Maidan Massacre Trial Verdict Excerpts Confirming False-Flag Massacre in Ukraine

English Google Translation

Feb 19, 2026

There is ongoing blackout and denial of the Maidan massacre trial verdict's confirmation that many Maidan activists were killed and wounded and BBC and ARD TV journalists were shot at on February 20, 2014 by snipers in Hotel Ukraina and other Maidan controlled locations, that this hotel was controlled by Maidan activists, including a far-right-linked Maidan company of snipers, that there were no massacre orders by President Yanukovych and his police and security chiefs, that Russian agents were not involved in the massacre, and that EuroMaidan then was an armed rebellion, which involved the massacre of the Berkut and Internal Troops. This confirmation is even more remarkable because it was issued by 3 jury members, who were approved by the Kyiv mayor, who was one of Maidan leaders, and by 2 judges in the Ukraine's judiciary system that lacks independence.

Such blackout and denial of the Maidan massacre trial verdict parts confirming the false-flag Maidan massacre in Ukraine continue even after I presented and quoted them in my two open access books The Maidan Massacre in Ukraine: The Mass Killing that Changed the World and The Russia-Ukraine War and its Origins: From the Maidan to the Ukraine War the Canadian Dimension article, and the International Studies Association conference paper.

Maidan Massacre Trial Verdict Selected Excerpts Confirming False-Flag Massacre (English Google Translation)

Unified State Register of Court Decisions (court.gov.ua) https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/114304164

SVIATOSHYN DISTRICT COURT OF KYIV

Univ. No. 759/3498/15-k avenue No. 1-kp/759/1/23

SENTENCE

IN THE NAME OF UKRAINE

[…]

As a result, the defendants were found without any basis guilty of 13 deaths and 29 injuries to activists.

- they are not aware that the personnel of the PMOP, RSP received personal orders from the President of Ukraine, the Minister of Internal Affairs, other officials or influential public figures regarding their, the police’s, actions during the events of the “Maidan” - among the persons questioned by the court, there were no persons who would declare themselves as the bearers of such facts or any involvement in them, and such facts were not documented ;

Therefore, as a result of the trial, no evidence was obtained and submitted to the court to confirm the giving of clearly criminal orders to commit a terrorist attack, and therefore their receipt by any of the accused, and their subsequent transmission of such orders to other persons. The lack of proof of the existence of such an order refutes even the very assumption of consent to execute it or of taking actions to execute it.

the video recording of the BBC television company entitled “INFORMATION_178” (disc No. 1 - vol. 171 a. 163), examined by the jury at the court session on January 24, 2019, upon the motion of the defense in compliance with the procedure for the discovery of additional materials (part 11 of article 290 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine) , the latter recorded the firing of an automatic weapon from the left hand by a law enforcement officer in a black uniform with a white inscription on the back “Berkut” with yellow bandages on both hands and with a fixed bone of the right hand in a black leather glove from behind a tree on the alley towards the Zhovtnevy Palace, as well as by other law enforcement officers in the same direction and in the same equipment (from 03 minutes of the recording), and also activists with objects that, by their obvious external signs, can be perceived as firearms of the type hunting rifles and a Kalashnikov assault rifle (04 min. 44 and 59 sec. of the recording), visibility of the area from the position of the Conservatory colonnade is recorded (from 06 min. 37 sec. of the recording), in particular, the area around the Independence Stele, the flower clock, in front of the left wing of the Zhovtnevy Palace. This video also records shelling from the side of the building of the Hotel “Ukraine” of the BBC journalists’ film crew (a single shot is heard) (from 09 min. 34 sec. of the recording), and an activist is recorded in the premises of the Hotel “Ukraine” with an object that, by its obvious external signs, can be perceived as a firearm such as a pistol (10 min. 26 sec. of the recording). BBC journalists recorded in the area of ul. Khreshchatyk equipment of individual Maidan activists, who moved in an organized formation and wore helmets and body armor, protective armor on their legs and arms, and held shields, sticks, batons, batons, and metal rods in their hands (from 14 min. 53 sec. of the recording).

During the study of this video, the defense drew the court’s attention to the use in this plot of photographs with armed activists by photographer PERSON_2816, who was interrogated during the pre-trial investigation and which is consistent with the captions on the video itself (from 05 min. 10 sec.). The indicated remarks of the defense additionally confirm the court’s conclusions about the reliability of other photo materials of the indicated person, the analysis of which was provided earlier.

The jury, after hearing the opinion of the trial participants, evaluated the video recording provided by the defense in the context of the indictment as documented information from the activist-controlled building of the Ukraina Hotel in Kyiv about the targeted use by the activists of objects that, by their external features, are clearly similar to firearms, weapons of the type of hunting weapons, which are incompatible with the concept of forms and means of a peaceful protest action.

On the morning of February 20, 2014, when he was still near the PERSON_794 palace, there was a commotion because of a sniper whom activists had seen, someone said that it was our sniper, which surprised him, the witness. He turned his attention to the Ukraina Hotel and saw a man with a rifle in an open window on the seventh or eighth floor of the hotel, who waved for them not to shout, leaned out of the window and aimed the rifle towards the top of Instytutska Street, then waved that nothing was visible, and closed the window, he did not shoot. This man’s rifle looked like a 12-gauge smoothbore. Eyewitnesses to these events were also members of his company PERSON_3003 and PERSON_789 . He told about these circumstances during interrogation in 2014 to the investigator, who laughed at him. Later, since his testimony had disappeared, he reported these circumstances a second time. Later, he was surprised by a high-profile video story using the same data about the alleged shooting on February 20, 2014 from the room of “Svoboda” in the “Ukraine” hotel. He categorically insists that he did not see this person firing a shot, and that the shooting from this position with a hunting rifle of law enforcement officers who were at a considerable distance behind a snowy barricade was pointless;

The jury, after hearing the opinion of the participants in the process, evaluated the video recording provided by the defense in the context of the indictment as documented information from the building of the Ukraina Hotel in Kyiv, controlled by the activists, about the presence among the activists of the “Maidan” of objects that, by their external features, are clearly similar to firearms, which is incompatible with the concept of forms and means of a peaceful protest.

According to the video recording examined by the jury at the trial on January 24, 2019, at the request of the defense in compliance with the procedure for the discovery of additional materials (Part 11 of Article 290 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine) , entitled “RT correspondent recalls sniper-fire experience in Kiev, Ukraine” (disc No. 1 - vol. 171 a. 163), the latter recorded activists with objects that, by their obvious external signs, can be perceived as firearms such as hunting rifles and pistols (from 12 seconds of the recording), shots fired by them from these weapons from deep inside the room through an open window of the hotel, in which a video camera on a tripod is also located, as well as separate incoming (into the room) gunshot wounds on the hotel windows, which were later examined by the investigator and look out towards Maidan Nezalezhnosti (from 01 minute 30 seconds of the recording). It is also noteworthy that the journalists are on Instytutska Street near the Ukraina Hotel building and are recording events practically between law enforcement officers who were retreating down the alley and activists who were following them near the Zhovtnevy Palace. These journalists are not attacked from any side.

Thus, at the level of rumors and hearsay about the sector of shooting from the hotel “INFORMATION_161” were reported by victims PERSON_495, PERSON_496, PERSON_241, PERSON_503, PERSON_1000, PERSON_232, PERSON_1173, PERSON_336, PERSON_894, PERSON_998, PERSON_985, PERSON_2202. Victims PERSON_510, PERSON_970 believed that they saw flashes of shots or corresponding movement in the hotel windows. Victims PERSON_687 , PERSON_2040, PERSON_2204 believed that they saw the consequences of shooting from the hotel in the form of wounded activists. Victims PERSON_481, PERSON_511, PERSON_2084, PERSON_950 stated that they directly saw the shooting from the Ukraine Hotel or the victims. Both victim PERSON_930 and victim PERSON_223 believed that each of them separately received a lower limb wound from a gunshot from the right, from the area of the Ukraine Hotel. Objective data on the gunshot wounds from the side of the hotel “INFORMATION_161” were obtained based on the results of the court hearing on the episodes of the death of PERSON_1849 and the injury of PERSON_920.

The indicated data is quite sufficient to make a categorical conclusion about the presence of persons with weapons from which shots were fired in the premises of the Ukraine Hotel on the morning of February 20, 2014.

5.4.74. According to the episode of the death of PERSON_446.

Communication a) at 09:00 between 43:15 and 44:16, a penetrating gunshot wound to the chest from a firearm, which is a serious bodily injury, the wound channel was directed from the back to the inside, at the time of this injury PERSON_922 was facing the back of the body towards the source of the shot and the “Ukraine” hotel;

The connection between the gunshot wounds to the chest, right shoulder and forearm found in the victim PERSON_921 and the actions of law enforcement officers, and even more so the accused, has not been established within the framework of these proceedings.

