Supreme Court: Position in occupation body, not activity, already determines collaboration with enemy
The fact of voluntarily holding a position in an occupation body is the basis for qualification under the article on collaboration activities, the Supreme Court notes.
"It is the fact of a citizen of Ukraine voluntarily holding a position in an illegally created body, and not the performance of a specific activity, that is the basis for qualifying his actions as collaboration activities [Part 7 of Article 111-1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine]," the Supreme Court said in a statement on its Telegram channel.
According to the court, in the cassation appeal, the defense claimed that their client had committed a completed attempt to voluntarily take up a position in a law enforcement agency, since he only performed functions to guard the building, which does not indicate that he was fulfilling the duties inherent in the position of a police officer in a law enforcement agency.
The report indicates that the case considered by the Supreme Court concerned the voluntary taking up by a Ukrainian citizen, at the suggestion of the Russian military, of a position as a patrol police officer in the illegal law enforcement agency "People's Militia" created in the temporarily occupied territory.
According to the court, this citizen began to perform duties of guarding the administrative building at night.
"Thus, the accused performed all the actions that he considered necessary to bring the criminal offense to completion; the crime was completed from the moment he took office, when he actually took on the performance of his work duties in this body in order to ensure its functioning," the report notes.
That is, as the Supreme Court explains, the very content of the work he did in this particular case does not affect the classification of his actions.
"Disagreeing with the arguments of the cassation appeal, the Criminal Cassation Court indicated that the disposition of Part 7 of Article 111-1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine establishes liability specifically for holding a position in an illegally created body, and not for the specific activities of a person during the work he or she performs," the court reports.
Following the consideration of the cassation appeal, the Court upheld the decision of the courts of lower instances.
