are charged under Article 115, part 1 (Intentional homicide) and Article 294, part 2 (Mass riots/unrest). The suspects included people from the Russian Federation and the Transnistrian region of the Republic of Moldova. It was announced that trials will be scheduled for the end of August. The SBU stated that five additional persons (four of whom were in detention) were suspected of committing crimes against the State during the events in Odesa. The HRMMU visited all 12 detainees in the pre-trial detention centres in Odesa, Vinnytsya and Kyiv. According to the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the cause of deaths in the Trade Union building remained unclear and required further investigation. This contradicts information provided by the Head of the Regional Forensic Office on 20 June at a public session of the Temporary Oversight Commission of the Odesa Regional Council, who stated that the causes of all deaths were determined. The information provided did not contain any new elements. Some information published by the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Office of the General Prosecutor appeared to be contradictory with regard to a number of suspects and detainees, and forensic examinations. The Office of the General Prosecutor continues to investigate police negligence on 2 and 4 May. Regarding 2 May, the main suspect (the former Deputy Head of the Regional Ministry of Internal Affairs) remains at large. Its investigation Unit is preparing materials for court hearings related to the 4 May events when detainees were “illegally” released from police custody. In this case the Head of Odesa’s City Police, the Head of the Temporary Detention Centre under the Ministry of Internal Affairs, and the Duty Officer have been notified that they are under suspicion. Members of the Independent Commission on the Investigation of the 2 May violence have expressed serious concerns about factual errors in the forensic evidence and suggested annulling all previous forensic results. All 42 people (except one body that remains unidentified) who were killed in the Trade Union building and who have been buried were identified through the use of forensic evidence. On 8 August, the Independent Commission published further conclusions, including an analysis of the police conduct during the 2 May violence. They deplore that fact that the principal initiators of the violence remain unknown and therefore enjoy impunity. (1) The Regional Ministry of Internal Affairs was well informed in advance about the tense situation in Odesa at the beginning of May, and of the plans of the pro-unity and pro-federalism activists. (2) A special police tactical plan had reportedly been approved by the Head of the Regional Ministry of Internal Affairs, and was supposed to guarantee police readiness. However, for reasons that remain unknown, this plan was not implemented. (3) The Independent Commission concludes that despite prior knowledge and planning, police forces were deployed to secure public order, for unknown reasons. In addition, the police units in the city centre were not adequately equipped to control a large gathering or mass disorder. As a result, according to official data, 14 National Guards and 50 police officers were injured or wounded. Reportedly, additional 50 police officers from other districts of the Odesa region were injured but did not register with any of the city hospitals. (4) The Independent Commission is currently studying the official State Emergency Service (fire brigade) transcript of emergency telephone calls received during the evening of the 2 May. According to the transcript, it took the fire brigade 38 minutes to arrive at Kulikove Pole (site of the violence) following the first emergency call, although it is only 5 minutes away. Every Sunday since 2 May, pro-federalism supporters gather at Kulikove Pole, the square in front of the Trade Union building. A memorial with the photos of the deceased people and candles was set up but demolished twice within 24 hours, on 19 and 20 July, by unknown people. This reflects the continued sensitivity and division following the 2 May violence, and the need for a thorough and independent investigation. 212 | P a g e