadly publicised, including the chronology of the events in the city centre, which tend to counter numerous rumours and allegations. In the course of their investigation, the Commission members requested MoI, the State Agency on Emergency Situation and the Centre of Forensic Examination for information, with no success to date. The Commission intends to take legal action against these agencies: in accordance with the law “On access to public information” (2939-17, dated 2011), information has to be shared. Temporary Oversight Commission on the 2 May violence of Odesa Regional Council 125. The Temporary Oversight Commission on the 2 May violence has been working in close cooperation with the Special Parliamentary Commission Group. Since its establishment, this Commission held two hearings to monitor the criminal investigation process. Its conclusions were presented to the Odesa Regional Council. It deplored the fact that the SBU and the Regional Prosecution Office were not always fully cooperating. According to the statement of this Commission, based on the MoI criminal investigation there are four scenarios that triggered the 2 May violence: (1) actions committed by radical groups to destabilize the situation in the Odesa region and in other regions of Ukraine; (2) attempts by local authorities to discredit the Government; (3) uncontrolled 155 | P a g e