search  
print
20.09.2005 | Yevhen Zakharov, Irina Rapp

Access to information about illegal actions committed by police officers within law enforcement bodies of the Ministry of Internal Affairs

   

The problem of torture and cruel treatment and other illegal actions committed by officers of law enforcement bodies of the Ministry of Internal Affairs (MIA) has not lost its urgency, and the Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group (hereafter KHRG) is continuing its analysis of this issue.  We therefore sent MIA and to all 27 regional departments of MIA (RDMIA) formal requests for information regarding the reactions of MIA agencies to violations of human rights by officers of their agencies.

  To our requests sent in 2001 when the information sought covered the period 1998-2000 and the first half of 2001, we received only ten responses, of which a mere three RDMIA (Volyn, Donetsk and Kharkiv regions) answered all our questions and provided full information; four RDMIA (Vinnytsa, Poltava, Cherkasy and Chernihiv regions) gave part of the information; two RDMIA (Dnipropetrovsk and Kirovohrad regions) classified the information requested as confidential, while the Ministry itself suggested that we address our request for information to the General Prosecutor and the State Committee on Statistics. 18 regional departments of MIA did not respond at all to the requests for information.

  On 30.12.2003, a request for information (the text is given below) was sent to MIA and to all 27 regional departments of the police. Within the one month time limit, we received eleven responses, of which six (MIA, the Central Department of MIA of the Crimean Autonomous Republic, the RDMIA in Donetsk, Zaporizhye, Kharkiv, Cherkasy regions) contain at least in part the information requested. Five RDMIA on various pretexts did not provide the information - the Central Department of MIA for the city of Kyiv answered only the third point in the request, without giving any explanation as to the first two points; the RDMIA for the Kirovohrad region informed that this was “internal departmental official documentation which can therefore not be made public”; the Ternopil regional department recommended that we approach the department of information technology of MIA of Ukraine;  the RDMIA in the Chernihiv region informed that they had the information, but that given that RDMIA answered to MIA, it was necessary to approach MIA itself for access; the Poltava RDMIA on the other hand stated that “no records are taken of information in the specific area the request for information focuses on”, and therefore the information cannot be provided.

  On 17.03.2004 a second request was sent to those regions or areas which had not responded to the request for information of 30.12.2003.  We received ten more responses, of which only two (from the RDMIA in Transcarpathia and Sumy regions) contained part of the information (a record for the number of complaints from individuals is not kept). Four RDMIA deemed the information requested to be secret (Mikolayiv, Odessa, Chernivtsi regions classified it as confidential, while Ivano-Frankivsk considered it “For official use only” (OU). The Dnipropetrovsk RDMIA considers it to be official information which is provided by the relevant services of MIA. The Rivne regional administration claims that no records are kept of such information, while the Vinnytsa RDMIA cannot provide the information without agreeing this with MIA.  The Central Department of MIA for the city of Kyiv said that they had sent us their response, however we received no letter from this department.

  Since all refusals to provide information were clearly formal and illegal, on 5 July 2004, a letter was sent to the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine with a request to use the necessary measures to ensure that substantive responses were provided by those departments which had either not responded at all, or had refused to provide information.  To the MIA’s credit, its personnel department gave instructions to all the departments we named in our letter to provide a substantive response.  After this, it transpired that five regional departments had allegedly already sent substantive responses which we however had not received (the RDMIA in Luhansk, Lviv, Kherson, Khmelnytsky regions, as well as of the city of Sevastopol, while the RDMIA in the Volyn region claimed to have not received our requests for information from 30.12.2003 and 17.03.2004, although we had received notification that it had been received and signed for by an authorized individual from that RDMIA).

  As a result of the instructions from MIA, eight substantive responses were received, of which only the Odessa and Ternopil regional departments provided full information, while six (the RDMIA in Zhytomyr, Dnipropetrovsk, Ivano-Frankivsk, Kirovograd, Chernivtsi and Chernihiv regions) gave information about those convicted of offences, but said that records were not kept as to complaints lodged by individuals.

  When the deadline for responses following the instructions from MIA had passed, we addressed for the third time those departments which had not replied or had not provided copies of the responses they had supposedly sent us. We received replies from all those departments, except the RDMIA for the Kyiv region which persisted in not providing a copy of their letter.  The response from the Volyn Regional Department was also startling.  Whereas it had provided the required information in 2001, it now initially informed MIA that it had not received the requests from us (although we had received notification that it had been received and signed for by an authorized member of staff from that RDMIA both on 2 January 2004 and 22 March 2004, but then in response to our third request from 24 September 2004 informed, in a letter signed by the acting Head of the first police unit, O. Trokhymchuk, that the information we had requested was confidential under Article 30 of the Law “On information”.

