The indictment is expected to conclude on December 22 with the announcement of the requested verdict.
“In their closing arguments in the MH17 case, the prosecutors will list the facts of the criminal case and explain the evidence against the four defendants. They will also indicate what conclusion they think this leads to. The presentation of the prosecutor's office consists of seven parts”, - the prosecutor's office said.
Prosecutors yesterday explained the first part of the Evidence chapter, which includes the suspects' use of phone numbers, confirmation of wiretapped conversations, context and delivery of the Buk.
The second part of "Evidence" is scheduled for Tuesday December 21st. “It discusses the downing of MH17, the forensic investigation, the reaction after the plane crash, the movement and origin of the Buk, the statements and positions of the defendants, as well as the conclusion of the prosecution, “proven in court”. Subsequently, attention will be drawn to the punishability of the defendants, the claims of the victims and the recovery of damages from the accused".
On Wednesday, December 22, after giving a detailed justification for the requested punishment, the prosecutor will announce the demand for sentencing four of the accused.
According to preliminary planning, after the prosecutor's speech in March 2022, the defense of one of the accused, Oleg Pulatov, may take the floor to present his opinion. In May, the prosecution and the lawyers of the relatives will be able to react to this, after which, from June 6, the defense will again be able to respond. This concludes the further trial of the case.
For the announcement of the decision, the court named three possible dates, since it is not known how long it will take for this: September 22, November 17 or December 15 of the next year. That is, the court is expected to complete this case by January 2023.
Technical expert and popular blogger Vadim Lukashevich, who has devoted many publications to this story, summed up the results of the first day of the renewed process.
“The defendants are guilty of the death of Flight MH17 and the murder of 298 people on board. The fact that their target may not have been a passenger plane is irrelevant: the shooting down of a civilian or military aircraft is prohibited by section 168 of the Dutch criminal code. In addition, using the Buk missile, the separatists deliberately took the risk that a passenger plane might also be shot down.
Armed civilians participating in hostilities can be prosecuted in accordance with the criminal code. An exception can be made only by military personnel who are fighting according to the laws of war, and the responsibility for whose actions is taken by the state (under whose flag they participate in hostilities).
The investigation did not show that the four accused were in military service. The defendants themselves have repeatedly stated that they are participating in hostilities as volunteers. Russia, in turn, has repeatedly denied any connection with the accused. Thus, the accused must be held accountable as ordinary citizens in accordance with the criminal code.
Their involvement appears in the indictment in several ways. The prosecutor's office suspects each of those suspected of committing these crimes as functional perpetrators or functional accomplices. In short, this means that they did not press the button themselves, but are responsible for the downing of MH17 because they jointly requested and acquired a Buk missile launcher from the Russian Federation and used it in their armed struggle to shoot down the plane. They used the Buk missile launcher as a tool in their own military interests and thus shot down MH17".
Regarding the mistaken destruction of a civilian aircraft, the prosecutor said the following:
“When drafting the indictment, the prosecutor’s office explicitly took into account the possibility that the four suspects REALLY PLANED TO SHOOT A PLANE OWNING THE UKRAINIAN ARMED FORCES. such crimes.
None of the offenses in the indictment requires intent to be committed against the civilian character of the aircraft or its passengers. Section 168 SR prohibits intentional accident of any aircraft, regardless of the aircraft's civil or military status. Thus, the death of passengers is viewed as an aggravating circumstance, and not as a defining part (or integral component) of the crime. Consequently, it does not even require the intention to kill residents, let alone kill a certain category of people (civilian or military). Legislative history also clearly shows that aviation offenses under the Dutch Penal Code apply to both military and civil aviation. The crime of homicide (Section 289 SR) requires intent to kill another, but not a specific category of others (civilian or military) or a specific number of victims. This is why, in the Netherlands and many other countries, people are simply convicted of murder if they shoot a bystander rather than the alleged victim. Thus, anyone who shoot down a RAF fighter in the Netherlands could be prosecuted under Article 168 SR and the pilot's murder. And anyone looking to shoot down a Royal Netherlands Air Force fighter jet in the Netherlands but mistakenly shoots down a KLM plane could face the same prosecution. In short: it does not matter for the evidence of the alleged crimes whether the suspects intended to shoot down a military or civilian plane".
In general, the prosecutor's speech contains a lot of interesting things. For example, once again it was confirmed that the satellite images presented by our military at the briefing on July 21, 201 are a lie. In general, I note, there is a long list of official Russian lies, including those provided to the investigation by the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation.
Or, for example, neither the investigation, nor even the additional investigations appointed by the court after the start of the trial could refute the main version of the death of MH17 - the launch of a Buk missile from an agricultural field near the village of Pervomaysky south of Snezhnoye. Moreover, all additional investigations and expert examinations initiated, including those initiated by the defense, only confirmed this version.
For example, the authenticity of the video in which the Buk is moving out of Snezhnoye towards Pervomayskoye has been confirmed.
I note that at the beginning of his speech, the prosecutor again quoted Alexander Solzhenitsyn: “By keeping silent about evil and burying it deep inside ourselves so that it never comes to the surface, we are actually planting it, and in the future it will increase a thousand times. we will punish and not condemn those who do evil ... we will tear to shreds the foundations of justice for new generations".
Quoting Solzhenitsyn, the prosecutor is trying to reach out to the conscience of the Russian people - by mistake he still holds us for the people...
Another interesting point, which sounded today in the MH17 court.
Immediately after the death of the Boeing, in addition to the investigation, the countries that had lost their citizens in this catastrophe began to work out the issues of the future prosecution of those responsible.
The first attempt, the creation of a UN tribunal in the MH17 case, was blocked by Russia in the summer of 2015, using its "veto" right at a meeting of the UN Security Council.
Subsequently, the countries participating in the investigation began to explore options for prosecution under national laws, and eventually came to the court of The Hague under the criminal law of the Netherlands. For this, interstate agreements were concluded, which "docked" the national legislation with the Dutch one (recognition / extension of its jurisdiction to national ones in the case of MH17).
Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte personally invited Vladimir Putin to join this process, but Putin refused - I describe in detail this fact, practically unknown in Russia, in the second volume of the book "The Tragedy of Mn17 True and False".
The next line of Russian defense is closed negotiations with the Netherlands and Australia, which we either admitted or completely rejected the very fact of their holding, but eventually broke off after the Netherlands joined the claim of the relatives of the victims against Russia at the ECHR. They wanted to be quiet, but if they failed, they slammed the door loudly.
All this time, Russia in every possible way interfered with the criminal investigation, refusing to comply with Dutch requests for interrogation of witnesses under the mutual legal assistance agreement, and planting fake evidence and fake witnesses through the Investigative Committee.
And the last, little-known moment - when it became clear that the trial of The Hague under MH17 was inevitable, Russia tried for the last time - sent a request to the Netherlands with a request to transfer the consideration of the case against three Russians (Igor Girkin, Sergey Dubinsky and Oleg Pulatov) to Russia, by a Russian court ... Basmanny, for example, or Tversky, or some Nikulinsky. We have many courts in Russia, and choose all fair and independent ones - I don't want to.
And the prosecutor, in his speech in court, recalled this episode...
The impact of the mistake (they shot down a passenger plane instead of a military one) of the accused in the MH17 case on their fault.
International lawyer Mariquet de Hoon: "The fact that the defendants shot down the plane by mistake does not affect the question of their guilt, but may affect the severity of the punishment".
De Hoon is not sure that the prosecutor's office will demand life sentences for all four. Prosecutors will likely require different terms for each accused, depending on their role in the death of MH17, the lawyer adds.