If all those who promised to take this case under their personal control—top officials and “PR people”—had kept their promise, the victims’ representatives would not have had to do the work that should have been done by the prosecution. “I am completely disappointed both in the prosecutors representing the state in court in this high-profile case and in the investigators of the newly created State Bureau of Investigation,” Alexander Shcherbina, the attorney for the family of the deceased child, told Special Correspondents.

As Special Correspondents have learned, in November 2019, the then-head of the State Bureau of Investigations, Roman Truba, reported that law enforcement had managed to chronologically reconstruct the sequence of events that took place on May 31, 2019. The State Bureau of Investigations reported that the suspects first drank alcohol at the home of one of them.

“On May 31, from 1:00 p.m. to 3:45 p.m., they were in the yard of the police officer’s home, drinking alcohol, and had agreed in advance to fire 5.6-millimeter bullets from firearms. They fired at targets and other objects,” the SBI said. “The gun and bullets belonged to one of the law enforcement officers. They had prepared the targets in advance. At that time, four children were walking 80 meters away from the street, including five-year-old Kirill. At 3:36 p.m., one of the police officers fired at a target located between two houses. The bullet traveled 52 meters, struck the top of a rock, ricocheted, traveled another 33 meters, and struck the boy in the head. The suspects did not realize they had hit a child and went out to have fun. At 4:00 a.m. on June 1, they were taken to the police station…”

Following the child’s death, criminal proceedings were initiated under the charge of “intentional homicide,” which carries a penalty of up to life imprisonment. However, during the investigation, the charge was changed. Now the police officer (the one who struck the boy) is charged with manslaughter. The change in the charge has puzzled many, since manslaughter carries a maximum sentence of up to five years in prison.

Alexander Shcherbina, the attorney for the family of the deceased child, commented on these details:

“At this point, there are three charges. The three defendants are charged with hooliganism involving the use of a weapon, and one of the police officers is charged with aiding and abetting hooliganism.” The maximum penalty under the charge of “Hooliganism involving the use of weapons” is seven years in prison. The police officer who shot the boy is charged not only with hooliganism but also with manslaughter. I understand that the reclassification of the charges has caused confusion for many. But there is a logical explanation for this. According to the evidence gathered by the State Bureau of Investigations, the police officer did not, in fact, intend to kill the child. He did not plot or plan the killing. He simply fired the gun out of hooliganism. And, of course, he should have understood the potential consequences of firing a gun in a densely populated residential area. But in any case, this is manslaughter. Immediately after the incident, then-Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko wrote about the need to open a criminal case under the charge of “intentional murder,” since that charge carries a life sentence. In reality, with such a charge, the case would simply have fallen apart in court. Proving intentional murder in this case is impossible.

“According to the investigation, only the second police officer did not fire any shots,” says Alexander Shcherbina. “Instead, his 16-year-old son fired the shots.” Now this police officer claims he’s not guilty—saying he didn’t fire any shots—yet he’s being held in custody. But he was part of that very group. He was drinking (as is known from the statements the suspects gave during the pretrial investigation), having a good time, allowed his underage son to shoot, and didn’t even think to put a stop to this “fun.” Although he was a police officer himself, he was well aware of the regulations and rules for handling firearms. Furthermore, as we have learned, he was in the ATO zone. Therefore, I am convinced that he, like everyone else, is guilty of aiding and abetting hooliganism involving the use of firearms.

— The other suspects admit that they fired shots. However, they consider what happened to be an administrative offense. They do not believe that the place where they opened fire was a public place. And they certainly show no remorse. They call the charges against them unfair.

— Unfortunately, it is impossible to prove that the suspects were drunk at the time of the crime. After all, the suspects were not detained immediately after the incident. After the shooting, they went on to continue partying. They were detained in the early morning at a bar, where both police officers were drinking alcohol. In other words, it can be stated with certainty that they were drunk at the time of their arrest. However, no one knows what their condition was at the time the crime was committed. The conclusion that they were intoxicated can be drawn only from circumstantial evidence.

— The weapon used to shoot Kirill Tlyavov has never been found. And this raises many questions—first and foremost for the police officers who arrived at the scene immediately after the incident. It was their actions—or inaction—that created the conditions under which the key piece of evidence was lost. Two bullets were found in the yard of one of the suspects’ homes. According to witness testimony, the rifle itself was initially there as well. But it suddenly disappeared before the search. I suspect the weapon wasn’t lost by accident. After all, the suspects are “colleagues” of the police officers who responded to the scene.

Pereyaslav is a small town; everyone knows each other here. We managed to get the State Bureau of Investigation (GBR) to open a criminal case regarding the police officers’ negligence. But for some reason, they refused to recognize us as victims in this case. And the case is not being investigated. Incidentally, the SBI also failed to inform me about the change in the charge against the police officer who shot the child, even though they were required to do so. I still haven’t been given access to all the case materials either.

We can only hope that the prosecution will succeed in proving the suspects’ guilt in court. To sum up, I want to say that, unfortunately, the State Bureau of Investigation’s pretrial investigation was superficial, and now it will not be easy for us and the prosecutor’s office. Meanwhile, the public outcry over the case is dying down because everyone who wanted to use it for publicity has achieved their goal but has failed to follow through on their promises.