Ukrainian Court Sentences Mobilized Man to 5 Years for Desertion.

Serviceman Convicted for Desertion

According to TSN.ua: A 47-year-old man has been sentenced to five years in prison by the Stryi City District Court in the Lviv region for deserting his military unit after being mobilized. The man was conscripted in February 2025 but left his assigned post on February 14 of that same year. He was subsequently located and arrested in June 2025. Prior to his mobilization, he had worked for over a decade at the 'Leoni' factory. This case highlights the strict legal consequences for desertion during wartime in Ukraine.

The court found him guilty under Part 5 of Article 407 of Ukraine's Criminal Code. The five-year prison sentence is to be served in custody until the verdict becomes legally binding. During the court proceedings, the defendant stated his position clearly:

"I do not consider myself a serviceman,"

Court's Ruling on Mobilization and Conscientious Objection

The court explicitly stated that religious beliefs cannot serve as grounds for evading mobilization. In its findings, the court emphasized that alternative civilian service in Ukraine is only a substitute for compulsory military service in peacetime, not for mobilization during martial law. The defendant had been assigned to a cook's position, a role that does not involve direct use of weapons, and where his duties could have included preparing food, building fortifications, or transporting supplies.

Furthermore, the court underscored that in the context of the ongoing aggression by the Russian Federation, the imperatives of national security and the protection of human life can override the right to conscientious objection to military service, a key argument in this case.

This verdict underscores the severe legal repercussions for evading military duty during mobilization, particularly under martial law. As Ukraine continues its defense against a full-scale invasion, courts frequently handle such cases with a strong focus on upholding national security and military discipline. The ruling is likely intended to serve as a deterrent, signaling that the legal system will not overlook desertion.