Persecution of combat commander Oleksandr Chekmaz, known as “Hedgehog”, raise serious questions about the objectivity of law enforcement agencies’ actions and their ability to understand the context of military events. When the Russians tried to seize the capital, more than 600 volunteers defended the Brovary direction under the leadership of Hedgehog. In turn, prosecutors and investigators who are preparing a criminal case against the commander, a holder of the Order “For Courage” of the 3rd degree, “fled” from the capital. Chekmaz faces 12 years in prison for not registering uncertified body armor, but distributing it to fighters at their voluntary request. No misappropriation or trade in body armor has been recorded.
So, can prosecutors and investigators who were not in Kyiv during the first months of the full-scale Russian offensive correctly assess the actions of the military?
The Chekmaz case is another example of negligence in the investigation of military cases or even deliberate persecution of a combat commander. We all remember the chaos of 2022, when volunteer assistance from abroad arrived daily to brigades and volunteer formations. At the same time, in May 2022, Polish volunteer Hernik Wojciech and the NGO “Ukrainian Cluster of Innovative Development” brought 300 bulletproof vests without documents. According to their external characteristics, these were “police” and not military bulletproof vests. Chekmaz (“Hedgehog”) had no right, neither by law nor in conscience, to force his soldiers to wear these risky bulletproof vests. Therefore, these personal protective equipment were issued with the consent of the soldier, without military registration.
Law enforcement officers accuse Oleksandr of misappropriation of other people's property under Art. 191 Part 5 of the Criminal Code. After all, Ezhak thanked the volunteers on behalf of the military unit, although he did not register the personal protective equipment itself. There are also a number of reasons for this: without appropriate documents, no military unit will accept bulletproof vests of unconfirmed quality; the transfer of aid took place before Chekmaz was appointed battalion commander.
The very fact that the prosecutors and investigators involved in the case were not in Kyiv at the beginning of 2022 is significant. This is evidenced by the response of the Specialized Prosecutor's Office in the field of defense of the central region to the request of the People's Deputy Andriy Sharaskin. According to the time sheets, Artemenko O.M., Gafarov A.R., Gogrichiani M.F., Anoshina D.V. and Tarasenko O.S. performed their duties on all working days remotely, and their departure was forced.
The absence of law enforcement officers during the invasion raises doubts about their ability to understand the complexity of the situation and correctly assess the commander's actions.
If Chekmaz's battalion had also defended the city of Kyiv remotely, the case probably wouldn't even exist.
And prosecutors would hardly return to their comfortable workplace to make “indications” on the military.
An interesting situation also developed around investigator Daria Filonova from Luhansk Oblast, who left for Amsterdam at the beginning of the invasion. According to the Unified State Register of Declarations, Filonova continued to receive assistance and subsidies as a participant in hostilities. It is not yet known on what grounds.
How can a prosecutor determine the motives of individuals who were in difficult war conditions without having their own experience and understanding of the motivations of the military? How can an investigator objectively investigate a case if, despite receiving combat pay, she was not involved in actual combat operations in the defense of Ukraine?
“We kept asking the investigator what benefit you were investigating? Is there at least one fact of Chekmaz selling or receiving them for his personal use? There are no such facts. When the brigade refused to take these bulletproof vests for storage after Chekmaz was released, he did not throw them into disrepair and agreed that the warehouse would allocate a place for their storage for some time in case there were still fighters who wanted to receive such personal protective equipment. Not a single bulletproof vest was missing, lost, or rusted in the rain,” shares Chekmaz’s defender, lawyer Vitaliy Kolomiyets.
In light of these circumstances, the case appears not so much justified as motivated by the desire to fulfill the “indicator” for receiving bonuses and pensions for “law enforcement officers.” After all, objectivity and understanding of the context of military operations are crucial for a fair consideration of such cases.
