MH17: как и кто?

Информация о пользователе

Привет, Гость! Войдите или зарегистрируйтесь.


Вы здесь » MH17: как и кто? » Суд » Новости: Суд.


Новости: Суд.

Сообщений 1 страница 30 из 41

1

https://www.courtmh17.com

Судебные дни
Окружной суд Гааги выделил сроки для судебного разбирательства по делу MH17 в Судебном комплексе Схипхол (JCS). Суд зарезервировал эти периоды, чтобы обеспечить место для проведения слушаний по делу MH17.

Пока не известно, будет ли суд заседать каждый день. Обстоятельства могут потребовать, чтобы слушания были сокращены, перенесены, приостановлены или даже отменены.

9–13 марта 2020 года (слушания 9–10 марта 2020 года)
23–27 марта 2020 года (слушание 23 марта 2020 года)


С 8 по 12 июня 2020 года
15-19 июня 2020 г.
С 22 по 26 июня 2020 года
С 30 июня по 3 июля 2020 года


С 31 августа по 4 сентября 2020 года
7-11 сентября 2020 г.


С 28 сентября по 2 октября 2020 года
5-9 октября 2020 г.


2-6 ноября 2020 г.
9-13 ноября 2020 года

2

https://www.courtmh17.com/nieuws/2019/1 … -mh17.html
Гаагский суд резервирует периоды заседаний для судебного дела MH17
Гаагский суд зарезервировал следующие периоды в Судебном комплексе Схипхол (JCS) для судебного дела MH17.

9-13 марта 2020 г.
С 23 по 27 марта 2020 года
С 8 июня по 3 июля 2020 года
С 31 августа по 13 ноября 2020 года
С 1 февраля по 26 марта 2021 года

Первая сессия уже была объявлена ​​ранее: 9 марта 2020 года. Затем первая фаза слушания начнется в ходе испытания MH17. На этом этапе мы посмотрим, кто появится на слушании, каково состояние расследования и что еще нужно сделать.

Пока невозможно сказать, в какие другие даты сессии будут проводиться в зарезервированные периоды и когда может начаться основное лечение . Только после первого этапа инвентаризации в марте 2020 года суд может приступить к дальнейшему содержательному планированию. Информация последует, как только появится больше ясности по этому поводу.

3

Первая сессия https://www.courtmh17.com/tijdlijn/time … -2020.html
Первая сессия состоится 9 марта 2020 года. В таком крупном уголовном деле, как это, обычно это предварительная сессия или прямая сессия, чтобы, среди прочего, подвести итоги расследования. Например, речь идет о том, завершен ли файл, а также о том, какие исследования еще предстоит провести.

Может возникнуть вопрос, хотят ли подозреваемые и / или государственная прокуратура (ОМ) по-прежнему заслушивать свидетелей или экспертов. Подозреваемые и их адвокаты также могут проводить так называемые предварительные меры защиты. Это защита, которая не связана с содержанием уголовного дела, но может привести к прекращению уголовного дела против подозреваемых. Например, подозреваемые поставили под сомнение юрисдикцию суда для вынесения решения по уголовному делу или приемлемости ОМ в обвинении. Затем суд примет решение по этому поводу. При необходимости суд также рассмотрит вопрос о том, следует ли продолжать предварительное заключение подозреваемых под стражу или есть ли основания для их прекращения или приостановления.

Когда подозреваемый находится в предварительном заключении, проводится предварительное слушание. На таком слушании суд принимает решение о продолжении предварительного заключения. Если подозреваемый находится в предварительном заключении, положение дел снова обсуждается в течение 90 дней, и выясняется, следует ли задерживать подозреваемого. При определенных обстоятельствах суд может прекратить или приостановить предварительное заключение. Приостановление означает, что временное задержание (при условиях, установленных судом) временно прерывается.

Сессия директора - это название сессии, на которой обсуждаются более существенные вопросы, например, какие исследования еще предстоит провести.

Следовательно, сеанс может быть одновременно и проформальным сеансом, и сеансом управления одновременно.

4

https://www.courtmh17.com/nieuws/2019/1 … -2019.html
Mediabriefing
De rechtbank Den Haag organiseert op vrijdag 29 november 2019 een mediabriefing over de organisatie van het MH17-proces voor nationale en internationale media.

Deze briefing vindt plaats van 13.00 tot 16.00 uur in het Justitieel Complex Schiphol (JCS) in Badhoevedorp, de locatie waar de zittingen vanaf 9 maart volgend jaar plaatsvinden. De voertaal tijdens de mediabriefing is Nederlands en alle informatie wordt vertolkt naar het Engels.

Geïnteresseerde media kunnen via e-mail tot uiterlijk 24 november kenbaar maken dat zij voor deze mediabriefing willen worden uitgenodigd. Het e-mailadres is: registration.courtmh17@rechtspraak.nl. U ontvangt vervolgens een linkje naar een accreditatiesysteem waarmee u zich kunt aanmelden. Zonder accreditatie kunt u de mediabriefing niet bijwonen.

Inhoud mediabriefing
Tijdens de mediabriefing geeft de rechtbank uitleg over de planning tijdens de eerste zittingsdagen, de mogelijkheden voor nieuwsgaring, het accreditatiesysteem, het regieprotocol, de persrichtlijn, de huisregels en overige logistieke zaken, bijvoorbeeld de bereikbaarheid van het JCS, vervoer en (technische) faciliteiten. Daarnaast is er een rondleiding en een bezoek aan de zittingszaal. Ook is er gelegenheid tot het stellen van vragen over de bovengenoemde onderwerpen. Voor alle duidelijkheid: er worden geen mededelingen gedaan of vragen beantwoord over de inhoud van de zaak. Van de mediabriefing en de daaropvolgende rondleiding mogen geen beeld- en geluidsopnamen worden gemaakt.

5

Производство по существу дела
https://www.courtmh17.com/en/timeline/t … -case.html

Оригинал

Proceedings on the substance of the case
At some point, the substance of the MH17 case will be heard. As in any criminal trial, the court will focus on a number of questions. For instance, it will have to assess whether the summons is valid, whether the court is competent and whether the Public Prosecution Service (OM) was justified in bringing proceedings.

Subsequently, the court will assess whether the defendant committed the offence or offences he or she has been charged with, whether the defendant is punishable and if so, what penalty or non-punitive order should be imposed on the defendant. When it hears the substance of the case, the court will assess whether the charges the Public Prosecution Service has brought against the defendant have been ‘lawfully and conclusively’ proved. The questions it must consider include the following:

Have the offences in the indictment (part of the summons stating the charges against the defendant) been proved?
To answer this question the court assesses the evidence in the case file. Examples of legal evidence in criminal cases are the police report, witness and expert witness testimony and audiovisual material. The court must be convinced on the basis of the evidence that the defendant committed the offences he or she is accused of. If this is not the case, the defendant is acquitted
Are the offences committed by the defendant punishable by law?
If the charges are proved, the court will assess whether the defendant’s actions constitute punishable offences. All punishable offences are defined in law. It can also be the case that the punishable offence nevertheless is not punishable, because there is a justification for it, such as self-defence.
Is the defendant criminally liable?
Even if a charge has been proved and constitutes a criminal offence, the defendant may still be found not guilty, for instance if they suffer from a developmental disorder or mental illness. In that case, the person is said to be not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder.
What penalty or non-punitive order should be imposed?
If the court finds a defendant guilty, an appropriate penalty or non-punitive order will be imposed. A penalty can be imposed only if the defendant is found guilty of a criminal offence. A non-punitive order can be imposed when a defendant is found guilty of a criminal offence, but he or she cannot be held criminally responsible, for instance due to a developmental disorder or mental illness.
The court will base its answers to these questions on articles 348 and 350 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Гуглоперевод
В какой-то момент суть дела MH17 будет услышана. Как и в любом уголовном процессе, суд сосредоточится на ряде вопросов. Например, ему необходимо будет оценить, является ли повестка действительной, является ли суд компетентным и была ли оправдана прокуратура при возбуждении дела.

Впоследствии суд оценит, совершил ли обвиняемый преступление или преступления, в которых он обвиняется, наказуемо ли обвиняемое лицо и, если да, то какое наказание или некарательный приказ должен быть наложен на ответчика. Когда он услышит существо дела, суд оценит, были ли обвинения, выдвинутые Государственной прокуратурой в отношении обвиняемого, «законно и окончательно» доказаны. Вопросы, которые он должен рассмотреть, включают следующее:

Были ли доказаны правонарушения в обвинительном заключении (часть повестки с указанием обвинений против обвиняемого)?
Чтобы ответить на этот вопрос, суд оценивает доказательства в материалах дела. Примерами юридических доказательств по уголовным делам являются полицейский отчет, свидетельские показания и показания экспертов и аудиовизуальные материалы. Суд должен быть убежден на основании доказательств того, что обвиняемый совершил преступления, в которых он обвиняется. Если это не так, ответчик оправдан
Являются ли преступления, совершенные обвиняемым, наказуемыми по закону?
Если обвинения будут доказаны, суд оценит, являются ли действия ответчика наказуемыми преступлениями. Все наказуемые правонарушения определены законом. Может также случиться так, что наказуемое правонарушение, тем не менее, не является наказуемым, поскольку для этого есть оправдание, например, самооборона.
Является ли ответчик уголовно ответственным?
Даже если обвинение доказано и является уголовным преступлением, обвиняемый может быть признан невиновным, например, если он страдает расстройством развития или психическим заболеванием. В этом случае считается, что человек не несет уголовной ответственности по причине психического расстройства.
Какой штраф или некарательный приказ должен быть наложен?
Если суд признает ответчика виновным, будет наложен соответствующий штраф или некарательный приказ. Наказание может быть назначено только в том случае, если подсудимый признан виновным в совершении уголовного преступления. Не карательный приказ может быть наложен, когда обвиняемый признан виновным в совершении уголовного преступления, но он или она не может быть привлечен к уголовной ответственности, например, из-за нарушения развития или психического заболевания.
Суд будет основывать свои ответы на эти вопросы на статьях 348 и 350 Уголовно-процессуального кодекса.

6

Прямой эфир
https://www.courtmh17.com/en/live-stream.html

Свернутый текст

Live stream
The proceedings will be live streamed on this website, in both Dutch and English, so that viewers in the Netherlands and abroad can follow them.

The proceedings will be broadcast live from several cameras located in the courtroom. More details will be published on this page and via our social media accounts in due course.

Материалы будут транслироваться в прямом эфире на этом веб-сайте на голландском и английском языках, чтобы зрители в Нидерландах и за рубежом могли следить за ними.

Процесс будет транслироваться в прямом эфире с нескольких камер, расположенных в зале суда. Более подробная информация будет опубликована на этой странице и в наших социальных сетях.

7

Присутствие
Родственники погибших
https://www.courtmh17.com/en/attend/rel … ctims.html

Свернутый текст

There is a separate procedure for relatives of the victims who wish to attend the proceedings. There is not enough space in the courtroom for all the relatives of the victims. Consideration is being given to the best way to allocate the space available to the relatives of the victims. You will be informed about the registration procedure through the usual communication channels once a decision has been made.

