Analysts explained the significance of the decision in the Gubarev case.

The termination of the administrative prosecution of former "people's governor" of the Donetsk region, Pavel Gubarev, cannot be considered a legal precedent, but it is an illustrative case in the practice of "discrediting the army."

As "Caucasian Knot" reported, in February it became known that an administrative protocol had been drawn up against former "people's governor" of the Donetsk region, Pavel Gubarev, for discrediting the Russian army. On March 12, in an interview, Gubarev stated that the denunciation against him was filed by the head of the "Akhmat" special forces, Apti Alaudinov. 1 On April 28, Moscow's Tagansky Court found no evidence of discrediting the Russian National Guard or the Akhmat special forces in Gubarev's publications and dismissed his case.

The case of Gubarev, whose administrative case under the article "discrediting the army" (20.3.3 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation) was dismissed by the court, is not unique, but it deserves attention, says Krasnodar lawyer Kondrat Gorishny.

"Such cases are sometimes dismissed due to a lack of evidence, a lack of evidence, or the lack of proof that the statement was specifically intended to discredit. But this is a notable and rare case: it's not about an abstract anti-war remark, but about criticism of a specific unit, and the expert examination found no evidence of discrediting it. It's a rare case because it concerns criticism of a structure perceived as extremely sensitive," he told the "Caucasian Knot."

At the same time, the lawyer emphasized that the court's decision did not legitimize criticism of the Akhmat special forces. "The court decided a specific case: specific publications, a specific report, a specific expert examination, a specific conclusion about the absence of elements of criminal liability. But there is another side to this coin: the court confirmed that criticism of the Akhmat special forces unit does not, in and of itself, constitute discrediting the army or the Russian National Guard. Based on the provisions of Article 20.3.3 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, the following conclusion suggests itself: criticism is permitted not because the court now allows it, but because not all criticism is defamatory," he noted.

Gorishny also noted that although the expert examination did not find any discrediting of the armed forces in Gubarev's words, its results cannot be unambiguously regarded as grounds for filing a lawsuit for knowingly false denunciation (Article 306 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation).

"An expert examination that finds no defamation does not, in and of itself, prove knowingly committed the crime. It proves that there is no offense. For the complainant to be held liable, it must be proven that they understood the falsity of the report and knowingly initiated the investigation," he emphasized.

The lawyer also noted that the court's decision in Gubarev's case does not establish a precedent for criticizing military officials. "The district court's ruling does not become a generally binding rule for other courts. But it can be used in similar situations to establish that criticism of a specific unit or official does not constitute discrediting the Russian Armed Forces. Furthermore, the court must establish not just a negative tone, but a specific intention to discredit, and a linguistic or psychological-linguistic examination can be crucial. Therefore, this is not a legalization of criticism of Akhmat or a judicial indulgence for the future. But the case is illustrative: the court effectively stated that criticism must be proven as discrediting, not declared as such based on the fact that it irritates the addressee," he concluded.

Alexander Verkhovsky, head of the Sova Information and Analysis Center*, also noted that the court's decision does not create a precedent for criticizing military officials.

"This is not a unique case. There have been cases, albeit rare, of cases being dismissed under Article 20.3.3 of the Code of Administrative Offenses due to the absence of a criminal offense, which does not change the general practice. Therefore, this case is not a precedent for resolving criticism, but simply one of many such cases," he emphasized.

* are included in the Russian register of foreign agents.

** The activities of Meta (owner of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp) are banned in Russia.