At the beginning of June, the criminal proceedings against the alleged perpetrators of the downing of MH17 took place. Andreas Schönwälder summarized the events of the first three days of negotiations for Aviation.Direct.

In the Netherlands last week, unnoticed by most of the media, the first three days of the criminal trial against those responsible for the downing of MH8 took place from June 10th to 17th. Since this event interested most of the readers here but nothing about it was read in the newspapers, I have decided to briefly summarize the course of the process here. I would like to note that all information is based purely on the live ticker of a journalist on site (supplemented by details from other live tickers) and that errors can arise due to the double translations Dutch-English / English-German. I would also like to note that all of the following passages are statements from the process and do not reflect my personal opinion!

Just a quick reminder. The JIT, the abbreviation for “Joint Investigation Team”, dealt with the crash. In aviation, it is common for all states involved (origin of the victims, crash site, aircraft manufacturer, BUK producer, etc.) to set up a joint investigation team after a crash. This is therefore 100% impartial, as all findings are worked out together and at the end all parties are given the opportunity to note and correct errors. Furthermore, these investigation teams do not have the task of finding any guilty party, but only work through all the facts. Based on the final report of the JIT, the Dutch courts have indicted four defendants. Note: the fighters in eastern Ukraine are separatists. These are therefore criminally considered civilians and enjoy no immunity, as would be the case with soldiers from foreign nations.

The prosecution has stated that several scenarios have been investigated in order to independently clarify the cause: an internal explosion on board MH17, a launch by a combat aircraft (note: by an on-board machine gun) and a launch by an airborne or ground-based missile. All scenarios with the exception of your launch by a ground-based missile could be ruled out (note: air-launched missiles are only a tenth the size of a BUK). Videos of tests were shown in court in which parts of aircraft were exposed to the explosion of a BUK (colloquial name of the ground-based 9K37 missile system) in order to be able to compare the bullet holes with the wreckage. This test also showed that the only remaining fragments of the missile exactly matched the remains of the missile (which shot down MH17). In addition, photos and 3D graphics of the wreckage of MH17, which were assembled from debris, were shown.

The Australian Federal Police carried out an investigation into the shrapnel in the corpses (Australians provide some of the victims), which enabled the warhead to be narrowed down to a specific type of BUK. Note: a journalist alleged some time ago that no shrapnel had been examined by the captain. This was a captain who was in the back of the cabin at the time of the shooting down (he was flying the machine on the outbound flight). All crew members who were in the front part of MH17 (and thus potentially exposed to shrapnel) were examined. The launch by the machine gun of a fighter aircraft could be ruled out (note: the spread would have been dozens of meters) and the report of the “Russian Union of Engineers report” contradicted itself in large parts.

The "air traffic controller Carlos", who has long been popular in social networks, was also briefly discussed. This is a known fraudster from Spain. This is not only not a pilot, but is currently waiting in Romania for his extradition due to serious fraud. The following weapon systems were also examined and could be excluded: SA-4 Ganef, SA-23 Gladiator, SA-10B Grumble, SA-20 B Gargoyle. Note: The warheads of missiles consist of a perforated hollow cylinder made of steel, which is filled with explosives. The perforation defines the shape of the shrapnel, which makes it characteristic of a particular warhead. In the case of MH17, the material, size and shape (dog bones and triangles) were only identical with a single warhead (there are even 3 different variants with BUK -> Ukraine uses a different one).

The BUK in question must have been a maximum of 36km from the launch site (note: the rocket is semi-ballistic and, after a very short firing time, glides on a parabolic path to the target, with the path being continuously corrected by the control surfaces and the integrated target radar can). This ruled out Yenakiieve being shot down because it was too far away. No witnesses or evidence could be found for a shooting down from Amvrosiivka apart from a couple named by Russia. Satellite images shown by Russia, which show the presence of a BUK TELAR (note: short for Transporter / Erector / Launcher and Radar) in a field near Zaroshenske on July 17.07.2014, XNUMX, were discovered by the JIT to be forgeries. Satellite images from ESA and Google both show no TELAR presence on that day, and an image of a nearby barracks where one of three TELARs is said to be missing on that day comes from a different date. In addition, the JIT is likely to have verified on site that these three TELARs are not functional. What also speaks against Zaroshenske is that there are no witnesses for the presence of a BUK and that at the time in question the place was in separatist hands and not in the hands of the Ukraine. In the field shown in the Russian satellite image, there were also no traces of fire, which, however, always occur when a BUK is shot down. In addition, there is the wiretapped conversation of the self-proclaimed “mayor” and military commander of the separatists in this area “... I tell you one hundred percent, the shooting was not from here”.

All BUK regiments of Ukraine were checked and were outside the aforementioned 36km. Three regiments (note: in Mariupol, Donetsk and Luhansk) were very close to separatist areas (note: to clarify the question of whether separatists could steal a Ukrainian BUK) and were not functional at the time (note: they therefore did not work taken away?). All other BUK regiments were more than 100km away from the launch site.