Within the framework of this judicial proceeding, no admissible data on the infliction of such injuries to the victim by the accused has been obtained. Moreover, the fatal gunshot wounds to the torso (chest and abdomen) were received by PERSON_1770 from the side of the hotel “INFORMATION_161” and the area in front of it, which were not under the control of law enforcement agencies, and therefore the involvement of the accused and the RSP fighters in them, and as a result of the death of the victim, is excluded.

5.4.83. According to the episode of death PERSON_593

Within the framework of this judicial proceeding, no data on the involvement of law enforcement officers, let alone the accused, in such an injury to the victim has been established. The gunshot wound was inflicted on PERSON_1852 from the direction of the Ukraine Hotel, that is, from the territory that was not controlled by law enforcement agencies at that time. This shot was aimed at a crowd of people.

5.4.27. According to the episode of death of PERSON_598.

Within the framework of these legal proceedings, taking into account the data on the position of PERSON_494’s body at the time of the wounding (in front towards the top of Instytutska Street) and the direction of the wound channel, data on the involvement of the deceased RSP employees and the accused in such a wounding was not obtained, in particular, since the shooting at the victim from front to back, right to left and significantly from top to bottom from the building of the “Ukrainy” hotel is not excluded based on such input data . .

5.4.37. According to the episode of death of PERSON_1441.

Within the framework of these legal proceedings, no evidence beyond reasonable doubt was obtained regarding the involvement of law enforcement officers, including the RSP and the accused, in such an injury to the victim.

5.4.127. According to the episode of death PERSON_2184.

Within the framework of these legal proceedings, the evidence presented has not established the involvement of any specific individuals, including law enforcement officers, in such an injury.

5.4.10. By the episode of death PERSON_588.

The evidence presented in its entirety clearly indicates that PERSON_490 on February 20, 2014, shortly before 09:02 a.m., while in Kyiv on Instytutska Street in the area of the bridge across it, during the escalation of the confrontation between Maidan activists and law enforcement officers, received a fatal chest wound with the use of firearms. Within the framework of these legal proceedings, no data on the involvement of law enforcement officers in such a wound, let alone the accused in particular, has been obtained by the investigation of admissible evidence.

5.4.8. By episode of death PERSON_1213.

As for the third version, which the defense insisted on, although it is also not completely proven, the following objective data speaks in its favor.

Under such circumstances, the court is deprived of the opportunity to refute the defense’s doubts about the possibility of PERSON_491 being injured by a hunting weapon as a result of a ricochet from the blue police water cannon, since the deceased had no other obstacles in front of him on the left side (shield, fence, etc.) at the time of his injury.

The analysis of the prosecution’s evidence submitted to the court in this episode, conducted by the prosecution during the trial and in the court debates, does not refute such conclusions of the court.

As for the RSP employees, their stay in the gray service bus, which at the time of the injury of PERSON_883 was slowly moving from the central entrance of the Zhovtnevy Palace to the area in front of the Cinema Palace, is directly documented on the video entitled “Cardstock of PERSON_1189” (Verbatim DVD+R disc with the inscription “PERSON_2867 06/21/2018” - vol. 140 a. 22), which excludes even the assumption of the involvement of the specified persons in the injury of PERSON_1225. In addition, according to the already mentioned video “Height ‘’Zhovtnevy’‘ (2nd edition). Part 2 0853-1100 (02/20/2014)” (flash drive - vol. 90 a. 40), only starting from 09 h. 03 min. 05 sec. (screens 2/3 and 2/4) for the first time, the actions of armed RSP fighters in black uniforms with yellow armbands are recorded, who are shooting from special weapons - Fort-500 rifles near the right corner of the Zhovtnevy Palace building.

The above evidence, in its entirety and when compared with all the obviousness, indicates that PERSON_491 on February 20, 2014 at 09:00:37 a.m., being in Kyiv on the sidewalk on the right side of Instytutska Street, if you move in the direction of the Khreschatyk metro station, behind the pedestrian bridge (distance 19.5 m) before entering the parking lot of the Ukraina Hotel, during the escalation of the confrontation between Maidan activists and law enforcement officers with the use of firearms, received one (as a result of one shot) blind gunshot (cannon) wound to the head, which is considered serious bodily injury, as a result of which he died. Entrance gunshot wound in the left temporal region with a diameter of 0.6-0.7 cm at a height of 165 cm from the soles of the feet, the wound channel up to 3.5 cm long extends from back to front, from left to right, slightly from top to bottom, ending with fragments of a firearm projectile (cartridge), which were removed. At the time of the injury, the victim was turned with the left surface of his head towards the muzzle of the weapon.

Within the framework of these court proceedings, no evidence was obtained beyond reasonable doubt that the victim was injured by law enforcement officers. The defense’s version that PERSON_491 was injured as a result of a ricochet from the left side of a blue police water cannon as a result of a shot from a hunting rifle fired by third parties was not refuted.

5.4.22. According to the episode of death of PERSON_596.

- only after the events recorded in photo No. 1, PERSON_492 will address the activists on the stairs, that is, he will look in their direction with an obvious turn of his head to the right, approach them and call them to action with movements of his right hand (04 min. 47 - 49 sec. of recording “00582”), one second later he will fall, struck by a bullet in the head with the direction of the wound canal from front to back - right in front of the victim at this moment was objectively the Conservatory, and to the left was the “Ukraine” hotel, based on the map of the area used by the commission of experts, not to mention the top of the street. Instytutska or the area in front of the central entrance to the Zhovtnevy Palace in general, which were located much further to the left (this is clearly visible on the photo of the place of injury of PERSON_778 “PERSON_1305_2” on a flash drive submitted by the victim’s representative - vol. 162 a. 157), which, according to the established forensic medical data, made it impossible to fire a shot from the indicated area, including the one where the armed RSP fighters highlighted by the prosecutor were recorded (screen 4/1, video “Height ‘’Zhovtnevy’‘ (2nd edition). Part 2 0853-1100 (20.02.2014)”, 17 min. 40 sec. recording), in the front-to-back direction relative to the head of PERSON_778;

- the prosecutor’s further attention to the actions of armed RSP fighters near the central entrance to the Zhovtnevy Palace lost its significance within the framework of this episode due to the lack of data on the presence of such persons in the sector from which the fatal shot to the head of PERSON_1313 could have been fired, while the defense’s version of the possibility of a shot being fired at PERSON_1312 from the Conservatory building is not only not refuted by the evidence presented, but also agrees with the data on the presence of unidentified persons on the balconies of the Conservatory (screens 3/2 and 3/3, video “Height ‘’Zhovtnevy’‘ (2nd edition). Part 2 0853-1100 (20.02.2014)”, starting from 17 min. 49 sec. of the recording, or astronomical time 09 h. 10 min. 22 sec., i.e. 11 sec. after the wounding of PERSON_778), and information about the specified area with a clear fixation from the specified place in the specified direction of the Conservatory building, which is contained in the photograph examined by the jury in the episode of the death of PERSON_494 during the interrogation of witness PERSON_1314 (vol. 219 a. 53).

5.4.69. According to the episode of death of PERSON_594.

Thus, the jury takes into account that PERSON_493, a few seconds before his fatal wound, together with other bystanders, watched the windows of the “Ukraine” hotel, his left side being conditionally turned towards the snow barricade, which was located higher up the Institutska street, and this attention, united by joint observation of the source of possible danger, did not stop on the part of all observers even after the injury of PERSON_1708, when he was already lying on the asphalt. Therefore, it absolutely cannot be ruled out that at the time of his injury PERSON_493, together with all the other activists, continued to be facing the direction of the Hotel “Ukraine”, and his back - to the left part of the facade of the October Palace . At the same time, there are no signs of movement of PERSON_1708 from his place of stay before the wounding, therefore, and the assumption of his possible reversal of the corps in the direction of the October Palace remains unsupported by anything. Of course, PERSON_493 could have been wounded under the circumstances when he could have turned sharply at the call, and therefore again returned to the front of the building of the October Palace, near which there were many activists. However, the submitted evidence did not confirm even the possibility of the existence of such versions of the specified exclamation on the video, in which from 33 to 44 sec. PERSON_493 is missing and was not interrupted at that moment, not recorded. During the wounding PERSON_493 was turned with his left side towards the top of Institutskaya Street , and his back to the left part of the facade of the October Palace, while his right shoulder joint was turned to the source of the shot.

