The widow of the journalist Georgy Gongadze Miroslav declares branch to the consequence management in business and insists on examination of fragments of the found skull abroad.
The representative of the victim reported about it in the case of Gongadze Valentin Telichenko.
She considers that the fragments of a skull found the day before, "with a high probability are fragments of a skull of Georgy Gongadze". However Miroslava Gongadze will insist on carrying out genotiposkopichesky examination (DNA examination) "in expert establishment beyond the borders of Ukraine to which the victim would trust".
Telichenko also reported that on July 29 she addressed to the general prosecutor of Ukraine Alexander Medvedko with the statement for removal of the investigator Alexander Harchenko and with a request to discharge of a legal investigation of the deputy general prosecutor Nikolay Golomshu.
Miroslava Gongadze and her representative insufficient professional level of the specified persons and their impossibility to oppose to political pressure" refer on ".
Telichenko reminded that according to a PDA the general prosecutor has 24 hours for the answer of the victim.
On July 1 this year the general prosecutor already gave an assessment to work of the deputy Golomsha, having taken away from - under his control Gongadze's business and having charged control of a consequence to Vitaly Shchetkin.
"Why suddenly this decision changed, remains unclear", - specified Telichenko.
"In the State Office of Public Prosecutor there are highly qualified specialists. Exactly thanks to their efforts in 2005-2006 well-founded charges both in the case of Georgy Gongadze, and in the case of Alexey Podolsky" were brought to trial, - she told.
It reminded that by then the deputy public prosecutor Vitaly Shchetkin directed an investigation, and Victor Kudryavtsev held charge of court.
"I don't doubt professional qualities of these heads. Today the State Office of Public Prosecutor is shamelessly promoted, using for this purpose results of work of field investigators of SBU, at the same time even with Alexey Pukacha's first interrogation the investigative allowed PDA violations, having interrogated it in the absence of the defender", Telichenko declares.
In her opinion, "deficiency of professionalism of investigators threatens possibility of charge of court and does impossible their work under pressure of political factors and speculation".