It continued with the question of the route of the BUK in question, which has already achieved worldwide fame through research by Bellingcat. The route was followed using pictures and videos from social media. The JIT also interviewed dozen of witnesses on site and checked their statements against one another. Russian television claimed that the dashcam videos showing the BUK during transport were manipulated because lines in the video did not escape properly. Note: This has been refuted several times by experts, as these cameras have cheap wide-angle lenses which cause enormous distortion and the evidence of tampering is just a collection of wildly jumbled lines with no sense. In addition to the videos, there is also a high-resolution picture of the BUK from Donetsk (where it is parked in the middle of the city next to a municipal building), which is proven by 3 independent witnesses, a tweet and a phone call.

The alleged shooting location in a field in Snizhne was determined by the American secret service (note: they have satellites for detecting rocket launches), several witnesses and the Dutch secret service based on tracing the BUK route. It was also verified by a local inspection where traces of fire, which are characteristic for the start of a BUK, could be determined. In several cases, the alleged falsification of videos showing the BUK during removal could be refuted (note: in one case a visible advertising poster from a local car dealer proved that it was the right place). So these are authentic. Due to 15 characteristic parameters, even the BUK TELAR could be restricted to the number 3 × 2 (the middle number is not clearly visible) of a Russian regiment (note: damage to the chain apron, position of partly painted over numbers and symbols, etc.). Inquiries to Russia where this TELAR was at the time in question remained unanswered.

At this point I would like to make a brief note: only four people are charged in the process. There are no allegations of Russian involvement. Even if the origin of the BUK should be correct with Russia, it is possible that it was loaned to the separatists in exchange for a “donation” to a commander. But this is outside of what should be clarified in the process and I do not want to make any assumptions of any kind.

The following evidence was presented on the subject of the shooting. A phone call from Valery Stelmakh to Igor Bezler announced the approaching 777. When asked whether it was about reconnaissance or something big (note: an Antonov cargo plane that had dropped paratroopers the days before), Stelmakh replied “I have no idea, it is behind clouds and too high”. Only 47 seconds after this phone call, MH17 was shot down. The Ukraine provided the JIT with a TELAR and crew in order to be able to reliably evaluate the working method and the technical parameters. Note from me: it has been claimed several times on social media that a single TELAR from Snizhne would not have been able to see MH17. However, this is clearly a false claim. It is based on the fact that the integrated radar of a TELAR only has a limited field of vision, which (especially if you are warned by telephone) can be aimed at a certain area. If the target area is set low, the detection range goes up to more than double. As soon as a target has been acquired, the radar must be set higher in order not to lose the target, but can no longer monitor the horizon. Regarding tapped phone calls from separatists that they shot down a supposed Ukrainian military transporter: this was the only downing of an airplane on that day, so it cannot have meant anything else.

Now to the defendants. The main defendant Oleg Pulatov could be identified based on his history in Chechnya. Together with Igor Girkin, Sergey Dubinsky and Leonid Kharchenko, he was responsible for the separatists' air defense. In a bugged phone call, Girkin had asked for a larger air defense “from Russia” “we need anti-tank defense, tanks and intelligent air defense…… because we cannot survive alone with MANPADS (note: missile that can only be carried on the shoulder and which can only reach low-flying aircraft) ”And later added“… all of them with a crew, because we can't train anyone at such short notice ”. Girkin first admitted the shooting down on social media (note: before it was known that it was an airliner) and one of Dubinsky's subordinates stated that he was responsible for the transport of the TELAR. 

Regarding the question of responsibility: the prosecution is of the opinion that the defendants do not fall under the immunity under the Geneva Convention because, as part of the separatists, they did not fight on behalf of a state. The MyLai massacre in 1968 and the Bosnian / Serbian genocide in 1992 were named as precedents. As long as none of the defendants (or even Russia itself) claims that the defendants were in an official Russian intervention in Ukraine, the defendants are considered civilians and therefore have no immunity from prosecution. However, the Dutch prosecution is convinced that Russia had no involvement, which is why the defendants fall under Dutch criminal law: "According to Dutch criminal law, it is not allowed to shoot down planes".

So it will be very exciting whether the defendants want to call themselves Russian mercenaries in order to receive immunity, or whether Russia will hand them over after a final conviction. The prosecution says that the four defendants did not “press the button” themselves, but with the planning of the downing of an aircraft and the coordination / logistics of TELAR, they are responsible for the downing. The main defendant Oleg Pulatov has not yet been able to meet his lawyers personally because of COVID19, which is why his trust in them is likely to be limited. Furthermore, the indictment is 40.000 pages long and the lawyers complain that they did not have enough time to read it in the 4 months allotted to preparation. They also don't know whether Pulatov has already read them (note: they have been translated into Russian).

The interrogation of the witness “X48”, who was on site near the TELAR when it was shot down, will also be exciting. He was at a separatist checkpoint (note: “border crossing”), in the immediate vicinity of the shooting site and speaks of four crew members whose uniforms were different from all the others on site (note: the characteristic helmets with ears of BUK operators , but the uniforms in khaki, while the Ukrainian crews had almost black uniforms). Speaking of witnesses: the removal of witness “V11” (who would apparently exonerate the defendants) was not allowed. So it cannot be said that the process is biased.

The trial was adjourned until June 22nd. Pulatov and his lawyers still have a little time to finish reading the 40000 pages. 

Finally, one more time: The text is a summary of the first three days of the process and does not reflect my personal opinion! I have summarized the text neutrally to the best of my knowledge and any errors are based either on the content of the live ticker or the translation it contains. 

This article was written for Aviation.Direct by Andreas Schönwälder.