Thread by @HRIMark

#MH17 pretrial proceedings continue today. Defendants haven't appeared. Counsel for relatives submitted claims on 13 April.

#MH17 Defence has submitted Pulatov can not authenticate any of the conversations he is alleged to have participated in as he can not remember the details.

Investigating judges have reported on their progress, experts have been interviewed, The issue of satellite images from the US is "underway".

Judge: Defence argued that according to ECHR they should be allowed to examine certain forensic witnesses - Court sees no reason to lift restrictions.

Judge: agenda for inspection of wreckage will be set after interviews with forensic witnesses including Almaz Antay.

Judge: regarding relatives giving statements. Substance of case can be addressed June, July 2021 before all investigations fulfilled. Defendants unlikely to be present but useful for society to know what is in case file.

Judge: Source of intercepted conversations recently leaked was not the case file, although where it came from is unknown. (HRI comment: SBU)

Prosecution: Prosecution has done a lot of the things asked to do by the judge. The investigating judge is great. Prosecution unable to substantiate defence complaints.

Prosecution: Two forensic institutees in Holland and Sweden say there is "no evidence" of manipulation of images from Snizhne as claimed by the Russian government.

Prosecution: NLR investigation is great. RMA investigation also. Almaz-Antay take a similar method as RMA. But questions over independence of company from Russian government.

Prosecution: (Microphone has stopped working)

Sound back. Seems Rupty now require a paid subscription for English coverage.

Prosecution: Regarding leaks. Some documents have been leaked in a non-legitimate fashion.

Prosecution: Thinks defence should make its case regarding compensation before prosecution/relatives.

Prosecution: Pulatov has not yet revealed lines of defence. That is his right. Difference in weight between what said by Pulatov & his attorneys. A translation mistake can't have happened because of the month.

Defence: (Now handing out briefing notes to all the judges and attorneys). Lost sound on court transmission.

Defence: (Sound back) All forensic experts agree need to assess full damage pattern, not just pieces included in reconstruction.

Defence: The NLR report is a black box as there is no evidence regarding how digital laser scanning works and how it was used by Dutch police.

Defence: Having difficulties finding a forensic expert willing to examine evidence. Previous expert ill, others don't respond or refuse. Good one found but not confirmed.

Defence: Investigative judge refusing to ask certain questions of NFI witness including what their qualifications and background are. Also only allowed to ask about what he personally reported on. These restrictions are unacceptable.

Defence: Needs to be allowed to ask its questions of witness. The defence can't organise a proper defence if it can't ask questions of about topics such as procedures used. There should be a right to a fair trial which includes asking questions.

Defence: Under ECHR, right to defence is undermined if defence can't ask questions of witnesses whose statements are included in the court file.

Defence: Needs to be able to ask question about authenticity of one of the taped conversations, but not allowed by investigative judge. Public prosecutors won't answer questions about whether some recordings are original or not. Court should order them to reply.

Defence: Most of the case based on intercepted conversations so defence needs to find out if these files are original and unedited. Unreasonable that recordings provided by the SBU secret service branch are not subject to scrutiny.

Defence: Recordings being used in prosecution come from a body (the SBU) which has an interest in the outcome of the case.

Defence: Obvious that given the amount of conversations that Pulatov had it is impossible for him to confirm that the conversations were original and unedited (or fake for that matter). Many sources confirm SBU has a history of falsifying taped recordings.

HRI comment: In a serious legal system, wiretaps by an organisation like the SBU would not be allowed.
In Holland, the defence is apparently not even allowed to investigate if the recordings are originals.

Judge: Short court recess.

HRI comment: The ECHR should consider how Dutch law allows evidence produced by a state security organisation headed by the founder of a fascist party is allowed in a case in which said security organisation should be regarded as one of the suspects.

Defence: (Talking about Chernik & Flock - this is very important but the live stream keeps breaking down).

Defence: Interviewing Chernik and Fluck very important.

Defence: 4 days to interview Almaz-Antay witness insufficient. In effect much less time than for Dutch-speaking witnesses, especially as prosecution failed to do its work properly and translate documents required.

Defence: Has outstanding list of questions it wants put to Almaz-Antay.

Defence: Requests information on dates and terms of reference and agendas and minutes of forensic experts meetings including RMA and NLR.

Defence: On prosecution request for inspection of wreckage, illusion to think lawyers can decide issues over wreckage when experts themselves disagree.

Defence: Defence needs list (which they don't have) of where the items of wreckage are (there are 18 containers full of wreckage not included in the reconstruction).

Defence: Suffering of victims is indescribable. Not talking about right to compensation. Dutch Law 361 section 3 - Court can exclude civil claims as civil claims must be subsidiary to criminal complaint.

Defence: It is highly complex to determine the civil parties claim as it involves Dutch, Ukrainian & International law. Defence is unable to defend a civil action. The matter should be lodged with another civil law authority. This doesn't effect relatives right to speak.

Lunchbreak until 13:30 CEST.

Defence: Defence making a clarification - they have a list of parts used in the reconstruction but not those not in it.

Defence: Prosecution refusing to allow defence access to any phone call which doesn't involve their client.

Defence: The labelling used in the #MH17 case file seems to match the leaked file from Newshour. So it appears the leak and original are from the same source. Shows attached flies 1. In Case file 2. Newshour.

Defence: Dutch reporter has heard and reported on some of the intercepted calls which are being refused to the defence and reported on their importance.

Defence: Disclosure to the defence is fundamental to a fair trial under international law. It is a fundamental requirement to be able to review all telecoms data.

Defence: Asks court to make all telecoms and metadata available so they can be reviewed to see if should be added to the case file

Defence: All the evidence in the trial is based on telecom data so the defence want to know how calls were chosen. What criteria were used? Not all the calls recently leaked were fully in #MH17 case file.

Defence: Is it possible there are further phone calls not selected or circulating which would be exculpatory?

Defence: Newshour says it has access to 1000s of tapes involving client. Prosecution says the conversations weren't provided by them & implies they could be from Ukrainian case files.

Articles of ECHR and Dutch constitution protect privacy. The State has a legal responsibility to protect a defendant's privacy and there is a legal responsibility to investigate the leak.

Defence: In light of ECHR Article 8 the prosecution must investigate this situation thoroughly.

Defence: Regarding "expert witnesses" some clearly have very limited knowledge about the matters at issue. Therefore it is important to be able to ask questions about an expert witnesses' expertise.

Counsel for the relatives: 290 relatives have filed claims: they are known as "injured parties." Want court to issue a compensation order.

Counsel for the relatives: Civil case will be under Ukrainian law. Only close relatives are eligible for moral damages & those in same sex relationships won't be eligible.

That is a very strange basis for a Dutch court to proceed on.

Relatives counsel: Relatives want their privacy and personal data protected. Brothers & sisters not living with relatives won't be able to claim under Ukrainian law. This is a large group (approximately 246 relatives).

Relatives counsel: This would apparently be the same under Dutch law.

Relatives counsel: Approximately 90 relatives have so far said they would like to address the court. Unsure when relatives should make statements. Some relatives would rather wait until the case has been presented.

Relatives counsel: Concedes cases are complicated. Even if defence legal firm doesn't have inhouse experience can retain expertise from outside firm.

Relatives counsel: Would contest any decision of court to relinquish control of civil cases.

Court is in recess until 4.00 CEST It seems there will be more argument later and tomorrow and some decisions tomorrow with more decisions on Monday.

That's a wrap for today. What a mess!