Kiev lawyer Sergei Gorbachenko, head of the Legal Aid Center "Ukrainian Detective Anti-Corruption Bureau", won the case in the Svyatoshinsky District Court, where was considered criminal case on charges of evading conscription.
Subscribe to PolitNavigator news at Telegram, Facebook, Classmates or In contact with
Despite the pompousness of the name, the “Ukrainian Detective Anti-Corruption Bureau” has nothing to do with government agencies. It is not even a public organization - it is just private law firm, the owner and director was the defendant in the case. The company specializes in real estate transactions.
The valiant workers of the military registration and enlistment office developed a whole special operation to attract a reserve officer to the ATO. Having obtained the defendant’s phone number, they invited him to undergo a medical examination at the military registration and enlistment office on July 2015, XNUMX, allegedly just for registration purposes in case of war. The defendant agreed, taking the military commissar at his word, and came. Imagine his surprise when, immediately after passing the medical examination, he was given a combat summons; according to it, he was supposed to soon, on the twenty-fourth of July, leave for officer training in Odessa, and then be sent to the ATO zone.
But the military commissars did not take into account the fact that they were dealing with a lawyer. He stated that he would serve as a reserve officer, but only if martial law was declared in the country. And Petro Poroshenko’s decree on partial mobilization is not legal. Afterwards, Sergei Gorbachenko signed in the presence of witnesses an act of refusal to receive a combat summons. Moreover, he emphasized all the time that he would serve, that he wanted to serve, but in the Right Sector, and not in the Armed Forces of Ukraine. And then he left the military registration and enlistment office building.
At the trial, witnesses were confused in their testimony. It turned out that for some reason the original summons was not even found in the case. And an attempt to re-serve the summons in the defendant’s apartment encountered an insurmountable cordon of the janitor, who took the summons but “forgot” to tell the addressee about it.
Thus, the court acquitted the defendant, resolving all doubts in his favor, mainly due to the fact that the defendant knew how to speak correctly and never publicly refused to serve.
This trial is further proof that, no matter how the soldiers and officers of the Ukrainian Armed Forces justify their participation in punitive operations against the population of Donbass, their choice in most cases was conscious. If they didn’t really want to serve, they wouldn’t serve.