  At this point we have received more or less informative responses from all regional departments of MIA. Since Article 30 of the Law of Ukraine “On information” specifically prohibits classifying the information requested in the letters from the Chief Editor of “Prava Ludyny” [“Human Rights”] as confidential, a fourth request for information, dated 22.10.04 (a copy of which can be found below) was sent to the Head of the Regional Department of MIA for the Volyn Region.  This request, according to the postal confirmation of receipt, signed by the same authorized staff member, was received on 29.10.04.  However the reply, signed by the Deputy Head of the RDMIA, V.A. Matviyenko, was dated 28.10.04, and informed that we had already “been informed three times”. Clearly this assertion contradicts the response of this very department to the Personnel Department where they stated that they had received no request for information from us. No explanation as to our arguments, still less any refutation of them is given, however the conclusion reads “no grounds are found for altering the decision taken”.

  Our correspondence began on 30.12.2003 and continued for 9 months. As a result, we received substantive responses from MIA and 22 regional departments and from Sevastopol. The Rivne Regional Department and the Department of the MIA for the city of Kyiv do not keep records for the number of offences committed by their employees.  The Kyiv Regional Department never did send the copy of their response supposedly once sent to us (then, perhaps it never existed).

  All of this saga of letter-writing clearly illustrates the attitude of regional departments of MIA to appeals from the public and to transparency of their activity (cf. Table 1).  The answers of the RDMIA of the Poltava Region are extremely telling. Our first request for information from 30.12.04 received a formalist standard reply, dated 15.01.04, stating that “in accordance with established departmental statistical record keeping, there is no provision for keeping records in the area about which you have requested information”.  After our appeal to MIA to use the necessary measures to ensure that we were given substantive responses, we received notification from MIA that during August 2004, the copies of responses with the information requested should be sent, including that from the Poltava RDMIA.  However, by 29.09.04, no answer from the Poltava Region had been forthcoming, so another request for information was sent, dated 29.09.04 to the Poltava RDMIA, referring to the letter from MIA. It was only after this that a letter was received, dated 15.10.04, supposedly a copy of a letter from 27.01.04, signed by the same Head of the Department, this time actually giving the information requested. It turns out that almost suddenly, in the space of only twelve days, the information appeared or the attitude to transparency of their activity changed.  Both assumptions are highly dubious, particularly given that then, in January and February, we did not receive this letter. Therefore, to be honest, the statistics regarding a reduction in the number of confirmed complaints about illegal actions of police officers of the Poltava Region, from 13% in 2001 to 4% in 2003 do not inspire any great confidence.

  As for the information provided (cf. Table 1), in thirteen departments no records are kept of complaints about illegal actions of police officers (MIA, the Central Department of MIA of the Autonomous Republic of the Crimea, the regional departments of MIA for the Vinnystsa, Dnipropetrovsk, Zhytomyr, Transcarpathia, Ivano-Frankivsk, Kirovohrad, Lviv, Rivne, Chernivtsi and Chernihiv regions and the department for Kyiv).  This means, clearly, that there are also no figures for disciplinary measures taken over verified complaints. This in turn does not improve the attitude held by the population towards police officers and does not raise the level of confidence which the law enforcement bodies are themselves so concerned about, there being a special Order of the Ministry of Internal Affairs on improving the image of police officers. It is therefore hardly surprising that human rights organizations and the mass media receive countless complaints about illegal actions of police officers and about the lack of any action taken in response by law enforcement agencies, the Prosecutor and the courts.

  The maximum number of complaints about illegal actions of police officers is found in the most powerful industrial areas of Ukraine - Luhansk region (1,800 complaints a year), Donetsk region (1300), Zaporizhye region (800). Of these, the percentage of verified cases comprised 15% in the Luhansk region, 27% in the Donetsk region, and 41% in the Zaporizhye region.  The highest figures for disciplinary measures taken for violations of civil rights were in the Donetsk region 41-194 officers, in the Zaporizhye region - 3-5 officers, while MIA for the Luhansk region does not record this information at all. The maximum number of of verified cases is observed in the Sumy region - 54% on average, and in the Kherson region - 46%, however records are not kept of how many faced disciplinary measures (maybe no one did?) The lowest numbers of verified complaints are in the Kharkiv region (3% on average) and in Sevastopol (7%), while the figures regarding disciplinary measures in these regions are relatively high (20 - 30 officers).