Exercise the right to address the court
If you would like to exercise your right to address the court at the time designated for this purpose, space will be made available for you in the courtroom. The presiding judge will determine the practical details of how this right can be exercised. You will be informed about this through the usual communication channels.

The law says that the following relatives of the victims have the right to address the court:

The spouse or partner of the deceased.
Blood relatives from the same direct line of descent as the deceased (the direct line of descent means people who are descended from one another, for example parents and children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren).
Blood relatives of the deceased from a collateral line, up to and including the fourth degree (this means people who are not descended from one another but who do have a common ancestor, so for example siblings and cousins; the degree is determined by counting the number of births that lie between the relatives in the family tree: for example the birth of the deceased, birth of a parent, birth of an uncle or aunt, birth of a cousin).
People who were depending on the deceased. These are people whose position is similar to that of members of the immediate family, but specifically refers to those who were financially supported by the deceased. For instance, this could include a child who the deceased had not officially acknowledged as their own or someone living in the same household who was not a blood relative of the deceased.

Существует отдельная процедура для родственников жертв, которые хотят присутствовать на судебном процессе. В зале суда недостаточно места для всех родственников погибших. Рассматривается вопрос о том, как наилучшим образом выделить место, доступное для родственников жертв. Вам будет сообщено о процедуре регистрации по обычным каналам связи после принятия решения.

Использование права на обращение в суд
Если вы хотите воспользоваться своим правом на обращение в суд в назначенное для этого время, вам будет предоставлено место в зале суда. Председательствующий судья определит практические детали того, как это право может быть использовано. Об этом вам сообщат по обычным каналам связи.

Закон гласит, что следующие родственники потерпевших имеют право обращаться в суд:

Супруга или партнер покойного.
Кровные родственники по той же прямой линии происхождения, что и умершие (прямая линия происхождения означает людей, происходящих друг от друга, например, родителей и детей, внуков и правнуков).
Кровные родственники умершего по коллатеральной линии, вплоть до четвертой степени включительно (это означает, что люди не являются потомками друг от друга, но имеют общего предка, например, братья и сестры и кузены; степень определяется путем подсчета количество рождений, которые лежат между родственниками в родословной: например, рождение умершего, рождение родителя, рождение дяди или тети, рождение двоюродного брата).
Люди, которые были в зависимости от умершего. Это люди, чье положение схоже с положением членов семьи, но конкретно относится к тем, кого финансовая поддержка оказала умершая. Например, это может быть ребенок, которого покойный официально не признал своим, или кто-то, живущий в том же домохозяйстве, который не был кровным родственником покойного.

Заинтересованные стороны
https://www.courtmh17.com/en/attend/int … rties.html

Свернутый текст

If you are interested in the case, it will be possible to watch the trial on a big screen set up in a designated viewing room in Justice Complex Schiphol. The proceedings will be broadcast live from the courtroom. The aim is to relay the full proceedings so that viewers see everything that happens in the courtroom. Demand for places is likely to exceed availability, so register on time. More details about the registration process will be published on this page and via our social media accounts in due course.

Если вы заинтересованы в этом деле, можно будет наблюдать за процессом на большом экране в специально отведенной для этого комнате в комплексе «Справедливость» в Схипхоле. Процесс будет транслироваться в прямом эфире из зала суда. Цель состоит в том, чтобы передать весь процесс таким образом, чтобы зрители увидели все, что происходит в зале суда. Спрос на места, вероятно, превысит доступность, поэтому регистрируйтесь вовремя. Более подробная информация о процессе регистрации будет опубликована на этой странице и через наши учетные записи в социальных сетях .

8

Вердикт
https://www.courtmh17.com/en/timeline/t … gment.html

Свернутый текст

After hearing the substance of the case, the judges will consult with one another in order to reach a decision. They then put that decision in writing and announce their judgment at a hearing.

If a defendant and/or the Public Prosecution Service (OM) disagrees with the judgment handed down by the district court, they may lodge an appeal with The Hague Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal will then ask the defendant and/or the Public Prosecution Service to explain what aspect of the district court’s decision they disagree with. Depending on the answer, the Court of Appeal has various options. For example, it can hear the case in its entirety or limit its consideration to an assessment of the penalty imposed by the district court.

If a defendant and/or the Public Prosecution Service disagrees with the Court of Appeal’s judgment, they can institute an appeal in cassation with the Supreme Court of the Netherlands, the highest court in the country. The Supreme Court does not review the substance of the case; it can only assess whether the law has been interpreted and applied correctly and whether the Court of Appeal has given sufficient reasons for its judgment. The Supreme Court may order the Court of Appeal to retry the case, for instance if the latter has made mistakes or if the Supreme Court interprets the law differently from the Court of Appeal. Appeal in cassation is the last opportunity to challenge a judgment in the Netherlands. After that, the defendant and/or the Public Prosecution Service can take the case to the European Court of Human Rights.

Выслушав существо дела, судьи будут консультироваться друг с другом, чтобы принять решение. Затем они представляют это решение в письменном виде и объявляют о своем решении на слушании.

Если обвиняемый и / или Государственная прокуратура (OM) не согласны с решением, вынесенным окружным судом, они могут подать апелляцию в Гаагский апелляционный суд. Затем Апелляционный суд попросит ответчика и / или прокуратуру объяснить, с каким аспектом решения районного суда они не согласны. В зависимости от ответа, Апелляционный суд имеет различные варианты. Например, он может выслушать дело полностью или ограничить его рассмотрение оценкой штрафа, наложенного районным судом.

Если обвиняемый и / или прокуратура не согласны с решением Апелляционного суда, они могут подать кассационную жалобу в Верховный суд Нидерландов, высший суд страны. Верховный суд не рассматривает существо дела; он может только оценить, правильно ли истолкован и применен закон, и указал ли апелляционный суд достаточные основания для своего решения. Верховный суд может приказать Апелляционному суду повторно рассмотреть дело, например, если последний допустил ошибки или если Верховный суд толкует закон иначе, чем Апелляционный суд. Апелляция в кассационном порядке является последней возможностью оспорить решение в Нидерландах. После этого обвиняемый и / или прокуратура могут передать дело в Европейский суд по правам человека.

9

FAQ
https://www.courtmh17.com/en/faq.html

Свернутый текст

When will the trial start?

This is not yet known. Now that the Dutch Public Prosecution Service has decided to prosecute, the public prosecutors will start the MH17 proceedings by serving writs of summons on the suspects. The summons states the names of the accused individuals, the offences they are accused of and the date of the hearing that the suspect is expected to attend.

How long will the MH17 trial last?

It’s impossible to say. The duration of a trial depends on many different factors, such as the number of defendants, whether they attend the hearings, the nature of the crime, and what investigative activities the defence wishes to be carried out.

Who are the judges?

H. Steenhuis LLM
D.A.C. Koster LLM
C.I.H. Kerstens-Fockens LLM
D.R. Glass LLM
E.A. Poppe-Gielesen LLM

In what language will the trial be conducted?

The trial will be conducted in Dutch, so the hearings will be in Dutch. Defendants and/or lawyers attending a hearing who do not speak Dutch may be assisted by interpreters.

The court may allow parts of the trial to be conducted in English. This is one of the provisions of the legislation adopted in July 2018, making it possible to try the suspects in the MH17 case in the Netherlands (see the section on new legislation on the About the MH17 trial page).

The hearings will be broadcast online via a live stream in both Dutch and English. More information will be made available in due course. Check the Live stream page and the social media for news.

What experience does the District Court of The Hague have with international court cases?

The District Court of The Hague has experience with complex court cases involving international elements. It has, for instance, heard cases with regard to offences that nowadays are punishable in the International Crimes Act. Examples of offences under this law are genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and torture.

The quality of the Dutch justice system ranks above average compared with other countries. This is confirmed by the EU Justice Scoreboard (a comparison of the justice systems of the European Union member states) and the Rule of Law Index (a global comparison of justice systems). These rankings are based on matters such as the average duration of trials, how judges are trained and the extent to which the justice system is free from discrimination, corruption and political influence. In terms of experience with international proceedings, the Netherlands ranks number one in the world.

Are defendants who live outside the Netherlands required to come to the Netherlands for the hearings?

Defendants are entitled to attend hearings, but not required to do so. If the court considers it necessary for a defendant to attend a hearing, it can issue a subpoena. That is the procedure in the Netherlands. If the defendant is not in the Netherlands, extradition may be possible if the Netherlands has an extradition treaty with the country or countries in question.

If a defendant cannot be present at a hearing, the court can decide to use video conferencing technology. The defendant can then take part in the proceedings from their location abroad (see the section on new legislation on the About the MH17 trial page).

Can the court convict defendants without them being present?

Yes, if the defendants are not present at the trial, the case is heard ‘in absentia’. Of course it is preferable for them to be present at the hearings. Defendants who are not present can have their lawyer represent them. In this particular case, it will be possible for defendants to take part in the proceedings via video link (see the question ‘Are defendants who live outside the Netherlands required to come to the Netherlands for the hearings?’). This means that the defendant is deemed to be present and is therefore not being tried in absentia.

If defendants from abroad are convicted, must they then serve their views during the trial?

Any sentence handed down by the court will be enforced in accordance with Dutch law. In general the Netherlands works on the principle that convicted persons serve their sentences in the Netherlands. However, the answer to this question ultimately depends on what treaties and other legal arrangements the Netherlands has with the countries where the persons were arrested and the countries of which they are nationals.

Когда начнутся предварительные действия?

Это еще не известно. Теперь, когда Государственная прокуратура Нидерландов приняла решение о судебном преследовании, прокуроры начнут разбирательство по делу MH17, вручив судебные приказы подозреваемым. В повестке указываются имена обвиняемых, преступления, в которых они обвиняются, и дата слушания, на котором подозреваемый должен присутствовать.

Как долго продлится судебное разбирательство по делу MH17?

Невозможно сказать. Продолжительность судебного разбирательства зависит от множества различных факторов, таких как количество обвиняемых, их присутствие на слушаниях, характер преступления и какие следственные действия защита должна проводить.

Кто судьи?

H. Steenhuis LLM
D.AC Koster LLM
C.IH Kerstens-Fockens LLM
D.R. Glass LLM
E.A. Poppe-Gielesen LLM

На каком языке будет проводиться слушание?

Суд будет проводиться на голландском языке, поэтому слушания будут на голландском языке. Ответчикам и / или адвокатам, присутствующим на слушании, которые не говорят по-голландски, могут помочь переводчики.

Суд может разрешить проведение части судебного разбирательства на английском языке. Это одно из положений законодательства, принятого в июле 2018 года, которое позволяет судить подозреваемых по делу MH17 в Нидерландах (см. Раздел о новом законодательстве на странице О суде MH17).

