the Office of the Prosecutor General and emphasizes the need for the investigation to be transparent, comprehensive and timely. 13. With respect to the incidents that took place in Odesa on 2 May, it should be noted that six official investigations have been established. The main bodies undertaking such investigations are the Ministry of Interior (MoI) and the State Security Service in Ukraine (SBU). It is with regret that the HRMMU reports a lack of cooperation from both governmental bodies, particularly at the central level with the HRMMU, which has been preventing the HRMMU from conducting a proper assessment of the progress made. The HRMMU reiterates the need for prompt and thorough investigations into the violent incidents on 2 May in Odesa. Some key questions must be addressed to ensure confidence in the investigation and to guarantee accountability, due process and to enable the communities to accept fully the results of such an investigation. Among those questions are the conduct of the police on 2 May: why it, and the fire brigade, either did not react, or were slow to react; what caused the fire in the Trade Union building; who are the perpetrators of the killings in the afternoon and the fire in the evening; and what measures are being taken to guarantee justice for the victims, and due process for the people detained in connection with these events. Furthermore, the Government must pay particular attention to ensure social media is not used for hate speech or incitement to hatred. 14. A key development during the reporting period was the Presidential election held on 25 May 2014. There were 21 candidates officially on the ballot. On 3 June, the Central Election Commission (CEC) confirmed that Mr. Petro Poroshenko had won with 54.7% of the vote. In the regions of Donetsk and Luhansk, attacks had taken place every day during the week preceding the elections and multiplied on election day, with violent obstruction of polling stations. The pattern of such attacks consisted of representatives of the “Donetsk People’s Republic” and the “Luhansk People’s Republic” and armed men entering the premises of the district election commissions, threatening staff and sometimes beating and/or abducting them, often taking away voters’ lists, computers and official documents. In some cases, the premises of these commissions were seized and blocked; others had to close either because they became inoperative, or for security reasons the staff were frightened to come back. Several attacks against district election commissions and polling stations were reported just prior to, and on, the election day, with armed men entering polling stations, forcing them to close and/or destroying or stealing ballot boxes. These illegal acts prevented many people living in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions to exercise their right to vote. 15. Residents of Crimea had to go to mainland Ukraine to vote. The HRMMU monitored the situation in the Kherson region, where most of the Crimean voters had registered, and spoke to representatives of the Crimean Tatars. As they crossed the administrative border by car to go to vote, representatives of “self-defence forces” reportedly recorded various personal details, including car license plates and passport numbers. The HRMMU was informed that many Crimean Tatars did not go to vote due to the cost of travelling, concerns about crossing the administrative border, and fear of reprisals by the authorities in Crimea. 72 | P a g e