Let me address your point about the traffic cop. Imagine your violation was recorded by automated systems like "Vizir" and similar ones. Just like in Europe, you would receive a report and photos from the scene by mail after some time, and usually with missed deadlines for appealing :D. So what? ;)

Don't you understand? I was ALREADY let go for that violation. If everything had happened as you described, I would have simply paid the fine, just as I was ready to do then.

Ps: I'm starting to doubt your objectivity. So, you understand and even justify Alex's dissatisfaction, but dissatisfaction with the AK regarding their unwillingness to explain things promptly and clearly is a crime?

Neo, you're a lawyer. Point me to the clause that regulates the player's obligation to provide explanations? There is only this:

In cases of defending against accusations of unfair play, the defending party provides, if possible, any evidence of their fair play. At the same time, information is requested from the accusing party.

The AK Rules do not state that the defending player is OBLIGED to provide evidence of their innocence. And even more so, there is nothing written there about the obligation to give testimony to a hundred members of the AK. The example with the court is in the same category. In any country, I believe, there is responsibility for disrespecting the court. Nothing similar is written about the AK.
And in general. Before this incident, all disputes were resolved based on common sense. Here, the AK simply rejected this common sense. You will see what this will lead to. I'm just afraid that it will be too late. And many of those who are now, guided by herd instinct, vehemently defending the AK, will curse the moment when they supported this AK decision and the AK itself.