Слушания будут транслироваться онлайн через прямую трансляцию на голландском и английском языках. Более подробная информация будет предоставлена ​​в установленном порядке. Проверьте страницу прямой трансляции и социальные сети для новостей.


Какой опыт имеется у окружного суда в Гааге в международных судебных делах?

Окружной суд Гааги имеет опыт рассмотрения сложных судебных дел с участием международных элементов. Например, она заслушала дела о преступлениях, которые в настоящее время наказуемы в соответствии с Законом о международных преступлениях. Примерами преступлений по этому закону являются геноцид, преступления против человечности, военные преступления и пытки.

Качество системы правосудия в Нидерландах выше среднего по сравнению с другими странами. Это подтверждается Таблицей правосудия ЕС (сравнение систем правосудия стран-членов Европейского Союза) и Индексом верховенства права (глобальное сравнение систем правосудия). Эти рейтинги основаны на таких вопросах, как средняя продолжительность судебных процессов, то, как проходят подготовку судьи, и в какой степени система правосудия свободна от дискриминации, коррупции и политического влияния. По опыту международных разбирательств Нидерланды занимают первое место в мире.

Обязаны ли обвиняемые, которые живут за пределами Нидерландов, приезжать в Нидерланды для слушаний?

Ответчики имеют право присутствовать на слушаниях, но не обязаны это делать. Если суд считает необходимым, чтобы ответчик присутствовал на слушании, он может выдать повестку в суд. Это процедура в Нидерландах. Если ответчик не находится в Нидерландах, выдача может быть возможной, если Нидерланды имеют договор о выдаче со страной или странами, о которых идет речь.

Если ответчик не может присутствовать на слушании, суд может принять решение об использовании технологии видеоконференцсвязи. Затем ответчик может принять участие в судебном разбирательстве из своего местонахождения за границей (см. Раздел о новом законодательстве на странице О суде MH17).

Может ли суд осудить обвиняемых без их присутствия?

Да, если обвиняемые не присутствуют на судебном заседании, дело рассматривается «заочно». Конечно, для них предпочтительно присутствовать на слушаниях. Ответчики, которые не присутствуют, могут иметь своего адвоката представлять их. В этом конкретном случае ответчики смогут принять участие в разбирательстве по видеосвязи (см. Вопрос «Обязаны ли обвиняемые, которые проживают за пределами Нидерландов, приехать в Нидерланды на слушания?»). Это означает, что обвиняемый считается присутствующим и поэтому не рассматривается заочно.

Если обвиняемые из-за рубежа будут осуждены, должны ли они тогда высказывать свое мнение в ходе судебного процесса?

Любой приговор, вынесенный судом, будет приведен в исполнение в соответствии с законодательством Нидерландов. В целом, Нидерланды работают по принципу, согласно которому осужденные отбывают наказание в Нидерландах. Однако ответ на этот вопрос в конечном итоге зависит от того, какие договоры и другие правовые договоренности Нидерланды имеют со странами, где были арестованы лица, и странами, гражданами которых они являются.

10

Упоминаемые статьи УПК Нидерландов Новости: Суд.

Свернутый текст

Artikel 348    

De rechtbank onderzoekt op den grondslag der telastlegging en naar aanleiding van het onderzoek op de terechtzitting de geldigheid der dagvaarding, hare bevoegdheid tot kennisneming van het telastegelegde feit en de ontvankelijkheid van den officier van justitie en of er redenen zijn voor schorsing der vervolging.

Artikel 3491    

Indien het onderzoek in het voorgaande artikel bedoeld, daartoe aanleiding geeft, spreekt de rechtbank uit de nietigheid der dagvaarding, hare onbevoegdheid, de niet-ontvankelijkheid van den officier van justitie of de schorsing der vervolging.

Artikel 350    

Indien het onderzoek in artikel 348 bedoeld, niet leidt tot toepassing van artikel 349, eerste lid, beraadslaagt de rechtbank op den grondslag der telastlegging en naar aanleiding van het onderzoek op de terechtzitting over de vraag of bewezen is dat het feit door den verdachte is begaan, en, zoo ja, welk strafbaar feit het bewezen verklaarde volgens de wet oplevert; indien wordt aangenomen dat het feit bewezen en strafbaar is, dan beraadslaagt de rechtbank over de strafbaarheid van den verdachte en over de oplegging van straf of maatregel, bij de wet bepaald.

Статья 348    

На основании обвинений и следствия в ходе судебного разбирательства суд изучает обоснованность повестки, его полномочия заслушивать обвинения и приемлемость государственного обвинителя, а также наличие оснований для приостановления судебного преследования.

Статья 3491    

Если расследование, упомянутое в предыдущей статье, дает основание для этого, суд примет решение о недействительности повестки, его недостаточной юрисдикции, неприемлемости государственного обвинителя или приостановлении судебного преследования.

Статья 350    

Если расследование, упомянутое в статье 348, не привело к применению статьи 349 (1), суд на основании обвинения и на основании расследования в ходе судебного заседания рассмотрит вопрос о том, было ли доказано, что преступление было совершено. и, если да, то какое уголовное преступление доказанное лицо совершает в соответствии с законом; если предполагается, что преступление доказано и наказуемо, суд рассмотрит вопрос о наказуемости подозреваемого и назначении наказания или меры, определенных законом.

11

https://www.courtmh17.com/en/news/2019/ … 8920489418
Registration to attend hearings in the MH17 criminal case is now open

Свернутый текст

Today (13/12/2019)  registration opens to attend the hearings in the MH17 criminal case at Schiphol Judicial Complex in Badhoevedorp (the Netherlands).

Interested parties may register through 19 January 2020 via the link below. Journalists who are not yet on our mailing list may also register via this link.

The journalists who are already in our database will receive a personal invitation by e-mail on Monday 16 December 2019.

A separate registration procedure applies for relatives, parties to and participants in the proceedings and national and international observers. Those involved shall receive this information via the usual channels. 

The order in which applications arrive is not decisive for the District Court of The Hague. After the registration period ends on 19 January 2020, the District Court of The Hague will allocate the places available, if there is a reason to do so.

Please note: to gain access to Schiphol Judicial Complex on the days of the hearings, registration confirmation needs to be presented. We cannot grant access without this registration confirmation.

Follow this link to go to our registration system

Регистрация для участия в слушаниях по уголовному делу MH17 уже открыта
Сегодня (13/12/2019) открывается регистрация для участия в слушаниях по уголовному делу MH17 в Судебном комплексе Схипхол в Бадхеведорпе (Нидерланды).

Заинтересованные стороны могут зарегистрироваться до 19 января 2020 года по ссылке ниже. Журналисты, которых еще нет в нашем списке рассылки, также могут зарегистрироваться по этой ссылке.

Журналисты, которые уже находятся в нашей базе данных, получат персональное приглашение по электронной почте в понедельник, 16 декабря 2019 года.

Отдельная процедура регистрации применяется для родственников, сторон и участников процесса, а также для национальных и международных наблюдателей. Участники должны получать эту информацию по обычным каналам. 

Порядок поступления заявок не является решающим для окружного суда Гааги. После окончания периода регистрации 19 января 2020 года окружной суд Гааги выделит имеющиеся места, если для этого есть основания.

Обратите внимание: чтобы получить доступ к Юридическому комплексу Схипхол в дни слушаний, необходимо предоставить подтверждение регистрации. Мы не можем предоставить доступ без этого подтверждения регистрации.

Перейдите по этой ссылке, чтобы перейти в нашу систему регистрации

https://www.courtmh17registration.com/content.aspx
Регистрация для участия в судебном заседании по уголовному делу MH17 - 9 - 27 марта 2020 г.
Пожалуйста, прокрутите вниз, если вы хотите зарегистрироваться для прессы.

Регистрация для посетителей
Уголовное дело MH17 начнется в 10 часов утра в понедельник, 9 марта 2020 года, в Судебном комплексе Схипхол (JCS) в Бадхеведорпе, Нидерланды. Если вы хотите принять участие в процессе, вам нужно будет зарегистрироваться. Вы можете зарегистрироваться на несколько судебных дней, но в любом случае должны зарегистрироваться не позднее 19 января 2020 года . Вы можете использовать ссылку Зарегистрироваться для посетителей ниже, чтобы сделать это. Если вы не зарегистрируетесь, вы не будете аккредитованы и, следовательно, не сможете присутствовать на слушаниях. Дело будет вестись на голландском языке и синхронно переводиться на английский.

Пожалуйста, обратите внимание :

Суд рассмотрит это дело в зале суда D в JCS. Все стороны, которые играют постоянную роль в разбирательстве, будут сидеть в этом зале суда. Однако он недостаточно велик, чтобы вместить все заинтересованные стороны и средства массовой информации. Когда вы будете присутствовать на JCS, вы будете сидеть в одной из комнат, непосредственно примыкающих к залу суда D. Оттуда вы сможете смотреть и слушать то, что происходит в зале суда D через прямую трансляцию. На веб-сайте courtmh17.com был размещен анимационный фильм, в котором объясняются варианты участия в слушаниях .

Если ваша регистрация будет одобрена, вы получите уведомление не позднее 9 февраля 2020 года о том, что вы были аккредитованы для участия в разбирательстве. Ваша аккредитация носит сугубо личный характер и поэтому не может быть передана другому лицу. Если другое лицо желает принять участие в процессе, ему также необходимо зарегистрироваться, используя ссылку ниже.

Зарегистрироваться для посетителей

Пожалуйста, периодически заходите на сайт courtmh17.com, чтобы просмотреть самую свежую информацию о судебных разбирательствах.

Регистрация для прессы
В понедельник, 9 марта 2020 года, в 10 часов утра начнется судебное разбирательство по уголовному делу MH17 в Судебном комплексе Схипхол (JCS) в Бадхеведорпе (Нидерланды). Если вы хотите принять участие в судебном процессе по уголовному делу, вам необходимо зарегистрироваться. Вы можете сделать это до 19 января 2020 года . Без регистрации вы не будете аккредитованы и не сможете присутствовать. Слушание будет проводиться на голландском языке, а вся информация будет переведена на английский язык.

Зал суда D в JCS - то, где суд рассмотрит это уголовное дело. Несмотря на то, что есть место для всех сторон, участвующих в уголовном процессе, этот зал суда недостаточно велик, чтобы вместить все заинтересованные стороны и средства массовой информации. Если вы зарегистрируетесь для аккредитации, это будет действовать для пресс-центра и зоны прессы. Пресс-центр и пресс-зона находятся на участке, непосредственно примыкающем к Судебному комплексу Схипхол. Небольшое количество мест в зале судебных заседаний D будет предоставлено СМИ. Они будут размещены вне системы аккредитации. Запросы для получения права на них будут рассматриваться коммуникационной командой MH17. Во время слушаний слушания в зале суда D будут транслироваться в пресс-центре через прямую аудиовизуальную связь. Анимация была размещена на courtmh17.com о вариантах участия в слушаниях.

