The prosecution of combat commander Alexander Chekmaz, known as “The Hedgehog,” raises serious questions about the objectivity of the actions of law enforcement agencies and their ability to understand the context of military events.
When the Russians tried to capture the capital, more than 600 volunteers defended the Brovary direction under the leadership of Ezhak. But the prosecutors and investigator who are filing a criminal case against the commander, holder of the Order of Courage, III degree, “escaped” from the capital. Chekmaz faces 12 years in prison for not registering uncertified body armor, but distributing it to soldiers at their voluntary request. No appropriation or trade in body armor was recorded.
Therefore, can the prosecutors and the investigator, 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 affairs or even deliberate persecution of a combat commander. We all remember the chaos of 2022, when every day volunteer help from abroad arrived in brigades and volunteer formations. At the same time, in May 2022, Polish volunteer Hernik Wojciech and the Ukrainian Cluster of Innovative Development NGO brought 300 body armor without documents. In terms of external characteristics, these were “police” and not military bulletproof vests. Chekmaz (“Hedgehog”) had no right, either by law or in conscience, to force his soldiers to wear these risky body armor. Therefore, these personal protective equipment were issued with the consent of the soldier, without military registration.
Law enforcement officers accuse Alexander of misappropriation of someone else's property under Art. 191 part 5 of the Criminal Code. After all, Hedgehog thanked the volunteers on behalf of the military unit, although he did not register the personal protective equipment themselves. There are also a number of reasons for this: without the appropriate documents, not a single military unit will accept body armor of unconfirmed quality; the transfer of assistance took place before Chekmaz was appointed battalion commander.
The very fact that the prosecutors and investigator 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 People's Deputy Andrei Sharaskin. According to the work time sheets Artemenko A.N., Gafarov A.R., Gogrichiani M.F., Anoshina D.V. and Tarasenko A.S. On all working days they performed their duties 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 actions of the commander.
If Chekmaz’s battalion had also defended the city of Kyiv remotely, the case probably would not even exist.
And prosecutors would hardly return to their comfortable place of work to make “indicators” on the military.
An interesting situation also developed around investigator Daria Filonova from the Luhansk region, who went to 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 military 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 payments, she was not involved in real combat operations in the defense of Ukraine?
“All the time we asked the investigator, what benefit are you investigating? Is there at least one fact of sale or receipt of them for personal use by Chekmaz Alexander? There are no such facts. When the brigade refused to accept these body armor for storage after the release of Chekmaz, he did not leave them in a state of disuse and agreed that the warehouse would allocate space for their storage for some time in case there were still soldiers who wanted to receive such personal protective equipment. Not a single bulletproof vest went missing, got lost or became limp in the rain,” shares Chekmaz’s defender, lawyer Vitaly Kolomiets.
In light of these circumstances, the case seems 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 actions are crucial for the fair consideration of such cases.
