New details have emerged in the high-profile case of the former head of the SBU in Khmelnytskyi, Viktor Kryitor, and his subordinate, Vitaliy Taraday. The courts could not establish the trajectory of the bullet that killed retiree Lyudmila Sheremet near the Khmelnytskyi SBU. Expert examinations also did not indicate the exact location from which the shots were fired.
According to the lawyer of the deceased Sheremet, it is still impossible to say from which exact place the fatal bullet was fired. The court did not agree with the prosecution's version that the shot was fired from inside the SBU premises.
The first instance court reasonably established, which is also agreed by the appellate court, that some of the key evidence presented by the prosecution contains significant contradictions and inconsistencies...
The case has also revealed the loss of physical evidence, which may hinder further investigations. One of the reasons for the loss of evidence is attributed to internal struggles between the units of the general prosecutor's office and the department dealing with the events of the Maidan.
The Prosecutor General's Office also acknowledged its own mistakes. The department of the office confirmed the fact of the loss of one piece of physical evidence - a metal object seized by the investigator in a medical institution
Judgment and circumstances of the events
According to the conclusions of the appellate court, the pre-trial investigation was conducted unilaterally, and other versions of the offenses were not considered. Defendants Kryitor and Taraday rejected the accusations against them, claiming that they acted in accordance with the law when protecting the territory of the SBU.
Kryitor explained that the order to use weapons was given after a threat of an assault on the management by a group of individuals. Taraday also confirmed that the shots were fired in response to the aggressive actions of the protesters.
Thus, the court established violations in the conduct of the investigation and deemed some of the key evidence contradictory. Furthermore, important physical evidence was lost, which will complicate the case review in the future.
New information regarding the case indicates the loss of physical evidence and the contradictions in the collected data, which complicate the investigation. The court acknowledged that the conducted investigation had many shortcomings that could impact the further course of the review of this case.