Строго личное
Если вы аккредитованы по уголовному делу, вас уведомят не позднее 9 февраля 2020 года . Ваша аккредитация носит сугубо личный характер и поэтому не подлежит передаче другим сотрудникам. Если им также захочется присутствовать на судебном заседании, им нужно будет зарегистрироваться по ссылке ниже.

20-01-2020
Регистрация для участия в слушаниях по уголовному делу MH17 все еще открыта
https://www.courtmh17.com/en/news/2020/ … 9166495536

Первый срок регистрации для участия в слушаниях по уголовному делу MH17 в Судебном комплексе Схипхол в Бадхеведорпе (Нидерланды) истек. Тем не менее, заинтересованные стороны и журналисты могут зарегистрироваться (при условии, что есть свободные места) по ссылке ниже.

Отдельная процедура регистрации применяется для родственников, сторон и участников разбирательства, а также для национальных и международных наблюдателей. Участники получили эту информацию по обычным каналам.

Обратите внимание: чтобы получить доступ к Юридическому комплексу Схипхол в дни слушаний, необходимо предоставить подтверждение регистрации. Мы не можем предоставить доступ без этого подтверждения регистрации.

12

Напоминают https://twitter.com/CourtMH17/status/12 … 0284910592
The MH17 criminal case will start on 9 March 2020. Interested to know what you can expect from the first days of hearing? Watch this video to learn more:
https://www.courtmh17.com/en/videos/201 … 8713186481

Первые дни слушания по делу MH17
В больших случаях первый день слушания почти никогда не касается сути дела. Первый день слушания будет в основном посвящен «подведению итогов».

13

https://www.courtmh17.com/en/news/2020/ … 4825200130

Адвокатская фирма недавно сообщила об ответчике (ах).Окружной суд Гааги не разглашает название фирмы и не указывает, какого именно подозреваемого (ых) лиц(а).
Это обычная практика. В уголовных делах информация о сторонах разбирательства, повестках, петициях и апелляциях доступна под эмбарго для проверки журналистами не позднее, чем за неделю до слушаний. Эмбарго действует до начала общественных слушаний по этому делу. Это официальное начало расследования для слушаний. В этот момент будет публично определено, кто появился.

14

Регистрация желающих присутствовать на процессе родственников заканчивается 3 марта.
https://twitter.com/CourtMH17/status/12 … 7887150082

https://www.courtmh17.com/en/attend/rel … 2402387762

15

https://www.courtmh17.com/nieuws/2020/c … 9093526747

Covid-19-virus
Op 9 maart 2020 om 10.00 uur gaat de strafzaak MH17 van start. Vanwege de ontwikkeling met betrekking tot het Covid-19-virus (ook bekend als het coronavirus) zullen wij uit voorzorg in het Justitieel Complex Schiphol en het naastgelegen perscentrum maatregelen treffen.

Bezoekers en eigen medewerkers worden gewezen op standaardmaatregelen die gelden voor alle virussen die griep en verkoudheid kunnen veroorzaken, zoals extra handen wassen, hoesten en niezen in de elleboog en het gebruik van papieren zakdoekjes. Daarnaast worden dispensers met handontsmettingsmiddel geplaatst en een extra schoonmaakronde ingesteld om trapleuningen, deurklinken, toiletten etc. te reinigen.

We houden rekening met een scenario dat het virus zich (verder) uitbreidt. In dat geval treden de continuïteitsplannen van de gerechten en landelijke diensten in werking. De rechtbank staat hiervoor in contact met het RIVM.

Voor de actuele informatie over het coronavirus:
https://www.rivm.nl/coronavirus
https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpe … s-covid-19

Via onze website courtmh17.com houden wij u op de hoogte van de laatste ontwikkelingen met betrekking tot het strafproces MH17.

28/02/2020 14:33

16

https://www.courtmh17.com/nieuws/2020/p … 1320753690
Publicatie dagvaardingen
Namen van de verdachten, aanvangstijdstip en aanduiding verdenking op maandag 2 maart 2020 om 9:00 uur in bestandenpostbus en op vrijdag 6 maart om 13:00 uur ter inzage perscentrum.

Wij zullen de gebruikelijke rol voor de media met namen van de verdachten, aanvangstijdstip en aanduiding verdenking (289 en 168 Sr) op maandag 2 maart 2020 om 9:00 uur uploaden naar de zogeheten bestandenpostbus op rechtspraak.nl en op vrijdag 6 maart om 13:00 uur ter inzage leggen in perscentrum. De gehele tekst van de dagvaardingen wordt tijdens het proces bekend gemaakt door het Openbaar Ministerie.

De bestandenpostbus is een beveiligde omgeving voor journalisten waar ze kennis kunnen nemen van geplande rechtszaken en de betrokken partijen. Omdat het hier om privacygevoelige informatie gaat, moet een journalist toestemming vragen om toegang te hebben tot deze informatie. Vandaar dat we voor hen die geen toegang hebben de mogelijkheid hebben gecreëerd de stukken in te zien tijdens de openingstijden van het perscentrum.

Wij plaatsen de rol in de bestandenpostbus, omdat het de standaardprocedure is. De informatie die geplaatst wordt, is al in een eerder stadium door het Openbaar Ministerie bekend gemaakt.
28.02.2020 14:51

17

https://www.courtmh17.com/nieuws/2020/a … 9453838315
Accreditatiesysteem gesloten
Het accreditatiesysteem voor het bijwonen van het eerste zittingsblok van het strafproces MH17 is gesloten.

Het is niet meer mogelijk om u in te schrijven of om wijzigingen door te voeren in een eerdere registratie. Het eerste zittingsblok vindt plaats tussen 9 maart 2020 en 27 maart 2020.

Zodra de data van het tweede zittingsblok bekend zijn, zal het accreditatiesysteem voor het bijwonen van dit zittingsblok worden geopend. De data worden bekend gemaakt via deze website en het Twitteraccount @courtMH17.

Maandag 9 maart 2020 om 10:00 start de eerste zitting van het strafproces MH17.  De zitting vindt plaats op het Justitieel Strafcomplex Schiphol. Het proces is online te volgen via de livestream op deze website.

03/03/2020 13:36

18

https://www.courtmh17.com/nieuws/2020/o … 1616640678
Based on questions; what can you expect from the first session days?
The MH17 criminal trial will start Monday, March 9, 2020. Many people wonder what to expect from the first sessions.

The MH17 criminal trial will start Monday, March 9, 2020. Many people wonder what to expect from the first sessions. On this site you'll find a link to a previously posted video clip with an explanation of the first days of the MH17 trial.

Because these first sessions are inventory in character, it is difficult to predict how long they will last and which of the reserved days will be used. This depends on who will be there, how far they stand with their preparations and whether defenses or research wishes have already been stated. It could also be that the session is interrupted by the court for a number of days, so that a response to a possible request or defense can be prepared. This would mean that not all reserved session days are used. The fact that an accreditation has been granted for a specific day does not mean therefore, that there actually will be a session on that day.

The court of The Hague has reserved a courtroom in the Schiphol Judicial Complex (JCS) for the MH17 criminal trial for the periods of 9 to 13 March and 23 to 27 March 2020. The Court of The Hague has reserved these and other periods to ensure that space is available for court days in the MH17 trial.  In the JCS, other courts also handle court cases.

Keep an eye on this website and twitter account @CourtMH17 for the latest information about the criminal case. Starting 9 March 2020 the live stream images of the session (s) will also be offered on this site.

04/03/2020 16:03

(Субтитры с переводом)

19

The first session of the MH17 criminal trial will take place in the court of the Schiphol Judicial Complex (JCS) from Monday 9 March 2020. What is the JCS and why does the process take place here? Watch it here:

20

Эксклюзивное интервью с ответственной за работой со СМИ во время процесса по МН17 судьей  Йоланде Вэйннобэл (Yolande Wijnnobel) агентству "Интерфакс-Украина"
https://interfax.com.ua/news/interview/645515.html
https://interfax.com.ua/media/thumbs/images/2020/03/MOyw4HBWbHfq.jpg

В ноябре в суд была передана только часть уголовного дела по расследованию трагедии рейса МН17. Располагает ли суд сейчас делом в полном объеме?

Прокуратура передала нам много материалов. Сейчас дело на много объемнее, чем это было в ноябре. Вопрос заключается в том, или эти материалы полные, завершенные. В понедельник на этот вопрос будет отвечать судья. Если он посчитает, что файл – законченный, на этом основании он может принять решение о рассмотрении дела. Но это не значит, что к файлу не могут быть доданы новые материалы. Прокурор может продолжать направлять документы, равно как и адвокаты тоже имеют право дополнять дело своими документами.

Можете ли вы сказать, что именно находится в материалах дела?

Сами материалы будут рассматриваться тогда, когда дело будет в работе. Это происходит тогда, когда закончено расследование, и тогда будет понятно, что именно есть в деле.

Ранее прокурор говорил о том, что в то время, как будет идти судебное слушание, следствие будет продолжаться. Станут ли новые доказательства, если они будут, предметом рассмотрения этого суда, или же для этого нужен будет новый суд?

Прокуратура может решить, что есть достаточно доказательств для привлечения к ответственности новых подозреваемых. В этом случае прокурор должен принять решение, или привлекать к ответственности новых подозреваемых как часть этого самого дела или же отдельного. Но не только прокурор решает такое решение, у суда тоже будет своя позиция по этому вопросу. Суд тоже будет решать, или обвиняемый будет проходить по единому делу, или это будет два отдельных дела.

Состоянием на сегодня только один обвиняемый (речь идет об Олеге Пулатове – ИФ) будет представлен двумя нидерландскими адвокатами. Есть ли новости в отношении других обвиняемых – будут ли они представлены кем-то, или кто-то из них изъявил в последний момент желание добровольно явиться в суд?

Нет, никаких новостей нет. Мы должны подождать до утра понедельника, появятся ли новые обвиняемые или другие адвокаты. Состоянием на сегодня есть только два адвоката, которые заявили о том, что будут представлять одного обвиняемого.

В отношении свидетелей, известно ли вам, сколько их в деле? Уже известно, что персональные данные тринадцати из них будут защищены тайной. Могут ли они свидетельствовать в суде, и как их личности будут защищены в судебном зале?

Нам еще неизвестно, как много свидетелей – мы услышим об этом только при рассмотрении дела по существу в суде.
Нам известно, что есть определенное число анонимных свидетелей. Но сколько их – нам тоже не известно. Если эти свидетели будут давать показания, и они находятся под защитой, желая оставаться анонимными, то тогда их опросит судья, который ведет следствие - это судья, который ответственен за расследование до того, как дело поступит в суд. Именно он будет принимать решение, будет ли свидетель иметь статус анонимного свидетеля, установив, есть ли для этого основания. Также этот судья предпримет конкретные шаги, которые будут применены к этому свидетелю, например, может быть принято решение, что ни прокуратура, ни защита не смогут присутствовать во время опроса такого свидетеля. Судье тоже не будет известно, кем он является.

Известно ли вам, сколько участников будет в суде?