5.4.84. According to the episode of injury PERSON_453.

The prosecutor’s arguments that initial bullet damage to the tree was recorded at 18 seconds of the specified video, i.e., shots were fired in the direction of the “Ukraine” hotel, since no other evidence was established by expert means, are critically assessed by the court. On the contrary, the lack of a corresponding expert study makes the doubts on the specified issue, which were expressed by the defense, referring to the characteristic features of this recorded damage as input damage (insignificant size, no falling out of tree bark elements to the outside, the activists’ focus on the source of this shot in the direction of the “INFORMACIÓ_161” hotel building, irrefutable, and therefore the court interprets them in favor of the accused. The court also takes into account the testimony of the victim PERSON_921, who was also in the aforementioned activist group and was wounded in the back from the hotel “INFORMATION_161”, objective information about the fatal wound in the neck from the same group of the victim PERSON_1849 from the upper floors of the hotel “Ukraine”, these data make the defense’s position even more substantiated.

Thirdly, the direction of the wound channel in height established by the expert from top to bottom at an acute angle, combined with the data on the absence of information about the bullet passing through any obstacle, objectively agrees with the possibility of such a “clean” shot from the upper floors of the “Ukraine “ hotel (see, for example, photo No. 37-40 of the annexes to the protocol of the investigative experiment dated July 2, 2014 (vol. 134 a. 50-51), but it obviously does not agree with the version of the bullet ricocheting from below from the ground, i.e. from the opposite side.

5.4.42. According to the episode of injury PERSON_613.

The court critically assesses and therefore rejects the arguments of the prosecutor and the representative of the victims that the fact that the bullet passed from top to bottom in the soft tissues of the victim’s body without damaging the bones, i.e. in the absence of internal ricochet, proves the forward tilt of his body at the time of the wound as the only possible version. The direction of the wound channel from top to bottom relative to the normal anatomical position of the victim’s body does not exclude such a position of the victim’s body relative to the shooter, but does not exclude the possibility of a shot being fired from the windows of the building of the “Ukraine” hotel located next to the place of injury of PERSON_1487, i.e. simply from top to bottom, which the prosecution was unable to reject with the evidence presented during the trial. Moreover, the high probability of such a version is indicated by the facts of the use of weapons against activists from the Ukrainy Hotel building, the location of the latter on the right side of the victim, and the latter’s ability to turn to the right, i.e. towards the hotel, holding a shield in his left hand in front of him, whether standing or sitting.

5.4.77. According to the episode of injury PERSON_612.

before his injury he was moving up the right side of Instytutska St. in the front group of activists , 6-7 people who were covering themselves with shields in front, there were shouts that a sniper was shooting from the Ukraina Hotel, so they turned around , the hotel was on the right behind, but he did not notice anyone there for himself; - approaching the parapet with the inscription “Arcade”, they came under heavy fire, he saw the wounded man and ran to the right to the steps to the parapet to hide behind him, but did not have time and was also wounded in the side,

The experts came to a well-founded conclusion that the entrance wound was on the left side of the torso, which was facing the barricades at the top of Instytutska Street, and the exit wound was on the right side, where the hotel was. During the investigative experiment, he mistakenly indicated the opposite direction of the wound channel - the entrance was on the right, and the exit was on the left.

is then recorded watching the windows of the Ukraine Hotel, reacting to a shot fired from the hotel, the traces of which are visualized on a tree (20 min. 07 sec. of the recording).

However, as established by the commission of experts, whose expertise did not cause doubts among the parties to the proceedings, during the direct examination of the victim and the given X-ray images, postoperative scars were found on the victim’s body, which are not wounds from a gunshot wound, a linear fracture of the right wing of the iliac bone, which is somewhat higher, accompanied by the detachment of a bone fragment and its placement in the soft tissues of the gluteal region.

The indicated data, in the opinion of the jury, substantiate the doubts of the defense regarding the erroneousness of the assumption of the victim, who reported at the trial about a different direction of the wound channel - from the government quarter (from left to right), and not from the Ukraine hotel (from right to left), as he reported during the pre-trial investigation. After all, the assumption of the defense, not refuted by other objective data, about the movement of the bone fragment torn off by the bullet in the victim’s body in the direction of the bullet’s movement, is more convincing and logical than the prosecutor’s assumption, albeit emotional, about the possibility of such movement in the opposite direction .

In addition, the difference in the heights of the wounds - on the right above - does not agree with the version of the shot from a concrete barricade, which was placed above the locally determined place of the victim’s wound near the parapet of the Arkada bank. . The absence of clothing in which the victim was dressed makes it impossible to establish by expert means the direction of the traumatic action of the bullet that wounded the victim .

Having analyzed and evaluated all the evidence submitted by the parties in their entirety, the court considers that it has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt, in particular by forensic medical data, that the shot was fired at the victim PERSON_298 from the side of the government quarter as a whole, and the concrete barricades in particular, i.e. from left to right relative to his location in space during movement. Doubts in this regard are justified by the available forensic medical data, as well as the testimony of the victim himself about the direction of the wound channel by sensation, which he reported during the investigative experiment.

Therefore, this and all other mentioned episodes, due to their common factual basis and cross-references to evidence and facts, should also be considered in their entirety, which allows for a comprehensive review of the mentioned events themselves.

5.4.30. According to the episode of injury PERSON_634.

He believes that he was shot from front to back, top to bottom, right to left, and this direction tentatively indicates the upper floors of the Ukraina Hotel (recording from 10 min. 10 sec., 10 min. 20 and 34 sec.).

At the same time, it is noteworthy that the results of the investigative experiment were not recorded in the protocol, the direction of the shot indicated by the victim was not verified by comparing the entry and exit wounds, the investigator considered it unnecessary to establish at least the approximate location of which on the victim’s body and at the latter’s suggestion (recording from 10 minutes 45 seconds), a forensic specialist was not involved in conducting this investigative action, and the data from the existing medical expert’s opinion were not taken into account.

However, due to the uncertainty of the data regarding the time and specific location of the injury of the said victim, the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the involvement of law enforcement officers, and the Berkut unit of the Military Police Unit in particular, in such injury of the victim . On the contrary, the data obtained during the investigative experiment with the participation of the victim, which have not been refuted by anyone, and the objective forensic medical data agreed with them regarding the direction of the wound channel (right to left, front to back and top to bottom) refute the prosecution’s version that the victim was shot by police officers who were at that time in front of the victim and to the left on Instytutska Street. The analysis of the prosecution’s evidence submitted to the court on this episode by the prosecution during the trial and in the court debates does not refute such conclusions of the court.

Within the framework of these legal proceedings, no data was obtained on the involvement of the directly accused or other employees of the RSP in such an injury to the deceased PERSON_1387 .

5.4.56. According to the episode of injury PERSON_606.

- on the left side of the alley from the place where he, PERSON_1589, was wounded, there was a green fence, on the right - the hotel “Ukraine”, half of which he managed to pass, at the time of the wound he was moving half-sitting, in his right hand he was holding a shield (wooden tabletop), he turned right to PERSON_2919, who was on the right and slightly behind, and at that moment he was wounded in the left thigh from the inside, most likely from a pistol , these events occurred at approximately 09:30 between 40 and 50 minutes, in his opinion, the shots at him were fired from the range: Institutskaya Street - hotel “Ukraine”; - on the balcony of the Zhovtnevy Palace he did not see people with weapons; - for safety reasons, he gave the doctors his name as PERSON_1590, the doctor tried to remove the bullet from his leg, but nothing worked, so he left the hospital and the bullet is still in his leg; -

During the study of the conclusion of the expert commission No. 288-2015/o, the victim stated that the experts determined the location of his injury (v. 145 a. 195) contrary to the data of the investigative experiment and its indications, and therefore categorically incorrect.

Therefore, the court finds it proven that only one wound was found on the victim’s body, which was of a blind penetrating nature and was located on the left thigh, however, the data on the direction of the wound channel were not established by objective forensic medical data. However, according to the data of the investigative experiment and the testimony of the victim in court, it was established that such a shot could have been from the inside of the left thigh, that is, from right to left relative to the location of the victim’s body.

On the contrary, the data obtained during the investigative experiment with the participation of the victim, his interrogation in court, and not questioned by forensic medical data regarding the probable direction of the wound channel - from right to left while moving towards the snow barricade along the alley of Instytutska Street, have not been refuted by anyone, and additionally cast doubt on the prosecution’s version that the victim was shot by police officers who were behind this barricade. The analysis of the prosecution’s evidence submitted to the court on this episode, conducted by the prosecution during the trial and in the court debates, does not refute such conclusions of the court.

As witness PERSON_1594 also clarified… during their journey to the Zhovtnevy Palace, they felt danger from the side of the Ukraina Hotel…

Within the framework of this legal proceeding, no data was obtained on the involvement of RSP employees, defendants, or other law enforcement officers who were behind the snow barricade.

5.4.119. By episode of injury PERSON_605.

In particular, this concerns the first blind wound to the chest, the wound channel of which is directed from back to front and from outside to inside. Given these data, the defense’s claim that this shot could have been fired at the victim from the buildings located in front of the October Palace closer to Khreshchatyk Street is not refuted.

