Thread by @XSovietNews

Prosecutors in the District Court of The Hague as the verdict is about to be announced in the MH17 trial.

The judges came in.

Inside the courtroom.

Presiding Judge Hendrik Steenhuis said there were familiar faces but too many people to greet personally.

"The court notes that none of the defendants has appeared at today's hearing."

One of the defendants, Oleg Pulatov, has his lawyers in court. The other three were unrepresented.

"This case and some of the moments in it have made an unforgettable impression," Steenhuis says.

A summary of the rulings will be read.

The court takes the view that MH17 was brought down by a Buk missile launched from an agricultural field near Pervomaiskoe, killing 298 people, Steenhuis says. The judgment will take roughly an hour and three quarters with no break.

Ukraine transferred its jurisdiction to The Netherlands, so the court has authority to hold the trial, Steenhuis says.

A conflict can be deemed an international conflict if another state has overall control over a combatant group. The court judges that Russia had overall control over the "DPR".

This refers to whether the court has authority to judge.

Combatants refer to "Moscow" and "the Kremlin" when talking to high-level officials. Alexander Borodai was in daily contact with the Kremlin, especially Vyacheslav Surkov, whom he referred to as "our man in the Kremlin".

Organisations such as the OSCE and Human Rights Watch reported supplies, weapons and money going from Russia to the occupied regions of Ukraine.

There is ample evidence that the Kremlin issued instructions to the DPR, Steenhuis says.

Defendant Girkin abandoned Sloviansk although he had said Moscow didn't want it surrendered. Borodai refers to speaking to "the boss" for instructions about how to handle the MH17 disaster, for example the refrigerated items and the black box. He also asked for lines...

...to take at a press conference. Therefore he was a representative of the Russian authorities, the judge says.

Defendant Dubinsky said Russia was going to bombard Ukrainian positions. They were coordinating their actions.

Russia had a decisive influence on high-level appointments in the "DPR" and took military actions of its own on Ukrainian territory. From mid-May 2014 the situation was that the Russian Federation had overall control over the DPR, Steenhuis says.

From mid-May 2014 there was an international conflict taking place on Ukrainian territory in which the DPR was under Russian control, Steenhuis says.

For the DPR to be seen as part of the Russian military, Russia needs to take responsibility for it, but this is not the case, Steenhuis says. Russia denies involvement still to this day.

The DPR combatants, including the defendants, cannot be regarded as part of the Russian Federation's military, so they had no right to participate in hostilities, let alone any right to immunity from prosecution for the MH17 crash.

"There is no question of jurisdiction being restricted by international law."

The defence came up with various reasons why the prosecution should not be allowed to prosecute, including being "one-sided".

And the names of the suspects being announced.

It was wrong for the prosecution to share pieces of the investigation on a website at a carefully planned time, Steenhuis says.

Publication blatantly disregarded an express instruction of the court.

The court did not let this affect its open-minded and unbiased assessment of the file and the charges and it did not impact the fairness of proceedings, Steenhuis says. So it is not a bar to prosecution.

The prosecution was allowed to serve a summons to Pulatov without the subject being notified in advance, Steenhuis says.

The defence could have asked the prosecutors to withdraw the summons.

Pulatov showed video messages as his way of contributing, without indicating that he felt wronged, Steenhuis says.

On alleged bias, Steenhuis says the prosecution did its own investigation and acknowledged when it had used materials from Ukraine's SBU.

The court is convinced the file contains all the relevant documents necessary to judge the case, Steenhuis says.

"We cannot call the proceedings unfair."

The court will now discuss the evidence that it used for its judgment.

The bowtie-shaped warhead fragment of a Buk missile that was found in a crew member and the intercepted phone calls are proof that add to the photographic evidence.

The case file contains dozens of reports of experts appointed by the investigating magistrate. The investigating magistrate considered their independence and objectivity. Almaz-Antey is a state company affiliated with the Russian authorities.

Russia has repeatedly tried to prove that Ukrainian authorities were responsible for the crash, but this so-called proof contained evidence of tampering, Steenhuis says. Almaz-Antey as an organisation also has an interest in the outcome of the investigation.

Almaz-Antey is sanctioned. It can't be considered an objective party.