  The best correlation between the number of complaints about illegal actions of police officers and the number of disciplinary charges brought as a consequence can be found in the Ternopil region - the number of disciplinary charges for civil rights violations coincides with the number for the Donetsk region, although the number of complaints in the Ternopil region is almost four times lower.  If one were to choose this figure as the criterion of the quality of police work, then the activity of the Ternopil RDMIA, from the point of view of respect for the law and adherence to civil rights should be rated highly. Other regions where this figure was also high were the Khmelnytsky, Kharkiv, Odessa regions and Sevastopol.

  It is somewhat odd that the figures for the first half of 2001, received in 2001 from the Kharkiv RDMIA, stating that disciplinary measures were brought against 61 officers for legal infringements do not coincide with the response for 2004 which states that for the whole of 2001 52 officers had disciplinary measures taken against them. There is an even bigger difference in the same figures, cited by the Donetsk RDMIA - according to their statistics for 2001, in the first half of 2001 disciplinary measures were brought against 568 officers, whereas the statistics for 2004 claim that for all of 2001, such measures were taken against 194 officers. Incidentally, from the 13 regions which record and investigate complaints from the public about illegal actions of police officers, in only 8 regions (Donetsk, Zaporizhye, Odessa, Ternopil, Kharkiv, Khelmnytsky, Cherkasy regions and Sevastopol) are the numbers of employees against whom disciplinary measures have been taken recorded, which shows baffling lack of consistency from those in charge of the police departments.  All the more given that the Ministry does not keep such statistics either, and can therefore not evaluate, in terms of observance and protection of human rights in the activity of their subordinates, this activity and the image of the entire police system and in this way carry out any measures to improve the police’s performance and their image.

  With regard to convictions of law enforcement officers for flagrant violations of human rights, from the information provided by bodies of MIA, it would seem that no employee has been convicted under Article 373 of the Criminal Code (Article 175 of the Criminal Code in the 1960 version) for using coercion to extract evidence. This is despite the fact that complaints about physical and psychological violence committed by police officers against those suspected or already charged with a crime are not infrequent. In almost all regions for this period there have been convictions of police officers under Article 365 of the Criminal Code (Article 166 of the Criminal Code in the 1960 version) for exceeding their official authority, with the most such convictions in the Zaporizhye region (7, 3, 5) - 15 individuals although if one considers the level of complaint and the percentage of verified cases of illegal actions of police officers, this region has average figures. In the Sumy region, where the number of verified complaints is over 50%, there has not been one conviction.

  In general, both the level of complaints and verified complaints, and the number of law enforcement officers convicted of illegal actions in all regions have dropped significantly.

  However the fact that the figures for 2001 - 2004 in responses to requests for information do not tally with the statistics for 2001 (in the Donetsk and Kharkiv regions) gives grounds for generally doubting these trends. Nonetheless, the fact that, albeit with the help of the Ministry, we received substantive responses from almost all regional departments allows one to hope that in this system of the law enforcement agencies an understanding of transparency in its activity may help to ensure an increase in public confidence in the police force and will in this way lead to an improvement in its work.

We provide a table broken down into types of violations of legality (Table 4), which we received from the Chernihiv RDMIA, which makes it very easy to observe which violations occur most often so that it is clear the direction which needs to be taken to bring about their eradication. Unfortunately, the RDMIA in the Chernihiv region itself does not provide information about the consequences of its statistics.

Appendices

1  № 274/03  30 December 2003

  To the Head of the Regional Department

Dear Sir,

I am one of the Chairs of the non-governmental organisation “The Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group” (KHRG).  The organisation prepares analytical surveys for its journal “Prava Ludyny” (“Human Rights”) on the situation as regards human rights in Ukraine, in particular, issues related to the lawfulness of activities of law enforcement officers of the Ministry of Internal Affairs (MIA), as well as those of the State Penal Department.  In US State Department Country Reports on Human Rights Practices on Ukraine for the years 2000, 2001 and 2002, it is claimed, in my opinion mistakenly, that “Police and prison officials tortured and beat detainees and prisoners.”  From my observations, claims made by those awaiting trial or convicted that they were beaten by the staff of pre-trial detention centres or of penal institutions are relatively rare.  Reports, however, of beatings of those detained by officers of detective inquiry units are quite frequent.  In accordance with Article 40 of the Constitution of Ukraine, Articles 28, 29, 32, 33 of the Law “On Information, Articles 35, 36 of the Law “On Printed Mass Communication Media (the Press) in Ukraine”, I would ask you to provide us with the following information in written form:

1.   The number of law enforcement officers in your region who were convicted under Articles 365 or 373 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (Articles 166 and 175 of the Criminal Code in the 1960 version) in 2001, 2002 and the first half of 2003.  If such offences took place, please specify in which year and under which Article. 

