Call for parliamentary investigation into Dnipropetrovsk bombs case


At a press conference on Thursday the lawyers of Dmytro Reva, one of four men charged in connection with four bomb blasts on 27 April 2012 in Dnipropetrovsk called for a parliamentary investigation.  

Oksana Tomchuk, lawyer and Reva’s sister announced that they were calling on MPs to convene a parliamentary investigative committee to look into the large number of falsifications in the case committed by the Security Service [SBU] investigative team The committee should establish, among other things, “what role certain SBU officials played during the falsifications and in whose interests”.

Oksana Tomchuk mentioned the following:

Destruction by police officers video footage of an explosive device in Dnipropetrovsk;

The supposed failure by all of the CCTV cameras on Karl Marx Avenue in Dnipropetrovsk to record how the two main defendants alleged carried the explosive devices onto the street, and during the explosions themselves, even though the same cameras were working just minutes before that.

The letter demanding money received by TVi journalist Artem Shevchenko shortly after being warned by SBU management that he might receive such a letter;

The failure by the investigators to establish the identity of a bomb consultant from Kharkiv who is alleged to have taught Sukachev and Fedoryak how to prepare explosive substances;

Cases where letters supposedly from the terrorists were planted after the bombs had gone off, despite the fact that the areas were cordoned off by police, both in Kharkiv and in Zaporizhya.

The refusal to call as witness Dmytro Hryshentsev, whose father and relatives occupied high posts in enforcement bodies.  Hryshentsev had not been called by the prosecution, and the defence’s application was rejected despite the fact that he received a text message almost identical to that which in Reva’s case has been treated as incriminating evidence.

The initial telephone call to Sukachev’s phone used to justify Reva’s remand in custody which was in fact made by an SBU officer, Pylypenko.  Reva is charged with having gone to the centre by prior arrangement on the day of the bombs to observe the reaction of the police and public and to inform the two men charged with planting the bombs “if necessary” so that the latter “could take further action”. 

This supposed “crime” is made even more bafflingly devoid of substance by the fact that the devices were based on chemical detonators.  Once set off (before Reva left work to pay a bill in the centre), they could go off at any time.  This means that although Reva was in the vicinity of two of the four bombs (those planted by the defendant he did not know), he could easily have missed them all. 

Recommend this post

forgot the password




send me a new password

on top