The reports from an American agency submitted by Pulatov's defence did not manage to sway the court either, Steenhuis says. They repeated the findings of Almaz-Antey without any investigation.

A witness took photos of the smoke trail from the balcony of his house in Torez. There was no evidence that these photos were tampered with. The trail originated from the direction of Pervomaiskyi.

Two other pictures of an inversion trail were found on the internet. The person who took the photos has not been identified. The photos were uploaded on July 17, 2014, the day of the MH17 crash.

Witness M58 made very elaborate and detailed statements. He was part of the reconnaissance group commanded by defendant Leonid Kharchenko. M58 was in a field that afternoon and heard something drive on the unpaved road to the south of it. The sound of caterpillar tracks.

A bit later he heard a loud explosion and he saw a missile zig-zagging and leaving a smoke trail behind it. He saw the aircraft coming down. He saw the Buk TELAR missing a missile.

The defence claimed M58's statements were unreliable.

The accuracy of his statements could be verified on many topics, so the court sees no reason to doubt them, Steenhuis says.

There were inconsistencies in his statements but there is no evidence that this was intentional. M58 did not make untruthful statements.

Due to the hectic situation the court finds it unsurprising that M58 is somewhat unsure of details that he didn't know at the time would be needed.

It includes the joy of hitting a military aircraft and the joy turning to horror when it turned out a passenger aircraft had been hit.

Using M58's evidence is not contrary to a fair trial. The defence was able to interview M58 for several days. M58 answered all the questions posed to him.

The file includes an analysis of satellite images of the farm field that supports the conclusion that it was the firing site.

It is the highest elevation within a 5 km radius and a line of trees provides direct cover.

Phone calls also discuss that a Buk TELAR was on its way.

In various cases the Buk TELAR was also captured in footage up the time that matches the route to Pervomaiskyi from Donetsk.

On July 18 it is seen on a video with one missile missing.

No traces of tampering with the video were found.

Bowtie-shaped fragments prove that a Buk was used. As does a green lump that was found embedded in the groove of the left cockpit window. It matches the base plate of both the new and old types of Buk missiles.

The court does not see any possibility for reasonable doubt whatsoever, Steenhuis says.

Pulatov claimed the phone calls were intended to mislead the enemy into thinking a Buk TELAR was coming. "The court holds this totally implausible."

"The court calls it inconceivable that such a multitude of evidence of various natures from different countries could have been fabricated so fast without leaving any trace."

Dutch experts agree that Almaz-Antey's assumptions and methods are not clear, transparent or comprehensible to other experts and therefore cannot be verified by the court. "Entirely unconvincing."

The other possibilities have been ruled out by legally valid, convincing evidence, Steenhuis says. There is therefore no need to exhaust other lines of inquiry.

The defence also tried to claim that it was a Ukrainian Buk aimed at an Air India aircraft.

"There are further reasons why this belongs to the realm of fantasy. At the moment of firing, the Air India aircraft was well beyond the range of a Buk TELAR. This means it was technically impossible to launch the missile."

All the intercepted phone calls used in evidence were made by the defendants using the phone numbers attributed to them. They are authentic, Steenhuis says.

The Buk TELAR that was delivered was "very welcome" to the militants in eastern Ukraine, Steenhuis says.

"After it became clear that this disaster was caused by the Buk TELAR, it was swiftly returned to the Russian Federation in the hope of avoiding an international outcry."

Kharchenko saw that the Buk TELAR was guarded and protected at its final launch site. Its escorting makes an essential contribution to the deployment of the Buk TELAR, Steenhuis says.

The fighting that was taking place sought to open a corridor to the Russian Federation in the area. Pulatov had reconnoitred the corridor and was defending it. Girkin was responsible for the use of DPR troops. He carried out talks with the LPR and with authorities in Moscow.

The file does not reveal who gave the order to launch the missile and why, or how the Buk crew acted.

"The possibility of anybody aboard the aircraft surviving a Buk missile strike is zero. Anybody in possession of a Buk TELAR will be fully aware of that."

A Buk TELAR requires a highly trained crew, and it can't be used off the cuff, Steenhuis says.

"A Buk missile cannot be launched by mistake, nor in the heat of the moment. It must be carefully thought through... The court therefore concludes that it was fired at its target deliberately and after some consideration. It was crystal clear what the consequences would be."