Could you please also provide details about the number of officers of law enforcement bodies of MIA against whom disciplinary measures were taken for unwarranted actions towards people they had detained.

2  The number of complaints made about wrongful actions of officers of law enforcement bodies in your region, the number of verified complaints, the number of officers against whom disciplinary or criminal proceedings were launched for wrongful actions in 2001, 2002, and the first half of 2003, the number of convictions.

3  The number of warrants issued by prosecutor’s offices in accordance with Part 3 of Article 263 of the Administrative Offences Code (OAC) of Ukraine for administrative detention for a period of over three days; the number of cases of administrative detention of over three hours which were reported to the prosecutor.  (In accordance with Article 263 of OAC “individuals who have violated regulations related to the use of drugs or psychotropic  substances can be detained for up to three hours in order to prepare a protocol and, where necessary, to establish identity, undergo a medical examination, ascertain how the drugs or psychotropic substances were obtained, and to examine the latter.  They can be detained for up to three days where the prosecutor has been informed in writing within 24 hours of the moment of detention, or for a period up to ten days with a warrant from the prosecutor if the offenders do not have documents confirming their identity. 

We would ask that you send the information requested to the following address:

Yevhen Yukhimovich Zakharov

61002 Kharkiv,  Ivanova Street 27, flat 4

Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

Yours faithfully,

Y.Y. Zakharov

Co-Chair of the Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group, Chief Editor of the bulletin “Prava Ludyny” [“Human Rights”], Member of the Directorate of the International Association ‘Memorial’

2  № 165/04  22 October 2004 р.

To the Head of the Regional Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs for the Volyn region

Vynnychenko Street, 11

Lutsk, 43000

Dear Sir,

Thank  you for your response to my request for information which I sent you a third time after the MIA informed me that you had apparently not received any requests for information from us, although I had received confirmation that the requests had been delivered signed by an authorized staff member.

  I was, however, very surprised by your refusal to provide information on the grounds of its confidentiality, which came in the letter signed by the acting Head of the first police unit, O. Trokhymchuk, since the Ministry had instructed those regional bodies which had not provided responses, to give a substantive reply to my request for information as seen in the MIA letter, a copy of which was sent on 13.09.2004, together with the third request.

  As regards Article 30 of the Law of Ukraine “On information” (with additions from 11.05.2004), paragraphs 4 and 5 of Part 4 of this Article prohibit the classification as confidential of information: “about the situation as regards human and civil rights and freedoms, as well as cases where these are violated; “about illegal actions by State executive bodies, bodies of local self-government, their officials and functionaries”.

  Article 32 of this law obliges State bodies to provide information about their activities in response to requests from the public.

It is worth pointing out that only your department considers the information requested to be confidential. Incidentally, in response to my request in 2001 your department provided a substantive response to all questions of the same nature.

I would therefore ask you to nonetheless provide the information in its substance according to the request for information from 30.12.2003, a copy of which is again enclosed, or to explain the grounds, as well as at whose initiative, de-personalized information about the violation of legality and of human rights by employees of law enforcement bodies can be classified as confidential.

I would ask that you send the information requested to the following address:

Yevhen Yukhimovich Zakharov

61002 Kharkiv,  Ivanova Street 27, flat 4

I will be very grateful for your cooperation.

Yours faithfully,

Y.Y. Zakharov

Co-Chair of the Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group, Chief Editor of the bulletin “Prava Ludyny” [“Human Rights”]

Table 1

Regional departments of MIA

Request 1

Request 2

Date of response following instructions from MIA

Date of response

Request 3

Date of delivery

Response

Date of delivery

Response

Date of delivery

Response

Autonomous Republic of the Crimea

03.01.04

23.01.04

Vinnytsa region

08.01.04

22.03.04

Advice to approach MIA

August 2004

29.0.04

08.10.04

Volyn region

02.01.04

22.03.04

13.09.04

24.09.04

Dnipropetrovsk region

08.01.04

22.03.04

Advice to approach MIA

August 2004

10.08.04

Donetsk region.

