beaten to death, but that their death was caused by carbon-monoxide gas poisoning, some unidentified chemical substance or by burns. In addition, he disclosed personal private information regarding one deceased person without prior consent from the family. The Head of the Regional Office for Forensic has regularly refused to provide information regarding the cause of death, referring to the confidentiality of the investigation. 115. The Investigation Commission is in charge of investigating the actions of the Odesa Regional Emergency Service (fire brigade). The Head of the Emergency Unit was accused of negligence, due to improper performance of his official duties (i.e. delay in deploying the fire brigade to the Trade Union building). For the purposes of the internal investigation he was temporarily dismissed. The internal and criminal investigations remain on-going. 116. The Investigation Commission has provided internal investigation documentation to families who have requested information regarding their deceased relatives. Following meetings with victims, witnesses and relatives, the HRMMU has observed a growing dissatisfaction regarding the lengthy and non-transparent investigation process. In general, witnesses shared with the HRMUU their concern about revealing information regarding the incidents. On 11 June, several claims regarding the insufficient and lengthy investigation process were brought against the Government at the Kyiv District Administrative Court. General Prosecution Investigation Unit regarding police duty performance 117. On 3 May the General Prosecution Investigation Unit launched a criminal case against police officials based on article 365 (Excess of authority or official powers) and, article 367 (Neglect of official duty) of the Criminal Code. 118. The Regional Prosecution Office confirmed the allegation regarding the inaccessibility of high ranking officials during the 2 May violence, noting that all were at the time attending a closed meeting at the request of the Deputy General Prosecutor. 119. The investigation process into 2 May violence is challenged by the fact that the main suspect, the former Deputy Head of the Regional MoI, is currently on a “wanted” list. Criminal investigation under the State Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) 120. As of 15 July, the SBU had initiated several criminal investigations under article 109 (Actions aimed at forceful change or overthrow of the constitutional order or take-over of government), article 110 (Trespass against territorial integrity and inviolability of Ukraine), and article 258-2 (Public incitement to commit a terrorist act) of the Criminal Code. The SBU arrested at least 35 people allegedly engaged in the above-mentioned criminal activities, mostly activists and supporters of the “pro-Federalism” movement. The HRMMU attended 6 court hearings and tried to establish contacts with the SBU investigators. The HRMMU regretfully underlines the lack of working cooperation from the Regional office of the SBU at the local level. 121. The Penitentiary Services administration fully cooperated with the HRMMU and has been granting access to detainees recently arrested. The HRMMU has also met with detainees’ lawyers and relatives. The HRMMU has the following concerns about actions committed by the SBU in the investigation, including violations of legal guarantees and ill treatment during the investigation process, which are as follows: (a) excessive use of force during arrest and house searches contravening fundamental human rights; (b) the illegal practice of disclosing personal data in relation to arrested foreign citizens, which violates the presumption of innocence; (c) the obligation to immediately inform the arrested person, in detail and in a language he/she understands, of the reasons for his/her 154 | P a g e