В зале суда зарезервировано 25 мест для родственников, 15 - для прессы, еще один ряд зарегистрирован для родственников, которые играют в суде определенную роль – у них есть право выступить в суде и рассказать о своих страданиях, у них также есть право заявить о возмещении убытков, и есть ряд для адвокатов и подсудимых. Кроме того, в этом зале есть публичная трибуна – там будут находиться международные наблюдатели, которых уже зарегистрировано 65. То есть, в этом судебном зале будет более 100 человек. Кроме того, рядом с этим залом есть еще три других, в которых также можно будет наблюдать за процессом.
Аккредитацию для освещения процесса запросило более 400 представителей средств массовой информации. 

Учитывая значительную российскую составляющую в этом деле, почему нет перевода на русский?

Нидерландские уголовные дела рассматриваются в соответствии с нидерландской криминальной системой, в которой дела слушаются на нидерландском. Но по причине огромного интереса, в том числе и за рубежом, который есть к этому делу, мы приняли решение, что слушания будут транслироваться и на английском. Мы избрали этот язык по той причине, что его понимают по всему миру. Потому сам суд будет на нидерландском с переводом на английский.

Как мы можем верить, что этот суд будет справедливым и независимым?

Нидерландские судьи независимы и абсолютно беспристрастны – на них никто не может повлиять, ни политики, никто. Судьи обучены для того, чтобы исполнять свою работу, и в них заложено, что это – принципы беспристрастности, объективности и независимости абсолютно гарантированы. Кроме того, все слушания публичны: все дела слушаются в открытом судебном заседании, ничего не происходит за закрытыми дверями или в задней комнате. Все могут видеть, что происходит в суде, все могут слышать, что происходит – слышать вопросы, которые задают судья и слышать ответы.

В связи с распространением коронавируса – предпринимаются ли какие-либо меры, и могут ли судебные заседания быть отложены или отменены?

Мы предприняли определенные шаги – установили раздаточные устройства с дезинфицирующими веществами для рук, повесили на стенах напоминания не пожимать руки, использовать бумажные салфетки, кашлять или чихать в локоть. Мы также советуем людям, которые побывали в местах распространения вируса, попросту не приходить. Состоянием на сегодня все, что планировалось, идет без изменений.

21

https://www.courtmh17.com/en/news/2020/ … march.html
Hearings have been suspended until 23 March 2020
The hearings that were planned for Wednesday 11, Thursday 12 and Friday 13 March 2020 have been cancelled. Admission tickets issued for these days have therefore also been cancelled. The court will next sit on: Monday 23 March 2020

We have re-opened the accreditation system to enable you to register or de-register for one of the remaining court days in this block of hearings, of you so wish.

Questions
We will, of course, inform you as promptly as possible about hearings being held or being cancelled, but do keep an eye on this website, on which the latest information on the court case is posted.

22

https://twitter.com/CourtMH17/status/12 … 7357671427

With respect to the Corona virus, a decision will be taken on 18 March at the latest on whether the second block of the hearings, starting Monday 23 March, will proceed as planned.

23

In verband met de uitbraak van het coronavirus heeft de Rechtspraak besloten vanaf dinsdag 17 maart de rechtbanken, gerechtshoven en bijzondere colleges te sluiten. Urgente zaken gaan wel door. Vanaf dinsdag is ook geen publiek meer welkom bij rechtszaken.

https://twitter.com/CourtMH17/status/12 … 1528407041
До среды скажут, будет ли продолжаться процесс, и если да, то в какой форме.

24

https://www.courtmh17.com/en/news/2020/ … -2020.html
MH17 court case continues on 23 March 2020
MH17 criminal proceedings will continue as planned but in an adapted form. It is not possible for relatives, the press, the public and other interested parties to attend this hearing at the JCS or in the NBC in Nieuwegein. The hearing may, however, be viewed by livestream on the courtmh17.com website.

Courts in the Netherlands will close their doors from 17 March 2020 to prevent the spread of the corona virus. In principle, cases will not be held in court until 6 April 2020. A limited number of cases will, however, continue to be dealt with in court, including the MH17 criminal proceedings.

On 23 March 2020 at 10.00 a.m. in the Schiphol Judicial Complex (JCS), the District Court of The Hague will issue its decisions on the applications and requests that were presented to it on 9 and 10 March. Given the measures taken to prevent the spread of the corona virus, no other matters will be addressed on 23 March. After announcing its decisions, the court is expected to suspend hearing of the case until 8 June 8 2020 at 10.00 a.m.

Livestream
It is not possible for relatives, the press, the public and other interested parties to attend this hearing at the JCS or in the NBC in Nieuwegein. The parties to the proceedings will be present in limited numbers only: one prosecutor on behalf of the prosecution and fewer counsel representing the defendant and the relatives. The hearing may, however, be viewed by livestream on the courtmh17.com website. The press centre will remain closed up untill 6 April 2020.

Synopsis of the first days of this block of hearings
The first hearings in the MH17 criminal proceedings took place on 9 and 10 March 2020. The objective of these hearings was to take stock of the current status of the case. At the hearings, the court decided inter alia that the defence would be given the opportunity to present its preliminary objections and make requests for additional investigative steps at the start of the block of hearings that will run from 8 June 2020.

On 10 March 2020, the prosecution requested the court to rule on requests for inter alia the conduct of further investigative steps. Counsel representing a large number of victims' relatives, for their part, requested that a copy of the court documents be provided to the relatives.

17/03/2020 09:56

25

https://twitter.com/CourtMH17/status/12 … 9494170627
The court MH17 has been adjourned until 8 June 2020. This afternoon, we will publish the summary of this court day on our website and Twitter.

26

https://www.courtmh17.com/en/news/2020/ … esses.html
23.04.2020

Decision on appeal concerning threatened witnesses
Today, the District Court of The Hague ruled on whether the examining magistrate had correctly granted threatened witness status to 13 witnesses in the MH17 criminal proceedings. This was in response to an appeal filed by one of the suspects against the examining magistrate’s decisions. The District Court examined, on the one hand, whether the decisions were arrived at in a proper manner, and, on the other hand, whether they were based on the correct grounds.

The District Court held that threatened witness status had been granted on the correct grounds. The examining magistrate had sufficiently substantiated that there had been threats and that the witnesses did not wish to make statements as a result. The examining magistrate had considered the case file, the public prosecutor’s substantiation of his application, and the personal circumstances of the witnesses. In addition, the examining magistrate had rightfully taken account of the gravity of the criminal offences with which the suspect had been charged.

The examining magistrate had also arrived at the decision in a proper manner in respect of 12 witnesses. The District Court held, however, that this was not the case in respect of one witness. When an examining magistrate is called upon to decide on the status of a threatened witness, the suspect must be given an opportunity to express his or her views on the matter. This had not happened in the case of this particular witness, neither before nor after the decision was made. As this opportunity had not been granted to the suspect, the examining magistrate was unable to take account of his views in her assessment. For this reason, the examining magistrate’s decision in respect of this witness has been reversed and the public prosecutor’s application for threatened witness status to be granted to that particular witness has been dismissed. The examining magistrate’s decisions with regard to the status of the other 12 witnesses were upheld. This means that the identity of those witnesses will continue to be concealed.

This decision was made by a different set of judges to those appointed to hear the merits of the MH17 criminal case. This is a legal requirement. It is the judges who are hearing the case on the merits who will later decide on the significance of the threatened witnesses’ statements for the criminal case.

ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2020:3761
Instantie
Rechtbank Den Haag
Datum uitspraak
23-04-2020
Datum publicatie
23-04-2020
Zaaknummer
09/748006-19 Translation
Rechtsgebieden
Strafrecht
Bijzondere kenmerken
Hoger beroep
Raadkamer
Beschikking
Inhoudsindicatie
Decision on appeal against decisions of the examining magistrate on granting threatened witness status under Section 226a DCCP with regard to the MH17 trial. Decisions on granting such status are subject to limited review. The suspect was wrongly deprived of the opportunity to be heard on the prosecutor’s applications prior to the decisions. In this instance, the decisions were, however, not set aside provided that the suspect was later afforded that opportunity. That did not happen in the case of one witness and so that decision was set aside. The examining magistrate did indeed have reason to grant said status to 12 other witnesses.

* unofficial translation.

This English translation is provided for information purposes only. In the event of discrepancy, the original text in Dutch shall prevail.

Vindplaatsen
Rechtspraak.nl
Verrijkte uitspraak
Uitspraak
DISTRICT COURT OF THE HAGUE
Criminal Law

Public Prosecutor’s Office No.: 09/748006-19

Council chamber numbers: 20/366, 20/367, 20/368, 20/369, 20/370, 20/371, 20/372, 20/373, 20/374, 20/375, 20/376, 20/377, 20/378

Decision of the District Court of The Hague, three-judge criminal division, on the appeals against decisions pursuant to Section 226a of the Code of Criminal Procedure, made by the examining magistrate in the District Court of The Hague, of 15 January 2016 (X48), 5 July 2018 (V11), 19 December 2018 (V22), 1 February 2019 (V7), 5 March 2019 (V43), 13 March 2019 (V44), 13 March 2019 (V47), 26 March 2019 (V52), 10 April 2019 (V45), 16 April 2019 (V49), 27 April 2019 (V51), 14 May 2019 (V54), and 5 December 2019 (V9), received at the registry of this court on 6 February 2020, from:

[Appellant] ,

born on [date] at an unknown location,

choosing the office of his lawyers as his address for the case in hand

Mr. B.C.W. van Eijck and Mr. A.S. van Doesschate,

address: Oostmaaslaan 71, 3063 AN Rotterdam,

(hereinafter referred to as the appellant).

1Introduction
1.1
In a criminal investigation referred to as Primo, the appellant is suspected of participating in intentionally causing flight MH17 to crash on 17 July 2014 by firing a BUK missile at the airplane, killing all occupants of the airplane.

1.2
Witnesses were questioned as part of the criminal investigation. In response to applications by the public prosecutor, the examining magistrate ordered that the identity of thirteen witnesses be concealed for the purpose of their questioning. The examining magistrate granted them the status of threatened witness. This decision concerns the matter of whether or not the examining magistrate erred in making that decision. The relevant legal framework is set out in Sections 226a to 226f of the Dutch Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter: DCCP). These Sections were incorporated by Act of 11 November 1993 amending the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Criminal Code and several other laws (witness protection)1. For the sake of brevity, the court will refer to this law as the Witness Protection Act. The full text of these sections of law is attached to this decision.

2Procedure
2.1
In the context of the Primo investigation into unknown suspect(s) (an investigation into persons unknown), the public prosecutor applied to the examining magistrate on 15 January 2016 and on 28 May 2018 to have a witness questioned pursuant to Section 226a DCCP. By decisions of 15 January 2016 (X48) and 5 July 2018 (V11) respectively, the examining magistrate granted the applications made by the public prosecutor and ordered that the identity of these witnesses, designated as X48 and V11, be concealed for the purpose of their questioning and that they be granted threatened witness status. Between 15 January 2016 and 24 March 2016 (X48) and 5 July 2018 and 25 September 2018 (V11), the examining magistrate questioned X48 and V11 as witnesses in the Primo investigation. The official records of examination were provided to the Public Prosecution Service by the examining magistrate.