Within the framework of this judicial proceeding, no data has been obtained on the involvement of the accused or other persons who could have acted together with them in a prior conspiracy in a group in such injuries to the victim PERSON_838. Their, as well as other persons, probable involvement in the injury of the victim does not go beyond assumptions, on which the court cannot base affirmative conclusions.

5.4.100. By episode of injury PERSON_623.

At the time of the injury, the victim PERSON_506 was in a sitting position, and the left side of his torso was turned towards the bottom of Instytutska Street, that is, conditionally towards Maidan Nezalezhnosti.

5.4.73. According to the episode of injury PERSON_639.

On the contrary, the undisputed data obtained during the investigative experiment with the victim’s participation, and the objective forensic data consistent with them regarding the direction of the wound channel - across the body during the victim’s movement in the direction of the snow barricade, refute the prosecution’s version that the victim was shot by police officers who were at that time behind the concrete barricade on Instytutska Street. The analysis of the prosecution’s evidence submitted to the court on this episode, conducted by the prosecution during the trial and in the court debates, does not refute such conclusions of the court.

5.4.71. According to the episode of injury PERSON_635.

But he cannot determine which way and how much he turned, and therefore during the experiment he only made assumptions about this, as well as about the position of the torso at the time of the wound (14 min. 05 sec., 15 min. 25 sec., 16 min. 06 sec. of the investigative action recording - the sector where the shot was fired from the “Ukraine” hotel is visualized).

Within the framework of these legal proceedings, no data on the involvement of the accused in such injuries of the victim has been obtained. Moreover, it has not been proven that the gunshot wound was inflicted on PERSON_1738 from the territory where law enforcement officers were located at that time.

5.4.49. According to the episode of injury PERSON_435.

... he recreated the above circumstances on the spot during an investigative experiment, indicating the approximate location of his wound; - he believes that the person who shot him in the leg was to the right, where the “Ukraine” hotel is located...

Considering the testimony of the victim PERSON_315 in court regarding his position/pose, his use of one metal shield, the court also finds it established that the person(s) who fired the above-mentioned shots into the victim’s chest and right ankle joint were approximately in the sector along the street. Instytutska in the direction of the NBU, and the person who fired the shot into the area of the victim’s right thigh was on the victim’s right, i.e. from the side of the “Ukraine” hotel, which was established not only by the victim’s testimony in court, but also by the data of the forensic medical examination of his clothing No. 258-MK dated October 15, 2015, according to which one gunshot wound was found on the back surface of the right leg of the pants that PERSON_930 was wearing at the time of the injury, as well as by the data obtained during the investigative experiment with the victim’s participation...

At the same time, based on the data on the circumstances of PERSON_1539 receiving a gunshot wound to the right thigh, the sector of the shooting casts doubt on the possibility of its being carried out from the territory where the RSP officers were located, and due to undisputed doubts, the jury considers the latter’s involvement in causing such an injury to the victim to be unproven.

5.4.115. By episode of injury PERSON_629

These data are fully consistent with each other, and therefore the court bases its verdict on them, as well as the more accurate and verified time parameters of the video “Height ‘’October’‘ (2nd edition)...”, therefore the defense version about the injury of the victim PERSON_2098 from a sector that absolutely does not cover the concrete barricades behind which the law enforcement officers were, and in fact is the opposite, is recognized by the court as irrefutable .

The connection between the gunshot wound found on the victim PERSON_2098 and the actions of law enforcement officers within the framework of this proceeding has not been established, since the possibility of inflicting such a gunshot wound on him from a territory that was not under the control of law enforcement officers has not been refuted by the evidence presented.

5.4.118. By episode of injury PERSON_607.

- as for the danger to himself, he felt it from the sixth floor of the Ukraine Hotel, which other activists indicated as the location of the sniper, he, the victim, personally saw, observing for several minutes, how on the indicated floor of the hotel, one window was open towards the October Palace and the curtain in it periodically either swung open or covered the window...

In particular, according to the results of the specified investigative experiment, which was conducted with the participation of a ballistics expert, the victim, at the time of receiving the wound with damage to the right subclavian artery and right shoulder blade, was on February 20, 2014 on Instytutska Street opposite the entrance to the Khreschatyk metro station, kneeling and making a half turn to the left (counterclockwise) in the direction of the Zhovtnevy Palace , the direction from which the bullet could have come includes the building of the Zhovtnevy Palace and the Cinema Palace.

During the study of the video recording of the investigative experiment, the victim fully confirmed its results and the voluntariness of his testimony, identifying himself on the recording of this investigative action.

Under such circumstances, taking into account the forensic and forensic data regarding the direction of the wound channel in the victim’s body, additionally from left to right, and his testimony regarding the position of the body at the time of the injury, the reliability of which is beyond doubt, the court excludes the physical possibility that the shot that injured the victim was fired from the side of the snow barricade, to which the victim was facing with his right shoulder.

The real threat of gunfire from various sectors, and not only from the area that was under the exclusive and obvious control of law enforcement agencies, is confirmed in this episode both by the victim’s own observations of the windows of the hotel “INFORMACIÓN_161”, and by the warnings recorded on the victim’s video from the “Maidan” scene about the presence of unknown armed people on the roof of the Zhovtnevy Palace (at the beginning of the recording of the video examined above under the title “video0004”).

However, due to the established data regarding the victim’s location in space at the time of the injury, which refutes the prosecution’s version that the victim was shot from the direction of the top of Instytutska Street, the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that law enforcement officers, and the accused in particular, were involved in the victim’s injury.

Due to insufficient information, incompleteness or contradictory nature of the submitted data, the involvement of law enforcement officers has not been proven, and other unknown persons cannot be excluded in the following episodes: deceased PERSON_487, PERSON_488, PERSON_489, PERSON_490, PERSON_491, PERSON_492, PERSON_493, PERSON_494; PERSON_495, PERSON_496, PERSON_497, PERSON_498, PERSON_499, PERSON_500, PERSON_501, PERSON_502, PERSON_503, PERSON_223, PERSON_504, PERSON_222, PERSON_505, PERSON_506, PERSON_507, PERSON_508, PERSON_509, PERSON_510, PERSON_263, PERSON_511 were injured - that is, in 28 cases out of 128 episodes. Regarding victims PERSON_488 and PERSON_2190, neither the place nor the time of their injuries on February 20, 2014 was established, and regarding victim PERSON_2182, reasonable doubts arose about his injuries in general under the circumstances reported by him on February 20, 2014.

In particular, when the victims indicated such a feeling as a result of the actions of the police officers visualized on the video recordings, the prosecutor considered this to be convincing evidence, and when the victim indicated a feeling of danger from other sources, for example, the hotel “Ukraine” (episodes of wounding PERSON_1387, PERSON_921, etc.), the prosecutor categorically considered this to be an error in assessing the events. In addition, the lack of evidence by the prosecution of the presence of armed individuals in various potentially possible places for firing weapons, which was often referred to as the basis for refuting the victims’ statements on this matter, does not at all mean the absence of such individuals in reality, especially since doubts on this matter were dispelled during the trial by objective data, and not only by the testimonies of individual victims.

Indeed, as the prosecution noted and not disputed by the defense, in many episodes of the death and injury of activists, the place of the victim’s injury, the position of his body in space at the time of the injury, forensic medical data on the nature and localization of the gunshot wound itself were accurately established. However, this information remained unexamined by ballistics specialists during the pre-trial investigation in order to draw incredibly simple conclusions on the ground based on such initial data regarding the specific sector of the shot at the victim. The long-term (more than a year) procedural opportunity in the form of a direct court order to conduct an investigative experiment, created by the court during the trial, remained unrealized by the prosecution. The conviction of the prosecution under such conditions, in terms of its evidentiary value, is, unfortunately, a sad statement of its procedural helplessness.

Thus, as established by the results of the trial, on February 20, 2014, between 05:30 and 09:00, unidentified persons used firearms to attack law enforcement officers, as a result of which 3 law enforcement officers died and 39 more received gunshot wounds. A shot from a rifle in the direction of a law enforcement officer indicates that the accused began to implement the intention to kill such employees - the Supreme Court also drew attention to this (resolution of 08/11/2022 in case No. 446/838/21, source: https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/105774898). Responding to the situation, which as of 08:30 developed in the epicenter of the confrontation, individual units and groups of law enforcement officers began to independently and spontaneously leave their positions, which caused a further massive and unorganized retreat of law enforcement officers as a whole. Taking advantage of these panicked actions of law enforcement officers, activists also spontaneously and en masse went beyond their barricades and began to pursue and attack law enforcement officers using “Molotov cocktails”. In this way, activists advanced up Instytutska Street beyond the bridge above it, cut through the positions of law enforcement officers at the intersection of Instytutska Street and Khreshchatyk Street near building No. 7/11 (Ukrkoopspilka), forcing one part of them to flee up the stairs to the Zhovtnevy Palace, and the other part - in the direction of European Square. Later, activists also took control of the entrance to the Zhovtnevy Palace building closest to Khreshchatyk Street (left) and approached the central entrance to it.