05.01.04

19.01.04

Zhytomyr region.

08.01.04

22.03.04

August 2004

25.08.04

Transcarpathia region

08.01.04

22.03.04

31.03.04

Zaporizhye region

05.01.04

06.02.04

IIvano-Frankivsk region

05.01.04

22.03.04

OU 21.04.04

August 2004

25.08.04

Kyiv region

08.01.04

22.03.04

Claim to have responded

August 2004

14.09.04

Kirovohrad region.

05.01.04

Conf. 09.01.04

August 2004

04.08.04

Luhansk region.

08.01.04

22.03.04

Claim to have responded in August 2004

14.09.04

24.09.04

Lviv region.

05.01.04

22.03.04

Claim to have responded in August 2004

14.09.04

29.09.04

Миколаївська обл.

22.03.04

16.04.04

August 2004

14.09.04

11.10.04

Odessa region

05.01.04

24.03.04

Conf. 04.04.04

August 2004

26.08.04

Poltava region

02.01.04

15.01.04 No records kept

August 2004

01.10.04

29.10.04

Rivne region

05.01.04

22.03.04

03.05.04

Sumy region

05.01.04

22.03.04

Copy 01.04.04

Ternopil region

02.01.04

Advice to approach MIA 02.02.04

August 2004

05.08.04

Kharkiv region

05.01.04

14.01.04

Kherson region

08.01.04

22.03.04

August 2004

Claim to have responded

14.09.04

23.09.04

Khmelnytsky region

08.01.04

22.03.04

August 2004

Claim to have responded

 14.09.04

 29.09.04

Cherkasy region

05.01.04

27.01.04

Chernivtsi region

05.01.04

22.03.04

Conf. 13.04.04

August 2004

06.08.04

Chernihiv region.

05.01.04

Advice to approach MIA 06.02.04

August 2004

29.07.04

Kyiv

08.01.04

10.02.04

Sevastopol

08.01.04

22.03.04

August 2004

Claim to have responded

14.09.04

29.10.04

Ministry of Internal Affairs

08.01.04

14.02.04

Conf.   Confidential information

OU  “for official use only”

Table 2

Regional Department of MIA

Punishment for illegal actions

Complaints about illegal actions

2001 .

2002

First Ѕ 2003

2001

2002

First Ѕ 2003

Article 166

Disciplin-ary measures

Article 166

Disciplin-ary measures

Article 166

Disciplinary measures

total

verified

total

verified

total

verified

Autonomous Republic of the Crimea

4

5

3

No records kept

Vinnytsa region

1

No records

1

2

No records kept

Volyn region

Confidential information

Dnipropetrovsk region.

3

1

-

No records kept

Donetsk region

4

194

-

89

1

41

1601

508

1307

319

650

154

Zhytomyr region.

1

1

1

No records kept

Transcarpathia region

2

-

-

No records kept

Zaporizhye region

7

3

5

851

558

838

229

350

109

Ivano-Frankivsk region

4

No records kept - the competence of the Prosecutor’s office

Kyiv region

Kirovohrad region

-

2

-

No records kept

Luhansk region

2

No records

4

4

1844

373

1823

191

348

54

Lviv region

4

-

1

No records kept

Mikolayiv region

1

1

-

219

137

256

38

264

48

Odessa region

-

57

-

43

2

22

102

40

147

41

78

14

Poltava region

2

1

-

266

34

446

32

357

14

Rivne region

No records kept

Sumy region.

-

-

-

401

234

311

153

136

75

Ternopil region

1

164

-

202

-

49

495

158

398

190

124

35

Kharkiv region

4

52

1

32

-

23

480

23

434

13

496

6

Kherson region

2

4

4

653

340

544

208

355

175

Khmelnytsky region

-

89

-

103

-

115

336

77

296

80

336

56

Cherkasy region

Total number of disciplinary measures. 129

total: 1895 verified: 316

Chernivtsi region

1

-

3

No records kept

Chernihiv region

4

-

3

No records kept

Kyiv

No records kept

Sevastopol

1

23

-

27

-

32

235

15

232

14

204

21

MIA

56

34

39

No records kept

Table 3

Regional Department of MIA

First Ѕ 2001

2001

2002

First Ѕ 2003

Article 166

Discip-linary measures

Verified complaints  %

Article 166

Discip-linary measures

complaints %

Article 166

Discip-linary measures

complaints%

Article 166

Discip-linary measures

complaints %

Auton. Republic of the Crimea

Advice to approach the Supreme Court

4

5

3

Vinnytsa region.