2.2
On 21 November 2018 (V7), 27 November 2018 (V9 and V22), 26 February 2019 (V43), 6 March 2019 (V44, V45 and V47), 13 March 2019 (V52), 2 April 2019 (V49), 12 April 2019 (V51) and 2 May 2019 (V54), the public prosecutor made an application for a witness to be questioned pursuant to Section 226a DCCP in the Primo investigation against the appellant. These witnesses are referred to as V7, V9, V22, V43, V44, V45, V47, V49, V51, V52, and V54. In addition, the public prosecutor requested that the appellant not be given the opportunity to be heard on this matter, at this stage of the investigation, and that the decision granting of status should not be served on the appellant. Finally, the public prosecutor requested that the witnesses be questioned before the examining magistrate’s decisions pursuant to the applications became final.

2.3
By orders of 5 December 2018 (V9), 19 December 2018 (V22), 1 February 2019 (V7), 5 March 2019 (V43), 13 March 2019 (V44 and V47), 26 March 2019 (V52), 10 April 2019 (V45), 16 April 2019 (V49), 27 April 2019 (V51), and 14 May 2019 (V54), the examining magistrate granted the applications of the public prosecutor pursuant to Section 226a DCCP and ordered that the identity of V7, V9 , V22, V43, V44, V45, V47, V49, V51, V52, and V54 be concealed for the purpose of their questioning and that they be granted threatened witness status. The examining magistrate also granted the applications of the public prosecutor referred to under 2.2 and stipulated that the public prosecutor was not to be present during the questioning, nor was he to be given the opportunity to submit questions for the witness or to stipulate topics which he deemed relevant to be raised during questioning.

2.4
Between 1 February 2019 and 1 May 2019 (V7), on 5 March 2019 (V43), between 13 March 2019 and 13 June 2019 (V44), between 5 December 2018 and 5 March 2019 (V9), between 19 December 2018 and 19 March 2019 (V22), between 14 May 2019 and 14 August 2019 (V54), between 10 April 2019 and 10 July 2019 (V45), between 27 April and 27 July 2019 (V51), between 13 March 2019 and 13 June 2019 (V47), between 16 April 2019 and 16 July 2019 (V49), between 26 March 2019 and 26 June 2019 (V52), the examining magistrate questioned V7, V43, V44, V9, V22, V54, V45, V51, V47, V49, and V52 as witnesses in the Primo investigation. These interviews were not provided to the Public Prosecution Service. In the order granting status, the examining magistrate has always determined that she would keep the official record of questioning to herself until the decision on the requested status became final.

2.5
By letter of 7 August 2019, the examining magistrate informed the appellant that he, as a suspect in the criminal investigation into the circumstances of the crash of flight MH17, may exercise his defence rights with respect to certain investigative steps. The appellant was given the opportunity to comment on a number of applications submitted by the public prosecutor, at a meeting on 17 October 2019 at the Schiphol Judicial Complex. This letter, which was accompanied by a Russian-language translation, was served on the appellant by the authorities of the Russian Federation on 14 October 2019. The appellant did not respond to this letter (in time). At the meeting on 17 October 2019, which was not attended by the appellant, the examining magistrate provided the decisions in response to the applications pursuant to Section 226a DCCP for service to the public prosecutor. On 22 October 2019, the examining magistrate received a letter from E. Kutina in Moscow, dated 16 October 2019, addressed to the Council for the Judiciary in The Hague and received by the latter on 18 October 2019, introducing herself as the appellant’s 'legal representative' and requesting on his behalf that the meeting on 17 October 2019 be postponed. The examining magistrate informed Ms Kutina by letter of 1 November 2019 that the examining magistrate can only respond to applications made by the appellant himself or a lawyer authorized under Dutch law.

2.6
After Mr. Van Eijck and Ms Ten Doesschate presented themselves as counsel for the appellant on 16 January 2020, the examining magistrate sent them a letter on 28 January 2020 to give them the opportunity to be heard with respect to the applications for granting the requested status in order that they might express their views on the prosecutor 's applications regarding witnesses V7, V9, V22, V43, V44, V45, V47, V49, V51, V52, and V54 by 7 February 2020. At the request of counsel, a postponement was granted until 17 February 2020. On 17 February 2020, counsel informed the examining magistrate that they would not take this opportunity, because - in short - the appellant should have been heard prior to the decisions granting the requested status being issued. In an official report of findings, drawn up on 24 February 2020, the examining magistrate found that the defence had not taken a position on the substance of the applications for granting status and that this meant that she had no reason to further consider the matter of the status granted in the decisions made pursuant to Section 226a DCCP.

2.7
In a comprehensive official report of actions and findings, drawn up on 18 December 2019, the examining magistrate explained the course of events before, during and after the witnesses were questioned and described certain general aspects of these interviews.

2.8
An appeal against the examining magistrate’s decisions was filed on 6 February 2020 on behalf of the appellant.

2.9
After a written exchange of views, the court dealt with the appeals at an in camera hearing, not open to the public, on 2 April 2020. The public prosecutor, Mr. W.N. Ferdinandusse and Ms Ten Doesschate were heard in chambers.

3Positions of the parties
3.1
The appellant has taken the position that the examining magistrate’s decisions and the subsequent course of events have formal and substantive defects and that the resulting errors are serious and irreparable, such that the decisions should be reversed. The court will discuss the grounds of the appeals hereunder.

3.2
The public prosecutor has taken the view that the appeals are inadmissible, insofar as the appellant is contesting decisions made by the examining magistrate other than the decisions granting the status of threatened witness. For the rest, the public prosecutor took the position that the appeals should be dismissed.

4Findings of the court
4.1
Assessment framework

4.1.1
The court must first ascertain the scope and the nature of the test it should apply in these proceedings.

4.1.2
First of all, the court states that, in enacting the Witness Protection Act, it was the legislators’ intention to establish a set of statutory provisions that upholds the rights of threatened witnesses and suspects in criminal proceedings. In the case of witnesses, protection of the right to a private life, in particular, as enshrined in Section 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter: ECHR), is relevant. In the case of suspects, the right to a fair trial, as laid down in Section 6 of the ECHR, is relevant2.

4.1.3
In the case of a serious threat to a witness’s life, health or social functioning, giving effect to his or her rights may entail his or her identity being concealed for the purposes of questioning in criminal proceedings. However, withholding the identity of a witness may be at odds with the suspect's right to a fair trial. This right is based on the principle that the defence be given an adequate and proper opportunity to question a witness incriminating the suspect. Concealing the identity of a witness limits the scope for the defence to question that witness. To compensate for this limitation, the legislators have established an arrangement, by means of the Witness Protection Act, in which the examining magistrate, rather than the defence, questions the witness directly and without restriction. In the view of the legislators, that arrangement sufficiently off-sets the limitations on the defence with respect to questioning.

4.1.4
The basic premise of the Witness Protection Act is that the examining magistrate decides whether or not to keep the witness's identity concealed with respect to his questioning, owing to an (alleged) threat. This is laid down in Section 226a(1) DCCP. Pursuant to Section 226b(2) DCCP, the examining magistrate's decision is open to appeal by the public prosecutor, the suspect, and the witness.

4.1.5
It can be deduced from the drafting history of the Witness Protection Act that the legislators notably considered that the option to file an appeal should be provided to enable the witness to safeguard his or her rights, in the event that the examining magistrate dismissed an application to conceal his or her identity. The legislators explained the purpose of the appeal as follows:

"The interests of the witness at issue are such that, in my view, he or she should be able to have a decision made against him by the examining magistrate reviewed on appeal. The witness's right to be heard and to file an appeal against an unwelcome decision relates only to a decision regarding concealment of his or her identity for the purpose of the questioning. 3 "

4.1.6
In view of this, the review on appeal is therefore limited to the decision of the examining magistrate regarding whether or not to conceal the identity of the witness for the purpose of his or her questioning.

4.1.7
If it is established on appeal that the examining magistrate has rightly decided to keep the identity of the witness concealed, that decision cannot subsequently be questioned at trial. The legislators wished to ensure that the matter as to whether a witness has correctly been classed as a threatened witness within the meaning of Section 226a(1) DCCP would not fall to the trial court:

"Once it has been decided by the competent court that the identity of that witness should be concealed, the matter is no longer open to debate for the duration of the proceedings. Implementation of the proposal to allow the validity of a ruling on anonymity to be reviewed by a court in a separate proceeding would be seriously hampered if the matter as to whether the anonymity of the witness for the purpose of questioning had been rightly invoked by the witness in light of the conditions set out in proposed Section 226a(1) could repeatedly be examined by the court. Therefore, a witness with respect to whom such a decision has been made should be considered a threatened witness for the duration of the criminal proceedings. 4 ”

4.1.8
The question as to whether applying the provisions of the Witness Protection Act does indeed sufficiently counterbalance the restriction on the defence with respect to questioning, and whether the suspect's right to a fair trial as referred to in Section 6 ECHR is ensured, cannot be answered by means of an appeal. That question can only be answered in light of the criminal proceedings as a whole, including whether and to what extent the testimony of the witness contributes to the ruling on the evidence made by the trial court. The trial court may also take into account the manner in which the provisions of the Witness Protection Act have been applied in so doing.5

4.1.9
With respect to the appeal referred to in Section 226b(2) DCCP, the court must therefore assess the examining magistrate's decision to conceal or not to conceal the witness's identity. On the one hand, the court must examine whether the decision was arrived at in the correct manner and, on the other hand, whether the decision was made on the correct grounds.

4.1.10
The test with regard to the manner in which the decision was made is a comprehensive one: were the formal requirements met by the examining magistrate in arriving at his decision? If so, the court must then examine the substance of the decision, that is to say: the examining magistrate's finding that the witness or another person consider themselves to be under threat, with a view to the statement to be made by the witness, such that they reasonably fear for their life, health or safety, or the stability of their family life, or their socio-economic existence, or that of another person.

