Investigator in Dnipropetrovsk bomb case under investigation
that the lawyers representing Dmytro Reva, one of four men charged in connection with a series of bomb explosions in Dnipropetrovsk last year have reported that a criminal investigation under the article on exceeding official powers has been initiated against one of the investigators.
On Monday the two lawyers, Vitaly Pohosyan and Oksana Tomchuk, reported that they had lodged a second complaint against the actions of one of the investigators as well as an SBU [Security Service] officer. They allege that the two men falsified evidence against their client. Dmytro Reva was interrogated as victim in this criminal case on 30 January this year.
During the search of Dmytro Reva’s flat, a mobile telephone was removed from which subsequently an investigator made a phone call to the key person charged in this case, Viktor Sukachev. The phone call then served as grounds for detaining Reva, with the investigator claiming that it was Reva who had made the call.
As reported, the four men are charged with a number of explosions in Dnipropetrovsk on 27 April 2012. The four explosions coincided with major national and international coverage of Yulia Tymoshenko’s allegations that she had been mistreated by prison staff. The explosions did not kill anybody, but 31 people were injured.
On 31 May, shortly before the beginning of Euro 2012 which Ukraine was co-host of, it was announced that 2 suspects had been arrested for allegedly demanding four and a half million dollars or else they would continue to plant bombs. On 1 June it was announced that 4 people had been arrested and remanded in custody. Viktor Sukachev is a Senior Professor of Political Science at the Dnipropetrovsk National Universiity and Vitaly Fedoriak is an Assistant Professor.
Dmytro Revathat the police applied torture and psychological pressure. He asserts that he was held for several hours with his legs half in splits position and his arms raised. One of the SBU [Security Service] officers, he says, threatened to show him how fragile the human body is, while offering to bring coffee and cigarettes if he confessed.
His lawyer calls the charges against her client absurd and unlawful. She asserts that he is charged purely with having been in the centre of town on the instruction of one of the other men accused. She is adamant that there is no evidence of his involvement in the crime.