Novye Izvestia asked the aviation expert and author of several books about the death of Boeing MH-17 Vadim Lukashevich to comment on the decision of the prosecutor's office to request life sentences for Girkin, Dubinsky, Kharchenko and Pulatov.
- How unexpected was the indictment of the prosecutor's office at the court hearing in The Hague for you?
- Today's statement of the prosecutor's office is unexpected for me. I thought different punishments would be requested. If the functionality of all four accused was different, then it is quite possible that the Prosecutor's Office could demand different punishment for them. This is what the Dutch media was talking about. Dutch international lawyers spoke about this, drawing attention to two points: first, the guilt can be different, therefore, the punishment will be different. And second: regardless of whether the defendants wanted to shoot down a civilian or military plane, they are to blame. There is a point of view that those who say that the accused wanted to shoot down a military plane are trying to justify them and in their person to justify Russia. In fact, this is not the case. The court emphasized that Pulatov, Girkin, Dubinsky and Kharchenko were not combatants, did not act as part of a military formation in the appropriate uniform and under the responsibility of the state. They are ordinary criminals. From this point of view, it makes no difference which plane was planned to be shot down. Exactly the same as a person planning to kill a police officer, but accidentally killing a passer-by is sued for the murder. As one of the international lawyers emphasized, according to Dutch law, according to Criminal Law, their guilt is one hundred percent. If they wanted to shoot down a military plane, but shot down a civilian, they are just as guilty, there is no doubt about it. But the degree of guilt - deliberate murder or murder by mistake, can be different. I disagree with him, but this is the opinion of a specialist.
- Nevertheless, life imprisonment for everyone, regardless of their degree of participation, sounded.
- The punishment demanded by the Prosecutor's Office for all four - life imprisonment, does not yet speak of the court's verdict. We do not know this yet. The prosecutor's office always asks for the maximum punishment, the defense declares the innocence of their principals and tries to achieve the minimum punishment, and the decision is made by the court. Therefore, the requested deadline is not yet the last word. We must wait for the verdict of the court.
But on the other hand, perhaps a factor is at work, as in American law, where the terms for all the charges brought against are summed up. It turns out that one was given 120 years in prison, and the other 400 years. Both that, and another - a life sentence.
The prosecutor's office considers the crime committed as very serious. By law, killing two Dutch citizens carries a prison sentence of 20 years to life. And these four accused killed more than 190 Dutch. Obviously, the severity of the crime is such that, regardless of the functionality of each, the prosecutor's office believes that their guilt has been proven and requested the maximum term.
In the spring there will be a defense that will surely declare that they are not guilty at all and they need to be released. Then the arguments of the parties will take place, and the court will go to make decisions.
- To what extent are the materials of the case known to the public?
- We have access to only that part of the information that was published and announced in court. And on the basis of this knowledge alone, we, outside observers, judge the state of affairs. We know the facts and evidence that the prosecution spoke about in June last year and what the court read out over three days in June this year. On these grounds, we draw conclusions about the evidence base for the prosecution.
But in fact, the materials at the disposal of the court are 60 thousand pages. The court case contains tens of thousands of pages, thousands of protocols of testimony, hundreds of examinations, gigabytes of video and other documents. And although we, as external observers, assess the case only to the evidence and evidence voiced during the court hearings, the prosecutor's office and then the court will assess the guilt of the defendants in the entire set of data in the case.
Back in 2016, at the JIT press conference, it was already said that more than two hundred witnesses were interviewed and hundreds of protocols were drawn up. I was interrogated in 2019. Published only a part of the wiretaps, which directly concern the defendants on this very topic. Both the prosecutor's office, the defense, and the court have the entire volume of documents, examinations and testimonies.
- How can you sort out such a volume of information?
- The entire volume of documents cannot be read out. Therefore, the court chose three main questions: how the plane was shot down, where the BUK was launched from and the direct involvement of the accused in this crime. But when sentencing, everything will be taken into account.
For example, Almaz-Antey conducted an analysis and submitted it on June 2, 2015. It was a video presentation and a set of slides. There was no report at that time. After that, they conducted two full-scale tests at the test site and on October 13, 2015, they spoke about these tests, presenting videos and slides. There was no report. Now the court has a report. There were confrontations between the National Space Laboratory of the Netherlands, experts of the Royal Military Academy of Belgium against Almaz Antey, to whom the conclusions of both the Belgians and the Dutch were transferred, they evaluated them and issued counter documents. We do not see them, but they are in court. We do not see any expert examinations of the authenticity of videos and photographs.