4.1.11
The legislators chose to entrust the assessment of whether a witness should be regarded as a threatened witness, to the examining magistrate alone. According to the drafting history of the Witness Protection Act, this choice was based on reasons both of principle and of a practical nature.6

4.1.12
One of those reasons was the role that the examining magistrate played in the (then) judicial preliminary investigation:

"Given his role in leading the preliminary judicial investigation, the examining magistrate is usually well apprised of the state of affairs in the preliminary investigation and has a good understanding of the significance of the anonymous witness statement for the investigation as a whole. Due to his position, he is au fait with the criminal networks operating and can better assess the gravity of the threat than the trial court or the council chamber. 7

The council chamber does not have those attributes, according to the legislators:

"The decision on whether or not the new procedure under art. 226a-e should be applied [can] indeed be entrusted to the examining magistrate […].The examining magistrate leading the preliminary judicial investigation ex officio has an excellent overview of the state of the investigation. In this context, he can assess the merits of applications from the witness or the Public Prosecution Service for the person concerned to be questioned under anonymity. Adjudication of the validity of such applications by the council chamber would be based on a somewhat isolated assessment of the matter by three judges who would have to study a case file, with which they were hitherto unfamiliar." 8

4.1.13
Although the preliminary judicial investigation has been abolished,9 the aforementioned reasoning is still valid. The examining magistrate, as the judge assigned to the preliminary investigation, currently has the task of supervising conduct of the criminal investigation. This involves overseeing the lawful application of investigative powers, progress of the investigation, and that the investigation is balanced and comprehensive.10 In that capacity, the examining magistrate has a more or less complete overview of the criminal investigation. As a result, he is well placed to properly assess an application to conceal the identity of a witness. For example, based on the information available to him on the criminal investigation, he can assess the gravity of the alleged threat to the witness. The examining magistrate is in a better position to do this than the council chamber, which does not have that information at its disposal.

4.1.14
This means that the test that the court must apply with regard to the substance of the examining magistrate’s decision is a limited one. After all, a full review would require the council chamber to make the same assessment of an application to conceal the identity of a witness as the examining magistrate has conducted, although the (council chamber of the) court is not equipped to do so. This means that the court must investigate whether the examining magistrate could indeed reasonably have decided to grant the status of threatened witness to the witness concerned.

4.1.15
In principle, the court reviews a decision by the examining magistrate in light of the facts and circumstances prevailing at the time of that decision, insofar as they are apparent from the decision and the other information in the case file available to the council chamber. It may, nonetheless, be the case that circumstances subsequently arise which are of such importance that they cast a different light on the examining magistrate’s decision and are such that, had they been known to the examining magistrate, he or she could not reasonably have reached his or her decision.

4.2
Infringement of Section 226a(2) DCCP? (ground of appeal I)

4.2.1
Pursuant to Section 226a(1) DCCP, upon application by the public prosecutor, the suspect or the witness, the examining magistrate decides ex officio that the witness's identity is to be concealed in respect of his or her questioning. Pursuant to the second paragraph, the public prosecutor, the suspect, and the witness are given the opportunity to be heard in this regard. It can be deduced from the drafting history of the Witness Protection Act that the legislators intended that those involved be heard prior to the examining magistrate taking his or her decision11.

4.2.2
The appellant has argued that he was wrongly deprived of the opportunity to be heard regarding the public prosecutor’s applications before the examining magistrate made her decision.

Witnesses in an investigation against a named person or persons (witnesses V7, V9, V22, V43, V44, V45, V47, V49, V51, V52, and V54).

4.2.3
The examining magistrate did not give the appellant the opportunity to be heard on the public prosecutor’s applications before making her decision. She explained this in the various decisions as follows:

"The law does not provide for hearing the views of the suspect on the public prosecutor’s application to be postponed in an investigation against a named person or persons (i.e. not with respect to persons unknown). The public prosecutor has thus requested a departure from statutory procedure. If the examining magistrate grants this application, the interests of the suspect may suffer harm, as the suspect will be deprived of an opportunity to challenge the application and to express his views prior to the examining magistrate making her decision. This is an infringement of a procedural right enjoyed by the suspect. (…)

The examining magistrate has taken into account that the present investigation pertains to criminal offences that allegedly resulted in flight MH17 crashing on 17 July 2014, killing 298 people. The offenses in question are therefore very serious. These offences occurred in an area in which a conflict involving multiple parties is prevailing. The outcome of the criminal investigation may therefore be of significance to one or more parties involved in that conflict. Investigation of the offences is currently ongoing. In light of that conflict and the associated interests at play, it is possible that when it becomes known which persons have been identified as suspects by the public prosecutor, one or more parties may have an interest in influencing, directing and/or obstructing the investigation.

The public prosecutor has plausibly argued that the witness’s statement is important for the investigation and establishing the truth. Furthermore, it has been ascertained that the witness originates from, or is regularly present in, an area in which a conflict and/or war prevails and that that entails significant risks for the witness.

It is the view of the examining magistrate that the importance of the investigation not being influenced and/or obstructed and of the witness being questioned at this time is such that the identified infringements of the suspect's rights are justified under the circumstances in question. (…)

The examining magistrate will make every effort to compensate the suspect for the infringements made. The possibility of the suspect being heard on the application at a later point in time is, in particular, being considered and the best form for this will have to be contemplated in due course (…)

It follows from the above that the following measures will be taken:

- The suspect will not be heard on the application pursuant to Section 226a DCCP at this time;

- (…)".

4.2.4
The examining magistrate has thus acted in infringement of Section 226a(2) DCCP, given that the purpose of that provision is to give the suspect the opportunity to be heard on this matter prior to the decision. The issue is what the consequence of this must be. The consequence is not explicitly provided for in law.

4.2.5
As stated above, the examining magistrate has substantiated her decision to deviate from article 226a(2) DCCP. |She has provided the reasons why she did not give the appellant the opportunity to be heard prior to taking her decision in this case. Furthermore, she has stated that she would endeavour to compensate the appellant for infringement of his rights. To that end, she did the following. By the aforementioned letter dated 7 August 2019, the examining magistrate informed the appellant that he was being afforded the opportunity to comment on the applications at a meeting on 17 October 2019 at the Schiphol Judicial Complex. By letter dated 28 January 2020, the examining magistrate gave counsel the opportunity to convey their position on the applications. In that letter, the examining magistrate stated the following:

"I hereby give you the opportunity to convey your position on these applications, with respect to your right to be heard on the matter of whether the requested status should be granted, and to do so in writing no later than 7 February 2020. If you avail of this opportunity, an official report of findings will be drawn up thereon and added to the documents in the case relating to the witness(es) concerned."

4.2.6
In her letter, the examining magistrate explicitly refers to being "heard on the matter of whether the requested status should be granted". In addition, she states that she would draw up an official report of findings further to that hearing. Although the examining magistrate does not explicitly state it in her letter, this statement does not exclude the possibility that she would reconsider her decision on granting the requested status in light of counsel’s position or that she would devote further consideration to it. That the examining magistrate intended to do so is evident from the official report of findings of 24 February 2020, in which she writes:

"I note that the defence has not adopted a position on the substance of the applications for granting the requested status. As a result, I see no reason for further consideration of the status granted in the decisions taken pursuant to Section 226a DCCP.

4.2.7
In the opinion of the court, that which Section 226a(2) DCCP aims to ensure has indeed been achieved. That provision serves to enable all parties involved to comment on whether a witness should be considered as a threatened witness, in order that the examining magistrate may consider the views of all parties involved when addressing that question. By nonetheless giving the appellant and his counsel the opportunity to comment on the applications, which might have led to reconsideration or further considerations by the examining magistrate, justice has been done to the intent of the law. Those additional considerations could then have been included in the present appeals if desired.

4.2.8
If the intentions of the examining magistrate were unclear to counsel, the onus was on counsel to obtain clarification. Counsel did not do so, nor did they adopt a position on the substance of the applications in their written response of 17 February 2020, not even in the alternative. They did so at their own risk and expense and those choices do not alter the above considerations.

Witnesses in an investigation into persons unknown (witnesses V11 and X48)

4.2.9
The applications pursuant to Section 226a DCCP regarding witnesses V11 and X48 were made in the context of an investigation against suspect(s) unknown. For that reason, the examining magistrate did not give the appellant the opportunity to be heard on the prosecutor’s applications.

4.2.10
The court finds that the appellant was first identified as a suspect in the Primo criminal investigation on 25 October 2016, when an official report of suspicion was drafted with respect to him.

4.2.11
At the time of the examining magistrate’s decision of 5 July 2018 on the application regarding witness X48, the appellant had therefore not yet been identified as a suspect. The examining magistrate therefore neither could nor should have given him the opportunity to be heard regarding the application before deciding on it. The drafting history of the Witness Protection Act shows that the legislators provided a procedure for situations occurring after a suspect is known:

'If the suspect becomes known at a later stage and is designated in the application referred to in Section 181(3) DCCP, the suspect and his counsel must, in order that the statement of the threatened witness might be used as evidence, nonetheless be given the opportunity to question the threatened witness. In that case, whether or not at the direction of the trial court, the threatened witness would have to be questioned a second time by the examining magistrate, in accordance with Sections 226c-226f." 12

4.2.12
At the time of the examining magistrate’s decision of 5 July 2018 on the application regarding witness V11, the appellant had indeed been identified as a suspect. That no decision had yet been taken on whether to prosecute the appellant, as the public prosecutor has argued, does not change this. This means that the public prosecutor could and should have filed an application on behalf of the appellant with regard to V11. Had the public prosecutor done so, the examining magistrate would have had to provide the appellant with an opportunity to be heard in advance in respect of the application, based on Section 226a(2) DCCP. Since the application was, wrongly, not filed on behalf of the appellant, he has, as a result, been denied the opportunity to be heard in advance regarding the application.

4.2.13
The above means that there is a defect in the manner in which the decision was reached by the examining magistrate regarding witness V11. In the case of witness V11, the appellant was not given the opportunity to be heard afterwards, unlike in the decision on witnesses in the investigation specifically in respect of the appellant. By letter of 7 August 2019, the examining magistrate had allowed the appellant to comment on several applications submitted by the public prosecutor, but in view of the documents available to the court, the court assumes that this letter related only to the witnesses questioned in the investigation specifically in respect of the appellant. The examining magistrate gave counsel the opportunity to express their views in a letter dated 28 January 2020, but this letter did not relate to the application regarding witness V11 either.

4.2.14
In view of the considerations at 4.1.13 and 4.2.7 above, the examining magistrate had a duty to assess the application by the prosecutor, in the light of matters that could have been raised by the appellant and/or his counsel. By not giving the appellant the opportunity to be heard beforehand or afterwards, the examining magistrate was unable to take account of the appellant's opinion in her assessment. This omission can no longer be remedied, since the official record of the questioning of witness V11 has already been made available to the Public Prosecution Service. In the view of the court, the lack of opportunity for the appellant to be heard (if need be, after the fact) on the application for granting the requested status means that the decision regarding witness V11 must be reversed.

4.3
Infringement of Sections 226a(3), 226b(1), 226d(1) and(2) DCCP? (grounds of appeal II to V)

4.3.1
The appellant has argued that the examining magistrate wrongly infringed several provisions of the Witness Protection Act. He challenges the decision by the examining magistrate to question the witnesses before the decisions were final, the decision not to notify the appellant of the decisions without delay by means of service, the decision not to allow the appellant to be present when the witnesses were questioned, the decision to inform the appellant as soon as possible of the substance of the statement made by the witness, and the decision not to allow the appellant to provide questions for the witnesses prior to them being questioned.

4.3.2
As was considered above at 4.1.9, it is the appeal court as referred to in Section 226b(2) DCCP that must review the examining magistrate’s decision on whether to conceal the identity of the witness. The aforementioned decisions by the examining magistrate are not covered by this. These decisions taken after the status had been granted do not affect the manner in which the decision was reached or the substance of the decision to grant status. These decisions are therefore not subject to judicial review in the present proceedings. As follows from that which has been considered at 4.1.8 above, grounds of appeal against these decisions may be raised at trial, such that the trial court may ultimately decide on them.