-

21,5

1

No records

1

2

Volyn region

-

2

1,2

Confidential information

Dnipropetrovsk region

К

3

 1

-

Donetsk region

3

568

31,1

4

194

31,7

-

89

24,4

1

41

23,7

Zhytomyr region.

1

1

1

Transcarpathia region

2

-

-

Zaporizhye region.

7

65,6

3

27,3

5

31,1

Івано-Франківська обл.

4

Kyiv region.

Claim to have responded, but never provided a copy

Kirovohrad region

Conf.

-

2

-

Luhansk region.

2

20,2

4

10,5

4

13,6

Lviv region

4

-

1

Mikolayiv region

1

62,5

1

14,8

-

18,2

Odessa region

-

57

39,2

-

43

27,9

2

22

18

Poltava region

total 854

2

12,8

1

7,2

-

3,9

Rivne region

No records

Sumy region

-

58,3

-

49,2

-

55

Ternopil region.

1

164

32

-

202

47,7

-

49

28,2

Kharkiv region

4

61

6,8

4

52

4,8

1

32

3

-

23

1,2

Kherson region

2

52,1

4

38,2

4

49,3

Khmelnytsky region

-

89

22,9

-

103

27

-

115

16,7

Cherkasy region.

1

16

3

16,7

1

1

16,7

Chernivtsi region

1

No records

-

3

Chernihiv region

-

13,8

4

No records

-

3

Kyiv

No records kept

Sevastopol

1

23

6,4

-

27

6

-

32

10,3

MIA

Refused to give information, advised us to approach the Prosecutor’s office.

56

34

39

Table 4

Types of legal violations (offences) committed by law enforcement officers of regional MIA

№ п/п

Legal violation

2001

2002

2003

2004

1

Aggravated robbery

-

-

-

-

2

Robbery

-

-

-

-

3

Theft

-

-

-

-

4

Premeditated murder

-

-

-

1

5

Causing death by exceeding measures of necessary defence

-

-

-

-

6

Bodily injuries

-

-

-

-

7

Rape

-

-

-

-

8

Profiteering

-

-

-

-

9

Misuse of power or official position

-

-

-

1

10

Exceeding one’s power or official position

4

-

1

1

11

Negligence

-

-

-

-

12

Bribery

-

-

-

-

13

Work-related forgery

-

-

-

-

14

Deliberate unlawful arrest, detention or summonsing to a police unit

-

-

-

-

15

Deliberately bringing criminal charges against an innocent person

-

-

-

-

16

Exerting coercion to obtain evidence

-

-

-

-

17

Hooliganism

-

-

-

-

18

Infringement of the Road Law and law on using vehicles

-

-

-

-

19

Drug-related crimes

-

-

-

-

20

Other crimes

-

-

1

-

21

Unlawful administrative detention

-

-

-

1

22

Unlawfully bringing administrative charges

-

-

-

2

23

Unlawful detention on suspicion of having committed a crime

-

-

1

4

24

Unlawfully bringing criminal charges

-

-

-

2

25

Unlawful arrest

-

-

-

-

26

Unlawful carrying out of a search

-

-

-

-

27

Unlawful refusal to open a criminal case (if later the material was sent to the court or suspended for motives not later substantiated

 -

 -

 -

9

28

Falsification of material from the preliminary check of administrative material of the detective inquiry unit or criminal investigation

-

-

-

19

29

Unlawful motives in conducting detective inquiries or criminal investigation work

-

-

-

-

30

Infringements of time limits for holding people in custody

-

-

-

-

31

Infringements of time limits for detective inquiry or criminal investigation

-

-

-

2

32

Concealing a crime when keeping records

-

-

-

12

33

Distortion of statistical records

-

-

-

1

34

Unlawful use of special devices

-

-

-

-

35

Unlawful actions in relation to those detained

-

-

-

-

36

Unlawful relations with individuals convicted or detained

-

-

-

-

37

Unlawful use of the forms and methods of investigative operations which led to a violation of civil rights

 -

 -

 -

 -

38

Corruption

-

-

-

3

Total

4

-

3

58

Recommend this post
X




forgot the password

registration

X

X

send me a new password


on top