Thinking that this was a military aircraft does not detract from the premeditated intent. The defendants were not members of the military and were not entitled to fire at any aircraft. It was a criminal act.

Kharchenko had received orders from Dubinsky to escort and remove the Buk TELAR. The court sees Kharchenko in a leadership position in essential actions contributing to the Buk TELAR's launch, Steenhuis says.

Kharchenko is therefore to be considered a co-perpetrator of both charges. He is also criminally responsible for his subordinates' contributions.

Dubinsky was highly placed in the DPR and on the night of July 16th-17th he initiated and organised the transportation of the Buk TELAR. He gave his subordinates orders to execute this. He can be qualified as a co-perpetrator.

At an operational level Girkin was in the highest military position in the DPR and was in constant contact with Moscow. Part of the combat included shooting at planes. The evidence doesn't show that Girkin knew about the availability of the Buk-TELAR.

Girkin is not a co-perpetrator in the traditional sense of the word, but he gave instructions on the fighting. He didn't talk about a Buk or its deployment on the phone.

Girkin actively became involved in the removal of the Buk TELAR to the Russian Federation. Girkin was aware that the fighting under his command included the shooting down of aircraft, which had happened repeatedly before July 17.

He was actively involved in the military operation surrounding the corridor. Rather than condemning the use of the Buk he was involved in trying to make the evidence disappear. Girkin therefore qualifies as a functional perpetrator of these offences committed in co-perpetration.

Pulatov was an area commander. He had men under his command and it was his job to effect and maintain the aforementioned corridor for strengthening the position of the DPR in the Donbas.

On the morning of July 17 Dubinsky told Pulatov that Kharchenko would bring a Buk TELAR.

Kharchenko brought the Buk TELAR and met Pulatov in Snizhne.

The court does not consider it proven lawfully and beyond doubt that Pulatov made any contribution to the deployment of the Buk TELAR, so he cannot be considered a co-perpetrator. He knew about it as a coordinator and did not object to it.

Pulatov can be said to have accepted the deployment of the Buk TELAR. He had received specific instructions from Dubinsky to stay close to Pervomaiskyi to guard the Buk TELAR. But the orders were executed by Kharchenko.

There is no indication that Pulatov had the authority to change or revoke a direct order given by Dubinsky to Kharchenko. The court therefore concludes that the control required for functional perpetratorship was lacking.

Pulatov has to be acquitted of all of the charged variants of both offences.

Girkin, Dubinsky and Kharchenko are found guilty.

Guilty of intentionally and unlawfully causing an aircraft to crash and 298 counts of murder.

Claims for compensation are pursuant to Ukrainian law.

Relatives in court after three of the four defendants were found guilty and Russia was proven to have shot down MH17.

Judge Steenhuis is talking about how much the 298 victims are still missed.

He's talking about the trauma, the PTSD, having to repeatedly bury body parts that can result in a feeling of unreality.

The court will not apply the exclusion of same-sex partner relatives of the victims under Ukrainian law.

Although Dutch and Ukrainian law don't provide for compensation to siblings who didn't live with the victims, the court wants to include them.

Compensation is more than 60 million euros to be paid by Dubinsky, Girkin and Kharchenko.

Bear in mind probably nothing will be paid.

The victims were robbed of their lives and future. Their lives were not yet over, or even barely begun, Steenhuis says.

Girkin repeatedly argued that DPR soldiers did not contribute to downing MH17 and made comments that are verging on disrespectful of the relatives, Steenhuis says. Kharchenko denied that any Buk TELAR was present. Both knew better than that.

Dubinsky can be seen as the collaborating coordinator who oversaw transportation of the weapon. He contributed largely to executing the offence.

Kharchenko was most involved in executing the offence and also gave orders to his subordinates. He was a "middle manager".

His lower rank does not justify a time-prescribed sentence, so he is getting a life sentence along with the others.

The charges are so severe and the consequences are so grave, they caused so much grief to relatives, that only the longest prison sentences are appropriate. Judge Steenhuis hopes this may offer some relief to the relatives. The three convicted defendants are at large.

Relatives after the judges left. Russia was found guilty, but the name Vladimir Putin was not mentioned.