RUSSIA FORCES PREGNANT WOMEN INTO COMBAT!

Kommersant has learned about the first verdict of a female serviceman who disappeared from a military unit during the period of mobilization and combat operations. The evader was sentenced to six years in a general regime penal colony, but she is unlikely to get behind bars, since she received a reprieve of execution until 2032,when her child turns 14. Besides, she's pregnant.

The Judicial Board for Criminal Cases of the Southern District Military Court upheld the verdict of a native of the Kabardino-Balkar Republic, Lance corporal Madina Kabaloeva. The Vladikavkaz Garrison Military Court found her guilty of committing crimes under Part 5 and Part 3.1 of Article 337 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (failure to appear for service without valid reasons during mobilization, armed conflict or combat operations). The woman was charged with seven to ten years in prison.

At the same time, it was noted that Madina Kabaloeva, even before the criminal case was initiated by the TFR, applied to the medical company of her military unit, where she received a recommendation for temporary exemption from military service due to pregnancy, as well as the presence of a child born in 2018. However, the very fact of failure to appear before the leadership of the military unit led to criminal prosecution of Ms. Kabaloeva.

According to Kommersant, in the Vladikavkaz hot water station, a woman admitted the fact of non-appearance to the command, but justified this by the presence of a medical certificate allegedly giving her a temporary exemption from service. At the same time, the defendant said that she was sure that the information of the medical service would be brought to her superiors and there would be no complaints about her.

Justifying this claim, the representative of the supervisory authority pointed out that the defendant had not retired from military service due to pregnancy, but, on the contrary, continued to receive the prescribed allowance and enjoy the available benefits.

This means that she remained a serviceman, and therefore must be punished for failing to appear in her company after declaring partial mobilization during the period of the SVO. Therefore, the military prosecutor asked to add Part 3.1 of the same article to the original charge under Part 5 of Article 337 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

But since the defendant has a minor child, the execution of her sentence was postponed until 2032.

Despite the lenient sentence, lawyer Roman Rabadanov decided to appeal it to the Southern District Military Court. In the complaint, the defender stated that he considers the court decision illegal "due to significant violations of the norms of criminal and criminal procedure legislation." The lawyer asked him to cancel and send the criminal case for a new trial. As it was noted in the appeal ruling, in support of the complaint, " the lawyer cited his own analysis of the criminal and criminal procedure laws, indicating that the description of criminal acts in the verdict contradicts the circumstances established during the court session." Thus, according to the defender, the court of first instance failed to take into account that Madina Kabaloeva's absence from military service was due to valid reasons, which "should be attributed to a combination of difficult circumstances", because of which his client "did not have the opportunity to perform military service".

At the same time, Rabadanov noted that the verdict "gave an incorrect assessment of the evidence: for example, the court did not take into account that the company commander and other military personnel of the military unit questioned as witnesses were interested in the outcome of the criminal case."

The state prosecutor in the appeal instance of the district court asked not to accept these arguments, leaving the verdict of the first instance court unchanged. As a result, the judges of the Southern District Military Court agreed with the representative of the supervisory authority. At the same time, in the ruling of the appeal instance, it was noted that the punishment of the serviceman Kabaloeva was imposed "taking into account the nature and degree of public danger of the acts committed by her and the personality of the convicted person, including circumstances mitigating the sentence." It was also stated that the garrison court "duly took into account" the presence of a dependent soldier of a small child and her pregnancy, assigning "a penalty in the amount close to the minimum." At the same time, the postponement of execution of the sentence was also applied to her quite correctly.

But he noted that his client "reluctantly agreed to appeal the verdict of the garrison court."