Thread by @HRIMark

Full text of the interlocutory judgement of the #MH17 court regarding on applications made by the defence, counsel for MH17 relatives and the Public Prosecution Service just released:
uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/inziendocument…

The judge argues the right of the defendant to examine or have examined witnesses against him is balanced against his right to be judged within a reasonable time.
So Pulatov can not examine all the witnesses against him because of time constraints.
Article 6 of the ECHR below:

My interpretation of the ECHR would be that examining the witnesses against him is a "minimum right" of a defendant and the "reasonable time" has to allow this. The judge can rule the evidence is insufficient & acquit but he shouldn't curtail the defendant's minimum rights.

The judge lays out a number of other restrictions on the defence's requests for further investigation and explains the following regarding alternative scenarios:

So we have the defence, who have stated they are only at the beginning of their investigation, coming up against a judge who is restricting their investigations & clearly far more inclined to acquit than to allow a protracted investigation into an alternative scenario.

Or who may even disallow investigation into alternative scenarios & convict on the basis of what has already been shown by the defence to have been an extremely dodgy investigation, full of failures to substantiate the main narrative set out in the prosecution.

Regarding the types of evidence, the judge does regard expert & forensic evidence as more reliable than witness statements but studiously ignores:
1) Witnesses may have been tortured by the SBU.
2) The SBU (ie the main investigator) is one of the belligerent parties

It is quite rare for the investigation of a crime to be led by one of the chief suspects of that crime, something the judge fails to mention.

The defence argued that the court should say whether certain types of evidence would be acceptable- eg anonymous witnesses & social media material for which the source could not be found & based a lot of requests on eg trying to find the source. The judge has ruled these out.

He says "a decision will only be taken on conditional requests justified in that way when the final judgment is made." That might be considered a bit late in the day by the defendants.

The effect of not ruling on the admissibility of certain classes of evidence will likely be a rewording of a large number of requests for further investigation by the defence & it will be v. unfortunate if no light is shed on the media evidence presented.

The judge has decided to rule out investigation of alternative scenarios and explains his reasoning:

So after 6 years of a deeply flawed investigation which ruled out alternative scenarios on a faulty basis (the BUK fingerprint theory) alternative scenarios will not be investigated by the court due to time constraints.

This seems mightily strange to anyone familiar with the practice of defence lawyers presenting evidence of alternative scenarios in order to show a defendant should be found not guilty.

Interestingly the judge says, "Only possible alternative scenarios that cannot be excluded based on the evidence underpinning the main scenario should be explored forthwith."
The scenario of a false-flag using a "Trojan Horse" BUK does seem to fit that description.

The judge makes clear that the court still awaits the result of a "request for legal assistance sent by the examining magistrate to the United States requesting that the satellite images of a (BUK) missile launch on 17 July 2014 be provided."

The judge rules out the defence requests for interviewing a large number of experts who have produced evidence which will be used against the defendant. Hard to see how this is in accordance with the right to a fair trial but Dutch law seems to be a thing unto itself.

Regarding whether a BUK was used & whether a BUK missile was launched near Pervomaiskyi the judge again argues "Article 6 of the ECHR requires the court to ensure that the trial take place within a reasonable time. The court is thus obliged to make choices..."

Again the judge overrules on the basis of an undefined concept of "reasonable time" , the international human rights standard of a fair trial under Article 6, 3(d) coe.int/en/web/convent…

The Judge does allow the defences' request re questioning the Russian 53rd Anti-Aircraft Brigade - but only its colonel at the time.

Important that the questioning of the 53rd Brigade is said by the judge to be evident.
The prosecution argument is that, on the basis of markings on a BUK seen in Russia being similar to ones see in E Ukraine, the 53rd Brigade manned the BUK which shot down #MH17.

There is no evidence the argument that the markings on the Russian BUK which were publicly available on social media, might have been copied onto a Ukrainian BUK has been addressed by the investigators.

With regard to requests regarding the alleged supply and removal route the court says "These requests are more eligible to be granted if they concern the alleged personal involvement of the defendant than if they merely concern determining the precise route."

This is a reminder, for those not paying proper attention, that it is four defendants who are charged & on trial, not Russia. If Russia was on trial then the in and out-bound route & evidence (or lack thereof) regarding the BUK having crossed the border would be more evident.

The judge touches on the apparent failure to identify the two AP journalists whose supposed testimony that they had been approached by Russians played such a big role shortly after the downing. Seems they can't be identified & the judge considers their testimony irrelevant.

Regarding defence requests for images of the alleged supply and removal route the judge says:

With regard to the important Lugansk video which suggests all is not as it seems with regard to the BUK, the judge sums up the defence request:

It seems a bit fishy the camera & SD card which were handed over regarding the Lugansk video were found to have no film on them & the camera was found to not be the one used to take the footage.
But the court has rejected this defence request.

With regard to the defendant’s explanation that code words were used in telephone conversations (eg BUK doesn't mean BUK) the court has agreed that co-defendants can be interviewed.

With regard to the Volvo trailer which allegedly transported the BUK, the defence wished to interview the owner. This has been rejected as "irrelevant."
There is an explanation why it is. 😉

Regarding defence requests on telecommunications data, most requests are denied due to privacy & due to the defendant's own interview/statement but the court orders comparative voice analysis on the basis of that interview to see if he was on certain calls.

The defence invited the court to present questions to the defendant but the judge has said the court won't be doing that.
The judge invites him to attend in person to answer questions.
That offer presumably comes together with free accommodation at the Dutch state's expense.

@threadreaderapp unroll