Timely notification of reasons for arrest and charges within short period of time 63. On 15 May, the SBU apprehended five additional people. Although this took place at 9.00 a.m., the official arrest time has been recorded as 11.50 p.m. – over 12 hours later. According to Article 208/4 of the Criminal Procedure Code ‘a competent official who apprehended the person, shall be required to immediately inform the apprehended person, in a language known to him, of the grounds for the apprehension and of the commission of what crime he is suspected’. Furthermore, the procedure applied for the arrest was not in line with Articles 9.2 and 9.3 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). 64. Similarly eight people apprehended by the SBU on 27 May at the Odesa railway station did not receive prompt notification of the reasons for their arrest. Right to a fair trial 65. Law enforcement agencies resorted to an illegal practice in order to prevent prompt access to legal counsel. Indeed, during criminal interrogation procedures, police and SBU officers summoned individuals as “witness” and later then substituted their status as “suspect” and/or substituted their interrogation by interviewing. This resulted in violating the persons’ right to see and consult a legal counsel (as provided for in Article 208/4 of the Criminal Procedural Code) and gave an opportunity to “delay” the official time of apprehension. 66. For instance, the eight people who were arrested by the SBU at the Odesa railway station were transferred to the SBU for an alleged “interview”. They were not informed about their rights with regard to apprehension, nor were they provided with legal counsel, nor could they contact their lawyers before and during interrogation. 67. The HRMMU observed, based on interviews with detainees and their relatives, that the governmental Free Legal Aid scheme (established in connection with the new Criminal Procedural Code of November 2012) encountered gaps in its system. For the legal defence of detainees arrested during and after 2 May violence, the Free Legal Aid system could not provide enough lawyers. 68. As of 4 June, the legal status of the 67 “detainees” released on 4 May from Odesa city Police Station remained unclear. Due to procedural gaps following their alleged illegal release (i.e. without a court decision), they remain suspects. The measure of restraint was not applied to them as required in accordance with the Criminal Procedural Code. Right to medical care 69. In Ovidiopol and Bilhorod-Dnistrovskyi Police Stations medical care was not provided to those among the 47 detainees who required such assistance due to illness. The relatives of detainees placed in custody in the Vinnitsa pre-trial detention centre also reported about the lack of medical care provided to their kin. Personal data 70. Concerns have been raised with the HRMMU that on 19 May, the presumption of innocence may have been violated during an official press conference of the MoI, by the Deputy Minister of Interior/Head of Main Investigation Unit by disclosing personal data 81 | P a g e