In any case, in the spring we will hear the position of the defense of Oleg Pulatov, which will try to mitigate the punishment only for its client. This is just our way - we killed together, we exclude one.
- For the Russian justice system, the situation is not very clear - what should happen next after today's announcement of the charges?
- We have witnessed a unique situation in world jurisprudence - the prosecutor's office demanded punishment for the murderers today, and we will learn the court's decision only a year later. But, as the judge said on the first day of the trial on March 9, 2020: "The trial will continue until we find out the truth." And the prosecutor's office stressed the day before yesterday that it is doing everything possible to make the court's verdict stand the test of time.
Before our eyes, the history of the inevitability of retribution for an international crime organized and covered by all means of a nuclear power, a permanent member of the UN Security Council is being written, and there is nowhere to rush. Evil must be punished.
- What is known about the role of each accused and about the role of Russia?
- All four took a different part. Girkin was responsible for everything. It was the DPR Minister of Defense, who had been negotiating, starting from June 8, that is, more than a month in advance, on the supply of heavy weapons. There are radio intercepts in the court case, where he speaks with Sheremet, then he speaks with Aksenov, the head of Crimea, that we need heavy weapons with trained crews, because we do not have time for training, otherwise we will not hold a foothold in the East of Ukraine ... Girkin organized all this, he is the head, he is as the supreme commander in chief on the territory of the DPR. He decided this question, and then his participation is not traced. He was simply informed that they shot down Sushka, evacuated and lost the Buk. He yelled and swore. It's like Marshal Zhukov, who commands armies and fronts, but he doesn't decide where which tank goes.
Next comes Sergey Dubinsky. This is Girkin's subordinate, who is closer to the ground, but he is involved in this case at the stage of transportation. The day before the disaster, on July 16, he says in radio intercept that we need serious air defense, because Sushki are hammering us so that we cannot resist there, I will lose a reconnaissance battalion, and so on. He reveals that Buki needs his units, which are under him. When Buk appears early in the morning, he says where and how he will go. He says: pass this beech on the ring in Donetsk, there are tanks of the East. The beech will go there together with them, and then pass it on to that. Everything.
Then the responsibility of Pulatov begins, who organizes all this transportation of this particular Buk to the launch point and there he transfers this Buk to Kharchenko, who this Buk is guarding, he was at the launch site.
When it all happened, they all: Pulatov - Dubinsky, Dubinsky - Girkin - unanimously report that they shot down Drying, Drying overwhelmed Boeing, and so on. When his evacuation begins, they swear among themselves. Dubinsky - Girkin. The question has risen to a higher level again.
If the degree of participation is different, then all these 4 people cannot have the same term. On the charge, we will understand who the court considered more guilty and who less guilty.
- While everything looks in such a way that none of the accused will go to jail under any circumstances.
- The accused do not admit their guilt. None of them will sit, because we do not even detain them - we do not even interrogate them, because the request of the Dutch investigators, the prosecutor's office, the joint investigation group, which we transferred, and they transferred to Russia within the framework of the Treaty on the provision of state legal help with the interrogation of Dubinsky, we replied that we do not know where he is. Journalists know and go to him in the village of special forces near Rostov, where Dubinsky has a house or dacha, but the Investigative Committee does not know.
We did not interrogate Sergei Muchkaev, the commander of the 53rd missile brigade. The last request from Holland to interrogate him was in the fall. The Investigative Committee replied that Muchkaev might know military secrets and that his interrogation was not in the country's national interests. He had to come to the investigative committee somewhere in his own Kursk, our investigators had to interrogate him. He could answer some questions, but he might not answer others.
When Khmury was identified as Dubinsky in mid-2019, the then deputy prosecutor Vynnychenko said that we had no reason to interrogate him. In 2019, the international investigation team issues a warrant for the arrest of Dubinsky. This is the international body of Interpol. Russia is a member of Interpol. Even if we believe that he is not guilty, we must find him, interrogate him and say: guys, we interrogated him, he is innocent. But we said that we see no reason for questioning him.
If you take Buk, Russia has not responded to any inquiries about Buk 332 of the 53rd Kursk Anti-Aircraft Missile Brigade. Where was this installation from June 8 to July 18, 2014? Who was in her crew? Russia sent a reply to the Dutch Ministry of Defense that not a single Buk had crossed the Russian border. This is not an answer to the question asked. Tell him that he was in Kursk, for example, on the territory of the 53rd brigade, or at the training ground in Kapustin Yar.