The explanations of the victims PERSON_1247, PERSON_282 and PERSON_924 had other relevant factual basis, they are consistent with the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses PERSON_2120, PERSON_1536, PERSON_1526, PERSON_2575, “PERSON_3025” (SBU), PERSON_2302, PERSON_2301, PERSON_2307, PERSON_2576, PERSON_2310, PERSON_2311, PERSON_2298, PERSON_2252, PERSON_2577 and the defense witnesses PERSON_2578, PERSON_2579, PERSON_2580, PERSON_1079, PERSON_2581, PERSON_1095, who also showed that the police began to retreat in panic due to their shelling.

Also, according to the circumstances in both indictments, which the prosecutor considered established, this retreat of law enforcement officers occurred as a result of the activists’ firing on law enforcement officers, which resulted in the death and gunshot wounds of some of them.

- the testimonies of witnesses PERSON_2310 and PERSON_2311 only confirmed the purpose of the RSP actions near the Zhovtnevy Palace - the evacuation of law enforcement officers

As for the hidden armed attack on the RSP fighters at 09:15-16, which ended with the fatal wounding of one of them and the wounding of another, the episode of the movement of the so-called PERSON_393 group and individual episodes of shelling of law enforcement agencies, to which the unarmed protesters among the victims had nothing to do (clause 2, part 1, article 15), such undoubtedly extremely dangerous actions were episodic, and also too limited in time to prolong them for all subsequent events.

Evaluating all the video recordings and photo materials examined during the trial in the context of the charges brought, the jury found that they documented in detail, from various angles, information about the situation of the confrontation between activists and law enforcement officers on February 18-20, 2014, in particular: the nature of the presence of firearms on the territory of the “Maidan” and their use against law enforcement officers from the territory controlled by activists in the central part of Kyiv on February 18-20, 2014, a significant number of such weapons and the persons who used them, were recognized by the court as incompatible with the concept of forms and means of a peaceful protest in principle; dynamics of the changing situation on the morning of February 20, 2014 (chaotic retreat of law enforcement officers, which was accompanied by an attack (attacks and persecution) by activists, and some with objects that, with all obviousness in their external signs, resemble firearms of various types, protection by law enforcement officers, as the retreating party, with the use of all available special means, including water cannons, and only then the open use of firearms by law enforcement officers; movement and displacement of the opposing parties from the occupied positions (law enforcement officers - up Instytutska Street with a delay associated with the evacuation from the Zhovtnevy Palace building, further behind the snow and concrete barricades, and activists - gradual movement in waves in the direction of the law enforcement officers to the edge of the snow barricade).

All this data, combined with the armed shelling of the law enforcement forces on the morning of February 20, 2014, stated in the indictment as the reason for the latter abandoning their positions, indicate that the activists took the initiative in their actions, not the law enforcement officers, which is completely inconsistent with the accusation of the latter in a terrorist attack.

5.7. Evaluation of all evidence examined by the court in its entirety and interrelationship.

- they are not aware that the personnel of the PMOP, RSP received personal orders from the President of Ukraine, the Minister of Internal Affairs, other officials or influential public figures regarding their, the police’s, actions during the events of the “Maidan” - among the persons questioned by the court, there were no individuals who would declare themselves as the bearers of such facts or any involvement in them, and such facts were not documented;

- On February 20, 2014, during the events on Instytutska Street, PERSON_21 and PERSON_22 did not personally use firearms - these statements of the above-mentioned accused are not refuted by admissible documentary data, including photo and video materials recording the events of the above-mentioned day and conclusions of ballistics examinations, according to which no traces of the use of the regular weapons assigned to PERSON_645 and PERSON_652 on February 20, 2014 during the above-mentioned events were found (Chapter 5.3. of the verdict);

The “Russian trace” was not confirmed after examining the relevant documents. In particular, all cases of FSB officers crossing the border zone into Ukraine, their movements in Kyiv and the region, the time and place of their stay, as well as the dates and ways of their leaving the territory of Ukraine, were investigated. This group of individuals was constantly monitored and their whereabouts were monitored. Accordingly, they did not have any participation in the events on the Instytutska street.

7. Grounds for the jury to declare part of the accusation unfounded.

The court, based on the results of the trial, considers the facts of the disclosure in any way by the accused from among the RSP fighters during the arming on February 18, 2014, of their readiness to execute the order of the leadership to indiscriminately use firearms against an unspecified circle of activists with the aim of committing a terrorist act combined with mass murder, as well as the receipt by those among them who armed themselves with Fort-500 rifles of cartridges with a lead buckshot charge, prohibited for use, as unproven within the framework of the formulated accusation.

No victim or witness questioned by the court on either side indicated such facts (the detection of the indicated readiness and receipt of prohibited cartridges) as they were personally aware of; on the contrary, some of the questioned witnesses, both for the defense and the prosecution, denied such information in both indictments, which is fully consistent with the consistent position of the questioned defendants on this matter. The indicated facts were not confirmed either by documentation or by the results of any expert studies, including forensic ballistics.

As for the use of cartridges with a charge of lead buckshot, then, indeed, according to the results of the study of evidence in individual episodes of death and injury of the victims ( PERSON_481 , PERSON_1047 , PERSON_491 and PERSON_1233 ), it was directly established that these persons received gunshot wounds as a result of such a shot. At the same time, even at the level of assumption, the involvement of RSP fighters, including the accused among them, in causing such injuries to the specified persons is excluded, which was exhaustively stated during the assessment of evidence in the specified episodes.

The lack of evidence regarding the receipt by the RSP fighters, who were armed with Fort-500 rifles, of cartridges with a lead buckshot charge, prohibited from using, directly affects the other scope of the indictment, from which the court excludes all references to the use of this category of cartridges by the RSP fighters, since nothing else has been proven. As a result, the court recognizes as an assumption on which the guilty verdict cannot be based, and the statement in the acts about the shooting from 08:50 on February 20, 2014 by the RSP employees on February 20, 2014 of cartridges with a lead buckshot charge from the Fort-500 rifles they had, as a result of which mass premeditated murders were committed and attempts were made on them.

Taking into account the above, the court excludes from the indictment of all the accused the indication that a component of the criminal orders of PERSON_31 himself, as well as the unlawful actions of the other accused in their execution, was their use of Fort-500 rifles equipped with cartridges with a charge of lead buckshot.

In addition, given the signs of exceeding the limits of necessary defense during the killing of the unarmed PERSON_393, who acted in a group with an armed person, the consequences of such exceeding cannot be attributed to other persons who are not involved in the fatal wounding of the specified victim. Therefore, the court excludes from the indictment the reference to the alleged actions of PERSON_31, PERSON_28 and PERSON_25 causing the death of the specified victim, as a component of their accusation of his intentional murder.

Also, the jury finds part of the indictment in the context of the list of victims, the harm caused to whom the accused is accused, unfounded. In particular, due to the lack of evidence of the involvement of the accused PERSON_31, PERSON_28 and PERSON_25, the court excludes from the scope of the indictment brought against them references to causing harm to the health of such victims, namely: by episodes of death - PERSON_480, PERSON_490, PERSON_491, PERSON_475, PERSON_487, PERSON_488, PERSON_489, PERSON_492, PERSON_493, PERSON_476, PERSON_494 - as a component of their intentional murder; by injury episodes - PERSON_477, PERSON_478, PERSON_479, PERSON_481, PERSON_482, PERSON_483, PERSON_484, PERSON_485, PERSON_486, PERSON_495, PERSON_496, PERSON_497, PERSON_498, PERSON_499, PERSON_500, PERSON_501, PERSON_502, PERSON_503, PERSON_223, PERSON_504, PERSON_222, PERSON_505, PERSON_506, PERSON_508, PERSON_507, PERSON_509, PERSON_510, PERSON_263, PERSON_511 - as components of a completed attempt to murder them.

