The presiding judge in the MH17 trial says the proceedings will be long and painful for the next of kin, who will have the right to address the court about the impact of the loss. 
The judge introduces the Dutch rules of criminal trials, including the Court can only rule on the charges brought in by prosecutor, defendants have rights of presumed innocence, preparation and representation. Of 4 defendants, only Pulatov chose to be represented.
84 victims' relatives have so far submitted a claim to compensation as part of the criminal trial... Others will be able to submit claims as the trial progresses.
(case interrupted for 30 minutes to resolve a technical problem)
The judge explains that some of the arguments by the defense team may seem painful to the victims' families, but that such arguments are needed for justice to be served. Family members can leave temporarily during such statements
"A fierce debate has been fought outside of this court... We have not been oblivious of that... but we will only work within the framework of the indictment file before us"
The rules are explained: the prosecution presents the case against each defendant. Then defense team can debate and counter-argue, and if defendant is not present, court will retire to consider... usually 14 days...in this case (much) longer likely.
Pulatov's defense has stated that it is not ready to file statement of objections because it has not had time to review and discuss the file with the defendant. Court has permitted Pulatov to file objections at the June 1st session, along with request for further investigations
The 4 defendants will be tried separately, but in one court trial. That means the facts will be discussed together, but each defense will apply only to the person making the defense. The judge proceeds to verify that each defendant was duly served notice of indictment.
On 28 Oct 2019, Dutch prosecution served Oleg Pulatov writ of summons formally via the procedure for mutual legal assistance Russian official legal procedure. Russia confirmed he was served duly, and he did not appear. He is aware and represented, and thus duly served.
The judge reads out the other 3 "no-show" defendants names, birth-dates and places of residence, and notes that they did not appear nor appoint council. The court now considers whether they were duly served.
Russian authorities "tried" to serve Dubinsky and Girkin with writs of summons on behalf of Dutch prosecution, but were "unable to find them at their registered addresses". Prosecution tried to contact the defendants directly via DM's and Skype messages.
Quite a few little factoids including how Dubinsky answered the phone and pretended he was not he, but the Court's conclusion is that all three knew well they were indicted and avoided being served. Thus, the court concludes they were duly served.
The charges of murder are formally read out, along with the long list of names of victims killed during the shoot-down.
...and the names are still being read...
The charges against the 4 were published - in English - a short while ago. The court hearings will continue in 50 minutes. prosecutionservice.nl/topics/mh17-pl…
This part of the summons for the first time explicitly shows that the prosecution claims/knows a Russian military crew operated the BUK Telar. Simply put, this means the 4 indictments are the first of many.
The prosecution says journalists and citizens contributed greatly to the "very difficult investigation....in an area of war area and the Russian federation did what it could to prevent discovery of the truth"
The JIT investigated several scenarios in addition to the hypothesis that a Russian BUK was transported from Kursk to the launch location - including that Ukraine did it. All information given by Russia to the JIT was weighed, considered and analyzed.
The prosecution says this case is very different than any õther accidental shoot-downs. Main difference is that the Russian BUK should not have been in Ukraine in the first place - thus the "accident" is a consequence of a criminal activity.
"The presence of a Russian military crew on Ukrainian territory at the launch site means we must prosecute up the chain of command in the Russian federation... This goes on in parallel and doesn't affect the trial against the 4 individuals here"
"Whether or not Ukraine should have closed its airspace is not a question that this court will address. No answer to that question would absolve the guilty parties from shooting a missile at a civillian airplane"
"The prosecution of the 4 individuals does not affect the liability of the Russian state... Individuals may be guilty of a crime with or without liability of the state in whose name they were acting"
"None of the indicted persons appeared in court. The role of the defendants in a trial is relevant and useful for discovery of truth, but even without them truth-finding is possible. We will give them the opportunity to tell their side of the story"
"Even a trial in absentia is important. Finding the truth is as important as sentencing the guilty party. And being off-limits to justice today does not mean that those people will be unreachable by justice tomorrow"
"If one or another of the defendants decides to show up at a later stage, that process will be split from the others, in order to permit that person's participation with testimony. We won't delay the procedure for all others, if one defendant chooses to appear.
