The Chernivtsi Court of Appeal Increased the Sentence for Two Locals for Justifying Russian Aggression

The Chernivtsi Court of Appeal considered the appeals of the prosecutor and the defense against the verdict of the Sadgirsk District Court of Chernivtsi regarding two residents of Chernivtsi, found guilty of justifying and glorifying the armed aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine (Part 1, Article 436-2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine), and increased their sentence to 2 years of imprisonment, taking both convicts into custody in the courtroom.

The first instance court found both defendants guilty and sentenced them to 1 year and 6 months of imprisonment. One of the defendants was released from serving the sentence with a probation period of one year.

The first instance court established that during communication on an online platform, the defendants expressed support for the aggressor state, positively assessed the actions of Russian servicemen, performed the song "333," known as the unofficial patriotic "anthem of the special military operation," and by these actions justified the armed aggression against Ukraine and glorified its participants.

The panel of judges noted that the song "333" performed by the defendants contains statements aimed at exalting Russian servicemen, approving their actions, and disparaging the Armed Forces of Ukraine, particularly through descriptions of the destruction of the Ukrainian army by Russian troops.

Specifically, the court concluded that some statements of the defendants demonstrated support for the aggressor state, promoted the ideas of the so-called "Russian world," contained signs of humiliation of Ukraine's national dignity, and created the impression of alleged support for Russian aggression by Ukrainian citizens.

Disagreeing with the first instance verdict, the defense requested a mitigation of the sentence, referring, among other things, to the admission of guilt, sincere remorse, positive behavior of the defendants after being notified of suspicion, and their assistance to the Armed Forces of Ukraine.

The prosecutor, in turn, considered the imposed punishment too lenient and requested its increase, emphasizing the social danger of the committed acts amid the ongoing armed aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine.

Reviewing the parties' arguments, the appellate court directly examined the video recording of the defendants' communication on the online platform with a representative of what they considered the aggressor state and agreed with the conclusions of the first instance court regarding the proof of their guilt.

In case No. 726/2567/25, the Court of Appeal took into account that the examined evidence indicates a persistent, formed, and ideologically motivated intent aimed at justifying the armed aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine. The panel of judges noted that during communication, the defendants repeatedly expressed support for the aggressor state and its servicemen, called for the fastest possible arrival of the Russian Federation on Ukrainian territory, declared their readiness to act in its favor, demonstrated solidarity with Soviet and Russian ideology, and used disparaging expressions about Ukraine.

The Court of Appeal noted that the emotionally charged nature of the performance of the song "333," as well as other statements made by the defendants during communication, evidenced a consistent demonstration of solidarity with the enemy, pro-Russian propaganda, justification of Russian armed aggression, and glorification of its participants.

The panel of judges also noted that the defendants not only expressed their anti-Ukrainian position but also created the impression of alleged support by Ukrainian citizens for the position of the aggressor state and the desire to establish the so-called "Russian world," which, in the court's opinion, could contribute to forming a false perception in the enemy about public sentiments in Ukraine and fuel the continuation of armed aggression against Ukraine.

The Court of Appeal emphasized that freedom of expression does not cover actions aimed at justifying the armed aggression of the aggressor state and glorifying its participants. In this case, criminal liability arose not from the defendants' personal beliefs but from specific statements and actions that the court recognized as justifying Russian aggression against Ukraine and glorifying its participants.

In this case, criminal liability arose not from the defendants' personal beliefs but from specific statements and actions that the court recognized as justifying and glorifying Russian aggression against Ukraine.

The panel of judges disagreed with the first instance court's conclusion regarding the presence of sincere remorse as a mitigating circumstance. The court concluded that full admission of guilt in this criminal proceeding was not confirmed, and the defendants' behavior and arguments did not indicate genuine awareness of the unlawfulness of their actions; their remorse was insincere and formal.

The Court of Appeal noted that the defendants, being adults with sufficient life experience and aware of the socio-political situation in Ukraine after the start of the full-scale armed aggression of the Russian Federation, despite wide access to reliable information about war crimes and consequences of the aggressor state's actions, consciously justified and recognized the armed aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine as lawful.

As a result of the appeal review, the Chernivtsi Court of Appeal partially satisfied the prosecutor's appeal and dismissed the defense's appeal.

The verdict of the district court of Chernivtsi was amended regarding the imposed punishment. The appellate court also excluded from the verdict references to full admission of guilt and remorse as mitigating circumstances. In other respects, the first instance court's verdict remained unchanged.

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