In addition, the jury, based on the results of the trial and on the basis of the assessment of evidence for individual episodes of injury and death of the victims, recognizes as unproven, and therefore excludes from the scope of the charge, the infliction by individual of those bodily injuries, in the causing of which the involvement of the accused PERSON_31, PERSON_28 and PERSON_25, other law enforcement officers who tactically interacted with them, has not been proven. In particular, it excludes from the scope of the charge brought against the said persons the infliction of:

- victim PERSON_2551, February 20, 2014 from 09:03:47 a.m. to 09:09:30 a.m. - blind penetrating gunshot wound to the abdomen and a through gunshot wound to the left forearm, which were inflicted as a result of a single shot from a smooth-bore firearm and are classified as serious bodily injury due to the danger to life;

- to the victim PERSON_1777, on February 20, 2014, between 09:43:14 a.m. and 09:44:43 a.m. - a penetrating gunshot wound to the chest, a blind penetrating gunshot wound to the abdomen, which were inflicted as a result of shots from a 9 mm caliber rifled firearm and caused the victim’s death;

- to the victim PERSON_1541, on February 20, 2014, between 09:24:00 and 09:24:48 - one blind penetrating gunshot wound to the right thigh, which was caused by one shot from a 9 mm rifled firearm and is classified as a bodily injury of moderate severity;

- to the victim PERSON_1111, on February 20, 2014, in the period from 09:43:15 a.m. to 09:47:11 a.m. - a penetrating gunshot wound to the chest, which is a serious bodily injury, a blind gunshot wound to the right shoulder with the presence of a pistol bullet in the wound, which is a minor bodily injury, a gunshot wound to the right forearm, which has signs of a moderate bodily injury;

- to the victim PERSON_1995, on February 20, 2014, in the period up to 09:56:43 - a gunshot wound to the right thigh, which is a minor bodily injury, which caused a short-term health disorder.

In this regard, in the part concerning episodes PERSON_773, PERSON_315, PERSON_921 and PERSON_1640, the exclusion of the reference to the involvement of the aforementioned accused in causing the aforementioned bodily injuries does not entail a change in the criminal legal assessment of their actions as an attempt to intentionally murder these victims.

In this context, the court is forced to repeat for this case that, according to the results of the trial, the following were excluded from the scope of the indictment with a statement of the reasons for the decisions taken (Sections 6-7 of the verdict):

- all indications of the alleged commission of criminal acts by other persons named in both indictments, who were not charged and whose guilt was not proven in a lawful manner and not established by a court verdict of guilt, in particular, aimed at committing a terrorist act combined with mass murders, at stopping and forcibly dispersing protests, planning, preparing, giving and executing criminal orders, instructions and instructions for this purpose;

- as an unproven reference to the fact that the accused from among the RSP fighters, during their arming on February 18, 2014, showed in any way a willingness to carry out the order of the leadership to indiscriminately use firearms against an unspecified circle of activists with the aim of committing a terrorist act combined with mass murder;

- as an unproven reference to the presence of a detachment of RSP fighters, including the accused, from the night of February 19 to the morning of February 20, 2014 in reserve with the special purpose of providing assistance to other units in the event of their storming of the “Maidan” and carrying out tasks to disperse it by force, as well as the corresponding order to commit a terrorist act combined with mass murders, as well as the facts of someone setting and receiving such tasks, someone issuing and bringing such orders to them, and accordingly, expressing consent to their execution;

- as an unproven reference to PERSON_376 receiving, between February 18 and 20, 2014, an assignment from the leadership of the Ministry of Internal Affairs to prepare for a terrorist attack and mass premeditated murders, and his consent to the execution of such an assignment personally and by organizing its execution by the RSP fighters;

- as an unproven reference to the receipt in the period from 08:30 to 09:00 on February 20, 2014 by PERSON_376 of a criminal order by the RSP forces, who were on Instytutska Street, to commit premeditated murders in a generally dangerous manner of the largest possible unspecified circle of activists in order to intimidate them in order to completely stop the protests, as well as the fact of prior coordination with the PMOP commander of the tactics of actions of the RSP fighters for this purpose, a reference to the execution by PERSON_31 of the specified order, when he began on February 20, 2014 at approximately 08:50 to coordinate the withdrawal of units and special vehicles;

- as an unproven indication that all the accused, during the period of February 18, 19 and until 08:30 on February 20, 2014, in execution of a clearly criminal order, exceeded their authority and official powers, participated in committing a terrorist act, committed the intentional murder of two or more persons, attempted such murders, or were preparing for such actions;

- as an unproven reference to the purpose of PERSON_376 giving a clearly criminal order to subordinate RSP fighters on the morning of February 20, 2014, specifically to commit a terrorist act.

In addition, as already established by the court, the actions of the RSP fighters and PERSON_31 armed with AKMS, Fort-500 rifles and pistols around the Zhovtnevy Palace and after that, recorded on February 20, 2014 from 09:05 to 09:16 on video recordings (paragraph 5.3.2 of the verdict), indicate their limited nature with a special purpose - ensuring the evacuation of law enforcement officers from the Zhovtnevy Palace building.

It was precisely this direction of the actions of the RSP fighters under the command of PERSON_31 around the Zhovtnevy Palace that other persons (victims PERSON_507, PERSON_1391, witnesses from among the law enforcement officers PERSON_861, PERSON_863 and PERSON_862, “PERSON_3025” (SBU Central Security Service “A”), PERSON_859, PERSON_860, etc.) indicated during interrogation in court, whose testimonies were not refuted by the evidence presented and, on the contrary, were documented by photo and video materials.

- receipt, between February 18 and 20, 2014, by the deputy commander of the PMOP PERSON_376 of an assignment from the leadership of the Ministry of Internal Affairs regarding preparations for committing a terrorist attack and mass premeditated murders, and his consent to the execution of such an assignment personally and by organizing its execution by the RSP fighters.

The prosecution did not submit any evidence to confirm the specified special purpose of the RSP fighters being in the reserve and receiving the aforementioned task PERSON_2788, and among the persons questioned by the court (victims, witnesses), there were no individuals who would declare themselves as the bearers of such facts or any involvement in them, and such facts were not documented.

Considering the dynamics of the events on the Maidan on the morning of February 20, 2014, among the victims at the time of their injuries were:

- participants in the attack (assault, breakthrough, attack) on law enforcement officers from ADDRESS_46 in the period from 08:58 to 09:00 ( PERSON_481 , PERSON_1173 , PERSON_1184 , PERSON_1047 ), among whom PERSON_1047 was in the front group of activists who, not reacting to restraint by police officers through the use of special means, committed specific actions that posed or could be assessed as posing a real threat to the life or health of law enforcement officers;

- participants in the pursuit with elements of an attack by law enforcement officers on Instytutska Street in the period from 09:00 to 09:09. ( PERSON_491 , PERSON_1233 , PERSON_490 , PERSON_1242 , PERSON_1249 , PERSON_973 , PERSON_985 , PERSON_1258 , PERSON_1244 ), among whom PERSON_491 , PERSON_1249 , PERSON_973 , PERSON_985 , PERSON_1258 were in the front group of activists who, not reacting to the restraint by the police officers through the use of special means, committed specific actions that posed or could be assessed as posing a real threat to the life or health of law enforcement officers;

Indeed, as the prosecution noted and not disputed by the defense, in many episodes of deaths and injuries of activists, the place of the victim’s injury, the position of his body in space at the time of the injury, forensic data on the nature and localization of the gunshot wound itself were accurately established. However, this information during the pre-trial investigation remained unexamined by ballistics specialists in order to draw incredibly simple conclusions on the spot based on such initial data regarding the specific sector of the shooting at the victim. A long (more than a year) procedural opportunity that was created for this purpose by the court during the trial.in the form of a direct court mandate to conduct a comprehensive investigative experiment remained unimplemented by the prosecution.

At the same time, there is no data regarding PERSON_29 on his receipt and execution of clearly criminal orders, or on his reaching a preliminary conspiracy to commit crimes. The evidence examined during the trial did not establish his direct involvement in directly causing harm to the victims’ health. There is also no data that PERSON_29’s intent included specific socially dangerous consequences that occurred as a result of the use of firearms by the person with whom he tactically interacted.

The jury, despite the limited working hours, created appropriate conditions for all participants in the proceedings to exercise their rights, but this did not always contribute to the judicial proceedings. For example, on April 26, 2018, at the request of the representative of the victims PERSON_657, a time-consuming procedure was initiated to open, using the court’s technical means, materials of video reconstruction of certain events, namely a computer program for visualizing the situation and circumstances of obtaining PERSON_475, PERSON_393 and PERSON_1791, which continued in the courtroom with the participation of the accused and defense attorneys on May 31, June 12 and 14, and July 17, 2018. However, after the completion of this procedure, its initiator did not file a motion for the court to examine such materials.

- on the fact of a violent attack on the presiding judge in this case, PERSON_2590, on September 14, 2018, information was entered into the ERDR No. 12018100080007412 on the grounds of a crime under Part 4 of Article 296 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. On the basis of a statement on this fact by PERSON_2590 himself, on September 15, 2018, information was entered into the ERDR No. 12018100080007455 on the grounds of a crime under Part 2 of Article 377 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. However, the court proceedings under the indictment, which was received on July 2, 2019, by the Darnytskyi District Court of Kyiv in criminal proceedings ERDR No. 12018100080007412, still remain unexamined due to the procedural behavior of the prosecutor, in connection with which a statement was filed regarding the fact of the state, represented by the prosecution, leveling the guarantees of the participants in the process for a trial within a reasonable time. Criminal proceedings ERDR No. 12018100080007455 were secretly closed with a gross violation of the procedural rights of PERSON_2590 as a victim, which was confirmed by a separate court decision (resolution of the investigating judge of the Shevchenkivskyi District Court of Kyiv dated August 19, 2020, un. No. 759/9808/20, source: https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/91112846). After the cancellation of the decision to close the specified proceedings, his fate is still unknown. In this particular case, unfortunately, all the judge’s appeals were actually ignored or remained unresolved beyond a reasonable time;

- as an unproven reference to the purpose of PERSON_376 giving a clearly criminal order to subordinate RSP fighters on the morning of February 20, 2014, specifically to commit a terrorist act.