"After reviewing all scenarios, it became clear that the 53rd Brigade based in Kursk provided the murder weapon and repatriated it back to Russia shortly after the crime"
The prosecutor explains that certain early persons of interest - such as Igor Bezler - were later discovered to not have contributed to the downing of MH17, and investigation against them were suspended.
For the first time, prosecution discloses that the BUK that the Russian GRU officer code-named "Orion" (identified by us as Oleg Ivannikov) referred to on 14 July, referred to another BUK Telar that caught fire while transported from Russia to Ukraine.
While "Orion" and his commander "Delfin" were involved with removing the BUK that shot down MH17, there is not enough evidence they were involved with that BUK *before* the crime was committed. Thus they will not be prosecuted on the basis of available evidence.
"The crew of the BUK pressed the button. But Girkin, Dubinsky and Pulatov requested and instructed the BUK's usage to further their own interests. They noted with delight they shot down an aircraft, and instructed removal of evidence."
"There are likely to be more charges in the future... Not necessarily in the near future. "
"It is possible that the defendants thought they were shooting at a Ukrainian military aircraft. This is up to the Court to decide. Under Dutch law the charges of murder apply equally in the scenario of killing 298 persons while illegally shooting a military plane."
"This would have been different if the shoot-down took place by a regular army during times of a declared war. Militants based in Ukraine using violence against ordinary citizens from the Netherlands falls into the domain of regular criminal law"
"The special exemption from criminal liability afforded to regular combatants requires these abide by rules of warfare. In this case, investigation showed these people committed a number of other war crimes, such as torture, kidnappings, executions, depriving them of such status"
The prosecution describes the complex validation research conducted to ensure none of the evidence might have been forged, and that only evidence that is consistent with ALL other evidence is taken into account.
"Even if not here, the Defendants can contribute their point of view in any way they choose, via calls, emails, through our website. To not submit their point of view means they remain silent at their choosing"
"Based on prior history, we can expect that smoke-screens and distractions will be popping up to prevent the court from finding the truth. That's why it's important to stick to the key questions before the court and to ignore the smokescreens"
"Our task is to distinguish the truth from the lies....because knowing the truth will prevent more violence in the future"
Oleg Pulatov's defense takes the floor to present his initial defense arguments...
Pulatov's Dutch lawyer elaborates on the need for proper and functional defense opportunity. Says the danger is to not search for the truth but to fall trap to the understandable desire to punish a party seen as guilty.
"We were equally shocked by the tragedy... but our role is here to speak not on behalf of the relatives, but on behalf of Oleg Pulatov. We will do our utmost to respectfully present his innocence while carefully observing the feelings of the next of kin"
A second lawyer of Pulatov says the case file is too voluminous to fully assess, but he already found "areas needing further investigation", such as whether Ukraine's non-closure of airspace should be subject to criminal proceedings. (the prosecutor already addressed this)
"During the interrogations of Ukrainian air-traffic controllers, no one asked them why the air-space over Ukraine was not closed... nor was it examined who took that decision." "Just before the accident MH17 was instructed to elevate its altitude which it couldn't comply with"
"The question is whether the decision by the JIT not to investigate why Ukraine didn't close its airspace...we think JIT should have investigated that too"
The defense lawyer seems to suggest that Russia issued a NOTAM closing the airspace at 6 km (and thus Ukraine should have done the same). but this is not true...
The defense goes into minutiae as to what "must have been known" by Ukraine in terms of weaponry available to armed groups... If that's going to be the defense's main line of argument, seems like a "mitigating circumstance" or "time-buying" strategy as opposed to exculpation.
The only context in which this argument would even make sense for the defense is once the shoot-down (as posited by the prosecution) is already admitted. ?
Of course it could also be just an attempt to prove "insufficient investigation" and buy time...still, a very unexpected opening line of defense.
"Our conclusion, your honor, is that we don't know what exactly happened" << not. a. good. defense.
Following a short presentation from the victims' legal team, the presiding judge adjourns until tomorrow morning, when the review of the case file will begin.
