On 6 November, the Zavodskyi District Court of Zaporizhzhia sentenced russian serviceman Dmytro Kurashov, call sign ‘Stalker’, to life imprisonment on charges of executing Ukrainian defender Vitalii Hodniuk. Kurashov was found guilty of violating the laws and customs of war combined with intentional killing, according to the judgement. 

Kurashov began fighting against Ukraine as part of the ‘Shtorm-V’ assault unit of the 218th Tank Regiment of the 127th Motor Rifle Division of the 5th Combined Arms Army of the eastern military district of the armed forces of the russian federation. Before joining the occupying russian forces, he had been in prison serving a sentence for theft. 

The Armed Forces of Ukraine captured him at the end of January 2024, after which he appeared before the Ukrainian court. 

The panel of judges of the Zavodskyi District Court of Zaporizhzhia delivering the verdict, 6 November 2025. Photo: National Police of Ukraine

Shot an unarmed man 

According to the investigation, on 5 January 2024, russian troops, including the accused, were located near the temporarily occupied village of Smile, Zaporizhzhia Oblast. The following morning, they moved towards the temporarily occupied village of Pryiutne. Shortly afterwards, the accused, together with other russian soldiers, assaulted a position of the Ukrainian Defence Forces near the village of Novodarivka. 

The russians seized the Ukrainian positions back then. As stated in the judgement, the victim, who had been in one of the dugouts, laid down his weapon and emerged with his hands raised after hearing an order to surrender. Kurashov then ordered him to kneel and shot the Ukrainian soldier at least three times, according to the investigation. Hodniuk died from his injuries. 

The execution of a prisoner of war constitutes a war crime. Under Article 4(1) of the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of 12 August 1949, prisoners of war are persons who have fallen into the power of the enemy and are members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict. Under Article 13 of the Third Convention, prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention.

That same day Ukrainian soldiers reclaimed the position and captured the russian troops. 

During an investigative re-enactment conducted at the pre-trial stage, Kurashov stated that on 6 January, during the assault on Ukrainian positions, he had been between the first two dugouts, from where he saw another russian soldier execute the Ukrainian serviceman, Hodniuk, who had surrendered. 

However, the court did not consider the accused’s version about another russian being involved to be credible, noting that it was refuted by the testimonies of his fellow soldiers. 

Witnesses pointed to Kurashov 

Several witnesses — captured servicemen of the armed forces of russia from the 218th Tank Regiment — were questioned in court. 

One of them said that on 6 January, he and other servicemen of the ‘Shtorm-V’ group travelled to assault a position of the Ukrainian Defence Forces. After arriving at the position, according to him, a tank fired first, then they jumped off the armoured personnel carriers and began the assault: one group advanced on the left, another on the right, while his group moved through the middle. At a distance of 7–8 metres, he saw an AFU prisoner of war leaving a dugout without a weapon. The witness then heard shots and saw the Ukrainian prisoner of war fall. 

He said he did not fire and that no one except Kurashov was near the Ukrainian soldier. 

Another witness confirmed the account given by his fellow serviceman. He saw a man emerge from the dugout with his hands raised, and a few seconds later heard a burst of automatic fire. Other prisoners had told him in the remand centre that Kurashov had boasted about executing an unarmed Ukrainian. 

A third witness saw the accused throwing grenades into one of the Ukrainian soldiers’ dugouts. He also saw Kurashov shoot the Ukrainian after he surrendered. He heard the defendant later say that he had taken a watch from the body of the man he had killed.

A fourth witness told the court that he had asked Kurashov in the remand centre why he had executed the Ukrainian prisoner of war when there had been no such order. The defendant replied that he had wanted to do what he thought was best so that all russian soldiers would remain alive.

The court also questioned a Ukrainian soldier who had taken Kurashov and other russians captive. At the site, he saw five dead Ukrainian service members: two near the dugouts and three inside one of them. 

Verdict

In court, Kurashov pleaded guilty but refused to testify.

Kurashov listens to the translation of his sentence in the Zavodskyi District Court of Zaporizhzhia, 6 November 2025. Photo: National Police of Ukraine

According to the panel of judges who delivered the verdict, the mere fact of pleading guilty does not indicate that the confession was the result of a profound internal struggle, nor does it demonstrate the defendant’s determination to embark on a path towards rehabilitation. Therefore, the court considered that such an admission did not indicate genuine remorse.

Ultimately, the court found Kurashov guilty and sentenced him to life imprisonment.

‘The court takes into account the threat posed by the offence committed by PERSON_9, which belongs to the category of particularly grave crimes and constitutes an offence against peace, the security of humanity and international legal order; it also poses a significant public danger in view of the savage and barbaric conduct of the accused in the modern world, conduct that has no place in the 21st century and undermines all achievements of contemporary civilisation in the field of peace and humanity’, the judgement states. 

According to the court, Kurashov’s actions characterise him as an individual devoid of moral principles, compassion and conscience. They also demonstrate disregard not only for the norms of international law but also for the norms of human co-existence, a complete devaluation of the lives of others in his mind, and a contemptuous attitude towards their physical and psychological suffering. 

The verdict has not yet entered into force and may be appealed within 30 days.