Presidential Ombudsman in Children Rights of Ukraine Mykola Kuleba, responding to a Facebook post by Lena Samojlenko from 20 April 2020, appealed to the National Police of Ukraine to launch a probe into alleged ’physical pain or mental suffering through violent actions’ сaused to the children who took part in the shooting of DAU. Thus, the appeal was based on the impression of one single viewer from a movie Dau. Degeneration excerpt. Khrzhanovsky as well as the officers of the production company denied the accusations referring to the permissions obtained from the orphanage, procedures of infants’ filming that had to be observed and were in place, international distribution certificates that the movie had obtained and the absurdity of assumptions about the reality beyond the frame made after watching a movie excerpt. On 10 July 2020 The Telegraph newspaper issued an apology to Khrzhanovsky for their article published in April about opening a criminal probe, that implied that there were reasonable grounds for such an investigation; in their statement, the newspaper reported that Khrzhanovsky had been paid damages and that he would donate to the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism. In April 2020 a draft presentation of the creative concept of BYHMC was leaked to the press that presented it as a final creative solution. This provoked a scandal; scholars, journalists and writers called for dismissal of Khrzhanovskiy, referring to the assumptions made about DAU project and also pointing out that a Ukrainian memorial can not be controlled by Russian funds. The Head of Scientific Council Karel Berkhoff and the CEO Yana Bariniva left the project as a mark of protest against the approach reflected in the concept. In response, the Memorial Center issued a statement saying: ‘All accusations addressed now to Ilya Khrzanovsky are made based on emotions and subjective thoughts built upon speculations and assumptions’ and called the media and public to ‘be objective and balanced’. On 27 May 2020 The Jerusalem Post published an article by Khrzhanovskiy saying: ‘This interpretation has no connection whatsoever to the artistic spirit that I am striving to embody in the project’. He also stressed that he stayed fully committed to the frame of historical narrative that had been elaborated by scholars and pointed at the difference between methods he had used when working on the DAU arthouse project and those appropriate for dealing with the memory of Babyn Yar tragedy. At the beginning of