On Thursday, Nov. 17, 2022, in front of a very large number of relatives and other attendees, the District Court of The Hague handed down a verdict in the MH17 criminal case after a comprehensive and intensive criminal trial. All sessions were live to follow and watch back via: www.courtmh17.com. The summary and full judgments recited by the presiding judge can be accessed at the following links:
Verdict document criminal case MH17 Kharchenko Dubinskiy Girkin Pulatov (courtmh17.com)
ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2022:12218, Rechtbank Den Haag, 09-748007/19 (jurisdiction.nl)
ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2022:12216, Rechtbank Den Haag, 09-748005/19 (jurisdiction.nl)
ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2022:12217, Rechtbank Den Haag, 09-748004/19 (jurisdiction.nl)
ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2022:12219, Rechtbank Den Haag, 09-748006/19 (jurisprudence.nl)
The Court concluded that flight MH17 was shot down by a BUK missile launched from an agricultural field near Pervomaisky. The court convicted 3 defendants, namely Girkin, Dubinskiy and Kharchenko for causing flight MH17 to crash and for functionally committing/conspiring murder of 298 people. Dubinskiy and Kharchenko played key roles in transporting the BUK missile and guarding and protecting the final firing site. Girkin, as supreme military leader, was (ultimately) responsible for the deployment of military assets.
For these offenses, Girkin, Dubinskiy and Kharchenko were sentenced to life in prison.
The court found insufficient evidence to convict defendant Pulatov of his involvement. The court noted that Pulatov did commit the conduct, as argued by the prosecution, but found this insufficient to hold Pulatov legally responsible for the flight MH17 disaster. Pulatov was therefore acquitted of the charges.
The court also ruled that the claims for compensation submitted by the next of kin are awarded in the amounts claimed by the Legal Aid Team (of which Beer advocaten is part). The compensation measure was also imposed, which means that the State will guarantee payment.
The court also considered the position of siblings who did not live with the victim. They could not claim compensation. The court did support the appeal of the Legal Aid Team and some relatives to the Dutch legislator to explicitly include the position of siblings who no longer live with the victim in the anticipated evaluation of the (Dutch) Act on Affection Damage. The court considered:
"Victim testimonies have revealed poignantly that after the disaster the lives of brothers and sisters changed dramatically. A change caused not only by the grief for the loss of brother or sister, but also because of the new or more intensive role they took on, naturally with love but also by necessity, after the disaster in caring for brother or sister's children or in caring for their own parents. This new or more intense role also confronts them even more intensely with the grief of these children and parents. The court therefore supports the relatives” call for the position of siblings who no longer live with the victim to be expressly included in the anticipated evaluation of the Act on Affection Damage."
It has since become clear that no appeal has been filed by the prosecution or the defendants. This brings an end to a lengthy criminal trial.
For questions, please contact Beer advocaten's aviation team, Arlette Schijns and Irene Timmermans, via telephone number +31 20 673 21 99 or via e-mail luchtvaartteam1@beeradvocaten.nl.