- in the period from approximately 09:05 to 17:00, PERSON_23, PERSON_20, PERSON_19 and PERSON_21, each being an employee of a law enforcement agency, committed an abuse of power and official authority while performing their official duties, and PERSON_20 and PERSON_19 - also in execution of a clearly criminal order, which was accompanied by the use of firearms;

- in addition, PERSON_23, PERSON_20 and PERSON_19, starting at 09:17 a.m., each, using a firearm, committed in a manner dangerous to the lives of many persons, by prior conspiracy by a group of persons, and PERSON_20 and PERSON_19 - also in execution of a clearly criminal order, the intentional murder of two or more persons and a completed attempt to commit the intentional murder of two or more persons.

Also, the court, citing the reasons for its decision (Section 7 of the verdict), excluded from the indictment as unproven:

- the fact that the defendants, during their arming on February 18, 2014, demonstrated their readiness to carry out the order of the leadership to indiscriminately use firearms against an unspecified group of activists with the aim of committing a terrorist attack;

- the fact that a detachment of RSP fighters, including the accused, was in reserve from the night of February 19 to the morning of February 20, 2014 with the special purpose of providing assistance to other units in the event that they stormed the “Maidan” and carried out tasks to disperse it by force, as well as the facts of someone setting and receiving such tasks by them, and accordingly, expressing consent to their execution;

- the fact that PERSON_376 received an assignment from the leadership of the Ministry of Internal Affairs on February 18-20, 2014, to prepare for a terrorist attack and mass premeditated murders, and that he consented to perform such an assignment personally and by organizing its execution by the RSP fighters;

- the fact of receiving in the period from 08:30 to 09:00 on February 20, 2014 PERSON_376 a criminal order to carry out the intentional killings of the RSP forces in a generally dangerous manner of the largest possible number of unspecified activists in order to intimidate them in order to completely stop the protests, the latter’s coordination with the PMOP leadership of the tactics of the RSP fighters’ actions for this purpose, as well as the fact of his execution of the specified order, when he began at 08:50 to coordinate the withdrawal of units and special service vehicles;

- the fact of abuse of power and official authority, which led to grave consequences, participation in the commission of a terrorist act, intentional murders of two or more people, attempts at such murders or preparation for such actions by the accused during the period of February 18, 19 and until 08:30 on February 20, 2014, in execution of a clearly criminal order.

The prosecution did not submit any evidence to confirm these factual circumstances (the specific purpose of arming and keeping the RSP fighters in reserve, receiving the aforementioned task, and subsequently the criminal order and its alleged execution, etc.), among the persons questioned by the court, there were no persons who would declare themselves as the bearers of such facts or any involvement in them, and such facts were not documented.

The facts documented on video and photos of the presence of firearms on the territory of the “Maidan” and their use against law enforcement officers from the territory controlled by activists in the central part of Kyiv, a significant number of such weapons and the persons who used them, victims of such and other violent actions, were recognized by the court as incompatible with the concept of forms and means of a peaceful protest in principle.

- the armed attack on law enforcement officers on the morning of February 20, 2014, with the use of firearms to kill, as stated in the indictments themselves, and the subsequent attack by activists on law enforcement officers with elements of attack and persecution, and individual activists with objects that, with all obviousness, resemble firearms of various types in their external features, and their targeted use in the direction of law enforcement officers;

From November 24, 2013 to January 19, 2014, the Maidan was an exclusively peaceful protest. The presence of individual, even trained, aggressive groups among peaceful protesters during the protests, the commission of violent offenses by such groups, as well as individual local clashes between protesters and law enforcement officers, was recognized by the court as insufficient evidence that such protests had lost their peaceful nature, since other goals were not publicly declared by its organizers, and the aforementioned clashes did not become an integral part of the protest itself.

The increase in violence during the protests on the Maidan in the period from January 19 to 26, 2014 (the active events of the “bloody Epiphany”) was obvious, as was its duration, which in the aggregate and against the background of previous outbreaks of violence, which were short-term (up to a day), gives this circumstance a certain tendency, that is, there is a variation in the nature of the protest. The sporadic appearance of a firearm component was also recorded in these events. Analyzing the documented facts, which, in the opinion of the defense, are the most convincing, the court in this case also did not find valid grounds on their basis for concluding that the protest had lost its peaceful nature. At the same time, the dynamics of events, the sudden escalation of the confrontation by organized groups of activists, the involvement of an increasing number of people in it in conditions of increasing crowding became the factors under which violent confrontation was inevitable, and the loss of such a peaceful nature of the protest became less and less illusory, and clashes increasingly became an integral part of the protest itself.

The unprecedented sharp increase in violence during the protests on Maidan on February 18, 2014, and the severity of its consequences due to the significant number of gunshot wounds sustained by participants in the confrontation on both sides, combined, make it absolutely questionable whether such a protest at the time of the events was peaceful. The actions of activists documented on February 18, 2014 cannot be called peaceful gatherings, rallies, street marches, or demonstrations.

February 18, 2014 - bodily injuries of varying severity (bruises, traumatic brain injuries, fractures, poisoning, burns) to 398 law enforcement officers, 8 of whom died from gunshot wounds (military personnel of the Armed Forces military unit NUMBER_72 PERSON_2335 and PERSON_2336 (4:40 p.m. near the Trade Unions building), military unit NUMBER_202 PERSON_2337 and PERSON_2338 (4-5 p.m. near the Zhovtnevy Palace), employee of the Berkut special unit of the Main Department of Internal Affairs of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea PERSON_2509 (9 p.m. near the flower clock), employee of the PMOP PERSON_2349 (9-10 p.m. near the Globus shopping mall), military personnel of the Armed Forces military unit NUMBER_206 PERSON_2339 (22 h. 30 min. near the Zhovtnevy Palace) and PERSON_2340 (23-00 on the stairs near the Independence Stella), and a total of 133 law enforcement officers received gunshot wounds.

According to the location, it was established that in the period from 08:00 to 23:50 on February 18, 2014, law enforcement officers were injured: in the territory of Mariinsky Park - 9 people; at the intersection of Instytutska and Shovkovychna streets - 48 people, 14 of whom were shot; on Shovkovychna street - 6 people; on Lypska street - 5 people, 4 of whom were shot; at the intersection of Instytutska and Sadovaya streets - 1 person was shot; on Sadovaya street - 1 person; at the intersection of Instytutska and Bankova streets - 6 people were shot; on Bankova street - 1 person; on Instytutska street - 114 people, 25 of whom were shot; near the Zhovtnevy Palace - 5 people were shot; on Hrushevskogo - 115 people, of whom 25 - firearms; on Muzeyny Street - 2 people - firearms; on European Square - 2 people - firearms, on Tryohsvyatitelska Street - 1 person - firearms; on Khreshchatyk Street - 50 people, of whom 35 - firearms; at the intersection of Instytutska Street and Khreshchatyk Street - 5 people, of whom 3 - firearms; on Maidan Nezalezhnosti - 19 people, of whom 2 - firearms.

On February 18, 2014, 771 activists were also injured to varying degrees, 19 of whom died, 12 of them from gunshot wounds, and a total of 120 activists received gunshot wounds.

On February 19, 2014, 105 law enforcement officers were injured to varying degrees of severity (bruises, traumatic brain injuries, fractures, poisoning, burns), 1 of whom died from a gunshot wound, and a total of 14 law enforcement officers received gunshot wounds. 156 activists were also injured to varying degrees of severity, 6 of whom died, 3 of whom were from gunshot wounds, and a total of 20 activists received gunshot wounds.

On February 20, 2014, 113 law enforcement officers were injured to varying degrees of severity (bruises, traumatic brain injuries, fractures, poisoning, burns), 4 of whom died from gunshot wounds, and a total of 63 law enforcement officers received gunshot wounds. 233 activists were also injured to varying degrees of severity, 49 of whom died, 48 of whom were from gunshot wounds, and a total of 172 activists received gunshot wounds.