The verdict will not affect these 4 people. They will not be detained, and it is possible that they will be imprisoned. When Russia vetoed the project to create the UN International Tribunal in the summer of 2015, then they decided to conduct an investigation in the Dutch criminal court under Dutch jurisdiction. All countries have entered into an agreement with Holland that the District Court of The Hague will judge. For example, the agreement between Ukraine and Holland was ratified by the Parliament of the Netherlands and the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. If Kharchenko, as a formally Ukrainian citizen, had come to court and surrendered, then he would have participated in the trial by teleconference, because Ukraine does not give out its own people either. If he were found guilty, he would have served this term in a Ukrainian prison.
The Netherlands really wanted Russia to join this. And when there was some kind of summit meeting, the Germans as organizers made it so that the Prime Minister of the Netherlands, Rutte, sat next to Putin at the concert. And after the concert, Rutte caught Putin by the lapel and offered to sign this agreement. Putin simply refused. When Russia vetoed the decision to create the International Tribunal, the authorities said that we do not want a tribunal, but when the case is considered by the court, Russia will definitely join this.
Relatives of the victims, and there are 500 of them, filed claims for compensation. They have already received part of the payments. Compensations paid from the airline. The National Oil Company of Malaysia created a special fund from which relatives were paid. The amount of compensation was not disclosed. They have now filed a claim for compensation in court in The Hague. They insist that compensation should only be paid by these four individuals.
- Do they understand that they will not get anything?
“They understand this, but for the sake of the principle of justice, those who are found guilty by the court must pay. Once, Russia had debts to the Noga firm, which were later repaid by Viktor Vekselberg. It is stipulated here that no third party can pay off compensation for these 4 people.
According to Girkin, there is a decision of the American court. There we are talking about 400 million dollars. We have such people - banged how many people and giggled. I still wonder how he didn't get into the Duma this time.
But we understand that this court decision will have consequences not only for these people. The first legal fixation of this crime will appear, in which Russia will be guilty anyway. It is clear from the accusation that these people have ended up where they should not be. What the Buk received from Russia was a regular Buk. If they themselves were vacationers and volunteers, then the Buk was full-time, and there was a crew. In court, they said that these were 4 people in headsets and in uniforms that differed from others who fought there at that time. When the joint investigation team confirmed that Buk was from Russia, the Netherlands joined the relatives in their claim against Russia and Vladimir Putin at the ECHR.
- Why does Russia continue to obstruct the investigation?
If Russia does not allow these four specific people to be condemned, Russia will be fully responsible. She did not recognize them as military personnel, she did not recognize them as hers, but she closed them off from court punishment. You can recall how we did not give out Tsemakh, whom we received as a result of the exchange from Ukraine. The Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands, Stefon Blok, turned to Lavrov, and the parliamentarians turned to, and the investigation team turned to - they did not extradite him. As they say, Russia turned it on at the last moment with the condition that if it is not issued, then there will be no exchange. I believe that the whole exchange of 35 for 35 was built to get this one Tsemakh out, otherwise Ukraine would extradite him to the Netherlands, and he would now be in court. Then the situation in court would be radically different. In an interview, Tsemakh says that he hid this Beech. Even if he did not take part in the transportation, he probably took part in the evacuation, because he entered there through Snezhny, and went back through Snezhny. As the chief of defense, Snezhny could not be out of touch. Perhaps he was not a really important accused, but in any case he was an important person who could radically change the position of the court. It is not known at all what he would have said in court. Perhaps an agreement on the protection of witnesses would have been concluded with him, citizenship and other bonuses would have been promised. It is in the DPR that he is a patriot, and there it is unknown ... Therefore, Russia pulled him out.
Of course, these four will be nothing. But the further situation for Russia is rather sad. A parallel trial is underway in Strasbourg. Russia has now replaced the judge, but he is not the only one, there are 17 judges. But the replacement of the judge will only delay. And there will already be considered the fault of Russia as a state and Vladimir Putin as president. There it will no longer be possible to refer to some "volunteers" who have nothing to do with us. And these are already other consequences. It is not always possible to put a cannibal in prison, but a brand will appear on his forehead - a cannibal.
- Who submitted the application to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR)?
- This was done by the relatives of the victims. They initiated about twenty processes. They won the first trial against Girkin in an American court. The first person against whom the lawsuit was filed by the relatives was Ukraine. She was charged with not closing the airspace. This lawsuit is not progressing because there is no judicial prospect.