The Supreme Court explained when the conclusion of the Military Medical Commission does not confirm fitness for military service

The Supreme Court, by a panel of judges of the Third Judicial Chamber of the Cassation Criminal Court, overturned the verdict and the appellate court's decision regarding a man who was sentenced to three years in prison for evading conscription during mobilization. The court concluded that the prosecution did not prove with proper and admissible evidence the fact of establishing the person's fitness for military service in the manner prescribed by law, and therefore the presence of the elements of the crime under Article 336 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine in his actions.

Circumstances of case No. 446/407/24

The courts of first and appellate instances established that the conscript underwent the military medical commission and was recognized as fit for military service. After that, he was handed a summons to be sent to the military unit, but he refused to receive it and did not appear at the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center at the appointed time.

For this, the district court found the man guilty of evading conscription during mobilization and sentenced him to three years imprisonment. The appellate court left the verdict unchanged.

Defense position

In the cassation appeal, the defense insisted that the key issue in the case was compliance with the procedure for passing the military medical commission.

The convicted man claimed that he actually did not undergo examinations by a psychiatrist and an ophthalmologist. These circumstances were confirmed by doctors questioned in court, who stated that they did not conduct his examination, did not sign the relevant entries in medical documents, and did not place stamps.

In turn, the head of the Military Medical Commission confirmed that the accused did not undergo examinations by the specified specialists. She also admitted that some entries and signatures in the documents were made by doctors who should not have issued them.

Supreme Court conclusions

The Cassation Criminal Court noted that the proper establishment of a person's fitness for military service based on the results of the Military Medical Commission is a mandatory prerequisite for further mobilization measures, including handing over the summons and organizing the dispatch to the military unit.

The court drew attention to the fact that during the criminal proceedings, the defense consistently questioned the compliance with the procedure for conducting the Military Medical Commission and the admissibility of the relevant documents as evidence.

At the same time, the lower courts effectively established that the man did not undergo all mandatory doctors, and some entries in the Military Medical Commission documents were unreliable. Despite this, they concluded the legality of bringing him to criminal responsibility solely because the Military Medical Commission's conclusion formally existed and was not separately annulled.

The panel of judges disagreed with this approach. The Supreme Court emphasized that during criminal proceedings, courts are obliged to independently assess the relevance, admissibility, and reliability of the evidence on which the prosecution is based, including the Military Medical Commission documents. Such assessment must be carried out regardless of whether the relevant documents were challenged in administrative proceedings.

The Supreme Court concluded that the medical examination card and the Military Medical Commission certificate cannot be considered proper and admissible evidence in this criminal proceeding, as their content does not confirm that the person underwent the legally prescribed medical examination in full.

According to the Cassation Criminal Court of the Supreme Court, the case materials do not contain proper and admissible evidence that the man's fitness for military service was established in the manner prescribed by law. Therefore, the prosecution did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt the presence of the elements of the crime under Article 336 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine in his actions. The Supreme Court reminded that all doubts regarding the proof of guilt must be interpreted in favor of the person.

As a result, the Supreme Court overturned the guilty verdict and the appellate court ruling, terminated the criminal proceedings due to the absence of a criminal offense in the act, and ordered the release of the convicted person from custody.

Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua and to Google News SUD.UA, as well as to our VIBER and WhatsApp, pages on Facebook and Instagram to stay informed about the most important events.