Thread by @mariekedehoon

#MH17 trial continues today & tomorrow with particularly the responses of Prosecution (OM) on the requests by defense for additional investigations. This is still preliminary phase of #MH17Trial, arguing on what is necessary to complete the dossier before moving to merits phase.

https://twitter.com/CourtMH17/status/1326811219932680192

OM: we will respond to and advise court on the various investigation requests by defense last June and since. OM submits a number of general points that are critical on the way that the defense is approaching the case >

For example, that defense is selective when it invokes the complexity of ongoing armed conflict; and that only investigation requests that can shed new light are relevant, but that it is not up to the defense to decide what the prosecution is about and how long trial will take.

OM argues that defense does not have good reasons for the delay in the investigation requests because they already argued their doubt earlier in 2020. Moreover, OM argues that Dutch law has sufficient checks and balances to hear anonymous witnesses, e.g. through examining judge.

There are also additional tests to verify reliability of anonymous witnesses and that this testimony needs to be supported by other evidence, to compensate for the limited ability of the defense to cross-examine. They are allowed to submit questions though.

OM then concludes on this point by arguing that therefore there are no reasons to use broader assessment criteria for the late requests by defense, and that only "necessity" is criterion to decide on defense's requests that have been done in this "proceedings block" (Nov 2020).

OM now continues with discussing the requests relating to the forensic evidence, where as introduction OM reiterates that there are no reasons why the requests related to the forensic evidence are only submitted now and not earlier and that thus "necessity" is the only criterion.

What will follow now will be replies on each of the defense's requests on forensic evidence. OM starts by arguing the reputation of the Netherlands Forensic Institute since defense has argued they lack expertise and requested "second opinions" on NFI reports by different experts.

After the requests on additional investigations on the forensic reports, OM now dismisses the necessity, relevance and/or motivation of witness requests; and that these requests could not have been submitted earlier and that it would now delay proceedings disproportionally.

OM again argues there are no reasons that defense could not submit the requests earlier and that therefore now sole question would be whether the requests are necessary. OM argues they are not because there is sufficient corroborating evidence or not in the interest of Pulatov.

Defense said Swedish forensic experts are not independent b/c MFA Sweden tweeted support to JIT in 2018. OM sarcastically comments this was in line w/ Res 2166 & that they understand why defense finds it so hard to find independent experts b/c who then is independent for defense.

On the defense's claim that what was said on tapped calls was intentional deception of the enemy, OM says that they indeed used codewords but not consistently, and that they sometimes forgot that they should not speak on sensitive matters via insecure lines.

OM ends day by submitting there's no point asking UKR again for radar data b/c UKR already gave this & that it's insufficiently motivated how this would detect BUK-missile. Adds wittily why they don't request Russian radar data on supposed Ukrainian BUK that RUS fails to provide.