The jury’s conclusions about the documented nature of the facts of the presence of firearms on the territory of the “Maidan” and their use against law enforcement officers from the territory controlled by activists in the central part of Kyiv on February 18-20, 2014, a significant number of such weapons and individuals who used them, which is incompatible with the concept of forms and means of a peaceful protest in principle, were additionally confirmed during the investigation in compliance with the procedure for opening additional photo materials (Part 11 of Article 290 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine). These include, in particular, 46 photos, provided by the defense attorney of PERSON_678 (vol. 93 a. 122-167) and 12 photos, provided by the defense attorney of PERSON_679 (vol. 174 a. 2-13), examined by the jury both as a whole and during the interrogation of individual victims and witnesses, which show more than 25 different objects, which, by their obvious external signs, can be perceived as firearms such as rifles of various types, including those with optical sights, pistols of various types and systems, and the same number of different shooters with these objects among the Maidan activists who moved freely around the Maidan territory, felt protected on it, and who in most cases were covered and accompanied by other activists, which indicates the falsity of the arguments about the fundamental separation of the Maidan from such persons.

The information documented from the activist-controlled territory in the central part of Kyiv about the presence of firearms among the Maidan activists, and the number of such shooters is counted in the dozens, is incompatible with the concept of forms and means of peaceful protest in principle.

In addition, the indicated data fully prove that the premises of the “Ukrainy” hotel were the object of massive shelling with firearms of various calibers, in particular, with cartridges of 7.62x39 mm (the absolute majority), 7.62x51 mm or .308 Winchester (room No. 926), 7.62x54R mm (hotel kitchen premises) and from various directions, including: from the direction of the top of the street. Instytutska and near the entrance to the Khreschatyk metro station - according to the examined photo and video materials, the area that was under the exclusive control of law enforcement and where the RSP was located (damaged from this direction are rooms No. 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 312, 313, 520, 544, a utility room on the 6th floor, rooms No. 926, 1126, staircases between the 4th and 5th, 13th, 14th and 15th floors); from the edge of the Kinopalats building - according to the examined photo and video materials, the area that passed under the control of the “Maidan” from the law enforcement (rooms No. 308, NUMBER_56, 1136); from the side of the Conservatory - according to the examined photo and video materials, the territory controlled by the “Maidan” (room No. 825); from the side of the Main Post Office - according to the studied photo and video materials, the territory controlled by “Maidan” (room No. 925), - and there was also shooting in the opposite direction from the premises of the “Ukraine” hotel - in the parking lot from above from the hotel windows (car), towards the top of Instytutska Street (covered by snow and concrete barricades) (from room No. 1116).

According to the incident scene inspection report dated February 25, 2014 with annexes in the form of a photo table (vol. 150 a. 71-70), during the inspection with the participation of a forensic specialist of room No. 1136 on the 11th floor of the “Ukraine” hotel building (Kyiv, 4 Instytutska St.), gunshot damage in the form of a hole was found on the window facing the Kinopalats building; no items of significance were found or seized.

According to the incident scene inspection report dated February 26, 2014 with annexes in the form of a photo table (vol. 150 a. 215-223), during the inspection with the participation of a forensic specialist of room No. 1116 on the 11th floor of the “Ukraine” hotel building (Kyiv, 4 Instytutska St.), a through-fire damage was found on the glass section of the metal-plastic door to the balcony in the form of an opening in the direction outward (the initial one is photo No. 5 on a. 223), that is, from the hotel towards Instytutska Street (the area covers both sides of Instytutska Street, the entrance to the Khreschatyk metro station, snow and concrete barricades), no items of significance were found or seized.

The totality of the indicated data on trace information of the damages and the direction of their infliction has proven with all due accuracy that the area on Instytutska Street from the Hotel “Ukraine” to its intersection with Olhynska Street was the object of massive shelling from various directions, including:

A) towards the Hotel “Ukraine” and conditionally towards Maidan Nezalezhnosti, -

B) in the opposite direction towards the government quarter, -

- from the side of the October Palace - according to the researched photo and video materials, the area that passed under the control of the “Maidan” from the law enforcement forces;

- from the Independence Square - the sighting of gunshot damage from the Independence Square is consistent with the video footage, which shows people with rifles and pistols among the activists near the “INFORMACIYA_161” hotel building and near the green fence on the alley from the Zhovtnevy Palace.

These data, taken together, correlate with the previously provided information about the directions of shelling of the premises of the Ukraina Hotel building, especially regarding the direction of fire from the top of Instytutska Street and from the area near the entrance to the Khreschatyk metro station, as well as the direction of fire from the premises of the Ukraina Hotel towards the snow and concrete barricades placed at the top of Instytutska Street across its carriageway.

Regarding the time of the injury of the victim PERSON_967, during the examination in the court session of the video recording entitled “MVI_2768” (the so-called Mustang video), placed on the TDK DVD-R disk ...2248 (vol. 17 a. 122), the victim PERSON_968 showed the middle floors of the hotel “INFORMATION_161”, where from afar he saw a person in black clothes with an object resembling a weapon, and also admitted that the events recorded on the video near the bridge occurred later in time than the time of his injury...

The above testimonies of the victim PERSON_832 were generally confirmed during the court’s examination of the certificate of the volunteer of the “Maidan” Self-Defense Force No. 1246 for the victim, who was a member of the hundred No. 28 (vol. 72 a 109ob.), the appendix to the protocol of his interrogation dated April 17, 2015, where on the diagram under the number No. NUMBER_149 he marked, as he believed, analyzing all the information received from other activists and from the scene, the locations of the “snipers” - the CMU building, the “Ukraine” hotel, the “Arkada” bank, the CMU club, etc. (vol. 72 a. 14).

However, among the sectors most frequently mentioned by the victims, from which, in their opinion, the shelling of the activists was carried out, a special place, in addition to the actual locations of the armed RSP fighters visualized in the video recordings (first in front of the October Palace, then in the alley from it during their retreat, then behind the snow and finally behind the concrete barricades), was the upper floors of the “INFORMACIYA_161” hotel building, which the defense side used, casting doubt on the firing of shots by RSP fighters in the direction of the victims.

Snipers as observers took up their positions for observation and discovered several possible points of fire in their direction from the side of the hotel “INFORMATION_161”, other fighters were in cover behind the fence, behind trees, some in small groups and he moved with them to the territory of the CMU club, the rest of the personnel was in reserve at the intersection of Bankivska and Luteranska streets, the main one there was the deputy commander of “INFORMATION_285” for assault training.

The sniper was informed about the presence of long-barreled weapons by the activists closer to the hotel “INFORMACIYA_161”. Being on the third floor of the club, after the windows were opened, the positions of his snipers were fired at approximately from the 5-7th floors of the “Ukraine” hotel and the attic of the Zhovtnevy Palace, the bullets fired at the snipers were not removed by them, 5-7 shots were fired around the perimeter of the window, most likely they were firing to make observation impossible. The fire was conducted from deep inside the room professionally, so it was not possible to accurately identify the positions of the shooters.

According to reports, he knew that the shooting at law enforcement officers was being conducted from the “INFORMATION_161” hotel, and after the activists occupied the October Palace, then from the attic of the palace, snipers also reported movement at the construction site near the “Dnipro” hotel, all its sources named the “INFORMATION_161” hotel as the point of fire in terms of intensity, then the October Palace and only then the construction site near the “Dnipro” hotel, snipers reported that in the area of the “Ukraine” hotel down the street there were also people armed with long-barreled firearms, it could have been used from that place to kill…

On February 20, it was also impossible to detain the people who were firing at law enforcement officers; it was only possible to clear the Ukraina Hotel or the Conservatory if the organizers of the mass events would have provided passage there, and his squad was ready for this. As far as he knows, such requests were made by the leadership of the Alpha unit, but the response was a refusal. In the operational situation that developed, the leadership of the Maidan, with its influence on hundreds (squads) and if there was a desire, could have organized an access corridor for special forces to the hotel building; law enforcement officers could have done this on their own only through an assault and clashes with the possible use of weapons again, which would have resulted in additional casualties. Analyzing the situation that he saw personally, he cannot say that the groups of snipers from the activists were coordinated with other groups of protesters. His men were probably fired at with a weapon of at least 7.62 caliber, it could also be a hunting rifle, given the analysis of hits in the CMU club, where his subordinates were, the fire was fired from one level, most likely from the 5th-7th floors of the Ukraina Hotel, there was no return fire, since the snipers did not see the shooter.

The video “2014-02-20-01” records the circumstances of the stay of a public figure - activist PERSON_834 precisely in the Conservatory building, where the activists were actually housed.

In some details, the testimony of witness PERSON_2447 is generally consistent with other evidence examined by the court, namely in terms of the morning firefight of law enforcement forces on Independence Square on February 20, 2014, one of the sources of such fire - the building PERSON_1174, the presence of people with weapons among the activists on the “Maidan”, and among them a publicly known person - PERSON_834...

On February 18, 2014, 771 activists were also injured to varying degrees, 19 of whom died, 12 of them from gunshot wounds, and a total of 120 activists received gunshot wounds.

Ivan Katchanovski's Substack on Ukraine

Discussion about this post

Ready for more?