search  
print
25.01.2013

Prosecutor again blocks further investigation into death of Ihor Indylo

   

The Kyiv Prosecutor’s Office informs that the criminal case into the death of Ihor Indylo, the young student who died in police custody in the early hours of 18 May 2010 has been sent for a new court examination.  This ruling, it informs, was taken by the Court of Appeal in response to its application. 

On 29 October 2012 the Desnyansky District Court in Kyiv issued an order for the case to be sent for additional investigation, saying that the pre-trial investigation had been incomplete.  The Prosecutor’s Office once again objected and lodged an appeal, claiming that all investigative measures had been taken.  The Kyiv Court of Appeal ruled in favour of the Prosecutor. 

The report does not mention the fact that Ihor’s family, civic groups in Ukraine and international NGOs have all called for a proper investigation into the case.  This is not the first time that the Prosecutor’s Office has appealed against rulings calling for further examination.

Why it is impossible to agree with the Prosecutor’s assessment of the investigation up to now.

On 17 May 2010 Ihor began celebrating his 20th birthday in advance since a friend couldn’t stay until the next day. He was detained just after 8 in the evening.  The police have maintained that he was seriously drunk and picking a fight with the hostel guard.  The video footage of the two young men entering the police station at 20.38 does not indicate any serious degree of inebriation.

He was interrogated and that at 20.52 an ambulance was called since he was unconscious in the interview room. The police staff did not explain to the ambulance crew why he was unconscious. The doctor who arrived said that Ihor did not react to anything until they touched his head when, they say, he began aggressively trying to defend himself.

When Ihor came to, the ambulance crew left the station without properly examining him. The CCTV footage shows that at 21.49 police officers dragged Ihor to the cell and left him on the floor. Despite his extremely chaotic movements he was left until 4.51 when he was found dead.

The police officers informed Ihor’s parents of his death, asking them to collect his body. His parents were told that he had choked however they could see the multiple bruises on their son’s body. 

The officers claimed that he had fallen from a bunk in the cell in a drunken state. The bunk is 50 cm above the floor.

The criminal investigation into Ihor’s death was initiated on 28 May 2010.

In December 2011, Serhiy Kovalenko was amnestied. He had been charged with “professional negligence without grave consequences” for not checking the grounds for detaining Ihor Indylo..

On 5 January 2012 Serhiy Prykhodko received a five year suspended sentence for “exceeding official powers accompanied by actions denigrating the personal dignity of the victim”.

However on 14 May the Kyiv Court of Appeal ordered the case to be sent back for further investigation

In 2012 a number of NGOs put together the following list of questions which a proper investigation should answer.  Unfortunately, the latest move by the Prosecutor’s Office does not suggest any will to get to the truth in this case.

  1. What caused Ihor to lose consciousness in the interview room?
  2. If Ihor fell on his right side in the interview room, as stated in the testimony of Prykhodko and O. Khomenko (the young man with Ihor – translator), where are the bruises on his left side from?
  3. What really happened in the interview room?
  4. If Ihor was in a state of extreme inebriation, as the police and doctor assert, why was he not hospitalized?
  5. Why was he not given adequate medical assistance in the police station?  Why wasn’t an ambulance called a second time, including when he was in the cell since the video shows that he was in a bad state?
  6. Why were all the events of that night not re-enacted bearing in mind the full video recording? It is important to view and analyze absolutely all recordings since this will help to establish the evens and also demonstrate discrepancies and contradictions in the testimony of witnesses and suspects, as well as their inability to provide answers to certain questions.  It is clear, for example, from the video that doctors arrived at the police station at around 3 a.m. yet they did not come in to see Ihor. The police officers were unable to explain at the court hearings who these doctors were, who had called them and why.
  7. Why did Ihor’s condition change so sharply for the worse when he was placed in the cell? According to the police officers, Ihor was in a state of extreme inebriation. Despite this he freely walked through the turnstile into the police station with his hands in his pockets. Yet in the cell his arms were moving about chaotically.
  8. A large number of questions are elicited by the forensic examination. Why is their no x-ray of the injuries to Ihor’s scalp, and only written notes by the doctor; why was the direction of the fracture not investigated?  This would help explain how he received the injuries.
  9. Why did neither the examination nor the criminal investigation explain where the blood in Ihor’s stomach came from?
  10. Why in the medical doctors is what the doctors did not in fact see recorded, as well as readings that the doctors did not take? For example, the examination protocol of the body is signed by the ambulance doctor, yet from the video footage it is clear that he didn’t even go near Ihor’s body.
  11. How do you explain the numerous contradictions and discrepancies in the testimony of Oleksandr Khomenko, Ihor’s friend who was with him in the police station that night?  Oleksandr even said himself during the hearing “I don’t know which of my witness statements that court should believe”, and that is recorded in the protocol. 
Recommend this post
X




forgot the password

registration

X

X

send me a new password


on top