4.4
Failure to meet the requirements of proportionality and subsidiarity? (ground of appeal VI)

4.4.1
The appellant argued that the examining magistrate’s decisions wrongly fail to demonstrate that the requirements of proportionality and subsidiarity have been met.

4.4.2
It may be inferred from the drafting history of the Witness Protection Act that application of the provisions therein must meet the requirements of proportionality and subsidiarity. Thus, the means used must be reasonably proportionate to the interest to be served and must be virtually the only means to serve that interest.13

4.4.3
The examining magistrate has repeatedly held in the various decisions that she has taken into account the requirements of proportionality and subsidiarity.

4.4.4
It should be noted that the specific facts and circumstances based on which the examining magistrate reached her conclusion may have had to be provided in summary form, owing to the need to conceal the identity of a witness.14 As a result, the examining magistrate could not be expected to substantiate her decision to a greater degree than she did. The court considers that it is sufficiently clear from the examining magistrate’s decisions that her decision to conceal the identity of the witnesses is in reasonable proportion to the interest to be served, and that this interest could not be served in another way.

4.5
Judge not independent and impartial and no effective remedy? (ground of appeal VII)

4.5.1
The appellant has argued that he has been denied the right to have his case dealt with by an independent and impartial judge. According to the appellant, the examining magistrate appeared to be biased against him by not giving him the opportunity to be heard on the application.

4.5.2
Whatever else may be said of this argument, the court is of the opinion that it exceeds the scope of the present proceedings. Insofar as the appellant believes that the examining magistrate has shown bias against him, it is open to him to seek to have the examining magistrate disqualified.

4.5.3
Furthermore, the appellant has argued that he has been denied the right to an effective remedy, because the examining magistrate provided the official record of the questioning of witness X48 to the public prosecutor and entered it in the case file before the decision on the status of witness X48 had become final.

4.5.4
As previously considered at 4.2.11, the decision on the application regarding witness X48 was taken at a point in time when the appellant had not yet been identified as a suspect. The matter as to whether the examining magistrate should have waited until the decision on X48’s status had become final, before providing the official record of the witness’s questioning and, if so, what the consequences should be, exceeds the scope of the present proceedings, for reasons stated above at 4.3.2.

4.6
No threat as defined in Section 226a(1) DCCP (ground of appeal VIII) and no connection between the threat and the refusal to give a statement? (ground of appeal IX)

4.6.1
Pursuant to Section 226a(1) DCCP, an examining magistrate orders that with respect to questioning a witness, his or her identity be concealed, if the witness or another person, with regard to the statement to be made by the witness, may feel threatened in such a manner that they reasonably fear for their life, health or safety or the stability of their family life, or their socio-economic existence, and the witness has indicated that he does not wish to give a statement because of this threat.

4.6.2
The appellant has argued that the examining magistrate wrongly, or in the alternative, with insufficient substantiation, reached the conclusion that the aforementioned threat existed, and that the witnesses did not wish to give a statement because of that threat.

4.6.3
Before taking a decision pursuant to Section 226a DCCP, the examining magistrate is required to investigate the nature of the threats asserted by the witness and their plausibility. The drafting history of the Witness Protection Act indicates that a mere fear that the witness may have that something unpleasant will occur does not usually suffice.15 However, the threat need not consist of specific actions or statements by the suspect, but may be inferred from the character or reputation of the suspect or the criminal circles in which the suspect operates. Conceivably, threats in which the suspect neither has any part nor culpability may lead to witnesses being ensured of anonymity.16

4.6.4
In the various decisions, the examining magistrate has in each case held that the aforementioned threat is apparent from facts and circumstances stated in the case file, from the context as described in the applications by the public prosecutor, from the offences the appellant is suspected of having committed, as well as from the statements by the witness to the examining magistrate about his or her person and his or her personal circumstances, or those of other persons. The examining magistrate has also held t in each case hat the witness has substantiated that he or she does not want to give a statement in the criminal case, unless his or her identity is concealed, as a result of this fear.

4.6.5
In the comprehensive report of actions and findings of 18 December 2019, the examining magistrate explained this as follows:

"When hearing the views of the witness on their status, the examining magistrate first checked whether the witness felt threatened, and whether the witness was only willing to give a statement if his or her identity was concealed for that reason. All witnesses for whom an application had been made have adopted this position.

For the sake of protection, the threat and fear could not be set out in more specific terms than has been done in the present official reports for each witness without disclosing information about the witness's identity. The examining magistrate then investigated the nature and gravity of the threat asserted by the witness concerned.

By letter of 30 November 2018, the public prosecutor substantiated the position of the Public Prosecution Service regarding the nature and gravity of the threat in more detail. Enclosed with this letter was a report from the Public Prosecution Service regarding the safety risks for witnesses in the JIT MH17 investigation. The examining magistrate concluded from the report that witnesses in this investigation may face a specific danger. The fact that there is a situation in Eastern Ukraine that for the time being has been defined as an armed conflict by various international organisations and NGOs is very relevant in answering the question as to whether there is an actual threat. Several reports state that there are strong indications that all parties to the conflict are guilty of wrongful detention, inhuman treatment and violence against persons known for criticising that party. To substantiate the threat, the public prosecutor has also argued that cooperating with the investigation by giving a statement as a witnesses will be regarded as detrimental by one party or the other.

The examining magistrate considers this plausible. The threat strongly applies to witnesses who live, work or regularly stay in the conflict area, or who have relatives who do so. This may also be a relevant circumstance for other witnesses, for example, if the statement to be made may be assumed to be detrimental by one of the parties to the conflict. Some parties to the conflict are more powerful than others, but all are willing and able to commit acts of violence. In addition to these general circumstances, the examining magistrate took into account the personal experiences of the witness when assessing whether there was a specific threat. In the opinion of the examining magistrate, it has been established with regard to witnesses who have been granted threatened witness status that the disclosure of his or her identity constitutes a threat to the fundamental interests or rights of the witness or of a person for whom the witness is the care provider or is responsible, that this danger or threat is specific, and that there is an objective reason for fear, all relating to the statement to be given. The examining magistrate has in each case held the threat and fear of these witnesses plausible on the basis of their personal circumstances as explained by the witness and of the substantiation provided by the public prosecutor in his application pursuant to Section 226a DCCP and his letter in extenso.”

4.6.6
The appellant is suspected of extraordinarily serious offences carrying the most serious criminal penalty available under Dutch criminal law, namely life imprisonment. Contrary to what the appellant has argued, the examining magistrate rightly took the gravity of these offences into account when assessing the threat. This was also what the legislators intended according to the drafting history of the Witness Protection Act:

"In the process of assessing the witness's application to be questioned anonymously, the nature and reality of the threats against the backdrop of the gravity of the offence committed are central." 17

4.6.7
A “report on risks to the safety of witnesses in the MH17 JIT investigation” is attached to the various applications by the public prosecutor, and may be considered to form part of those applications. The assessment of the examining magistrate relies in part on that report. The report, refers to reports from international organisations and NGOs, and states that there are large-scale human rights infringements in Ukraine and that there are risks to individuals speaking on politically sensitive topics in Ukraine and in the Russian Federation. For example, the OHCHR's “Report on the human rights situation in Ukraine (16 February to 16 May 2018)” details a large number of human rights infringements committed by all parties involved in the conflict, of which civilians fell victim too. It also shows that freedom of expression is very limited in the part of Ukraine controlled by armed groups. The FIDH-CCL's report “Eastern Ukraine: Civilians Caught in the Crossfire” reports on systematic detention, threats and ill-treatment of individuals by separatist armed groups in Eastern Ukraine. There are also accounts of persons being prosecuted by pro-Ukrainian armed forces for alleged support to the opposing party. Contrary to what the appellant has argued, there is no reason why the examining magistrate should not have taken account of this information in her assessment. Although the information is of a general nature and does not pertain directly to the witnesses in this case, it is not irrelevant when it comes to assessing the credibility of the threat alleged by them.

4.6.8
Likewise, contrary to what the appellant has argued, the examining magistrate has, in light of the additional explanation set out in the comprehensive official report. provided sufficient reasons for her assessment. The decisions show that the examining magistrate has investigated the nature of the alleged threats and the credibility thereof, with due respect for the considerations set out under 4.6.3 above. The examining magistrate could not be required to describe in more detail the facts and circumstances relayed by the witnesses, given the need to conceal the witnesses’ identity.

4.6.9
The court therefore concludes that the examining magistrate was in a position to make a reasonable decision to grant the status of threatened witness to the witnesses.

4.6.10
The appellant also referred to developments that have taken place in Ukraine since the examining magistrate’s decisions were made. In particular, the appellant pointed out that the conflict has subsided since 2019. Be that as it may, this does not alter the fact that there is very strong evidence that all parties involved in the conflict are guilty of violence against persons known to be critical of that party, while the examining magistrate has found it plausible that statements made by the witnesses may be regarded as detrimental by one of the parties to the conflict. The appellant’s arguments regarding recent developments are therefore of insufficient weight to cast a different light on the examining magistrate’s decision, nor do they indicate that the examining magistrate could not reasonably have reached her decision, had these developments also been known her.

5Conclusion
5.1
The foregoing leads to the following conclusion.

5.2
The appeals against the examining magistrate’s decisions concerning witnesses X48, V7, V9, V22, V43, V44, V45, V47, V49, V51, V52, and V54 must be dismissed.

5.3
The appeal against the decision regarding witness V11 must be allowed and that decision must be reversed. Pursuant to Section 448(1) DCCP, the court will do what the examining magistrate should have done and dismiss the public prosecutor's application with respect to witness V11.

6Decision
The court:

in the case assigned council chamber number 20/368

- allows the appeal;

- reverses the examining magistrate’s decision of 5 July 2018 pursuant to Section 226a DCCP with respect to witness V11;

- dismisses the public prosecutor's application of 28 May 2018 with respect to witness V11.

in the cases assigned council chamber numbers 20/366, 20/367, 20/369, 20/370, 20/371, 20/372, 20/373, 20/374, 20/375, 20/376, 20/377, and 20/378

- dismisses the appeal.

This decision was made in council chamber by:

Mr A.M. Boogers Presiding Judge

Mr B.W. Mulder Judge

Ms M.T. Renckens Judge

in the presence of Ms W.G. Terwel Registrar

and issued on 23 April, 2020.

27

https://www.courtmh17.com/en/news/2020/ … -2020.html
MH17 criminal case resumes on 8 June 2020
As scheduled, the MH17 criminal case will resume on Monday, 8 June next. However, due to the coronavirus and the related national guidelines, adjustments will made for the upcoming block of court hearings. The upshot of this is that only a limited number of people will be able to attend the hearings at the Schiphol Judicial Complex (JCS). The proceedings may be followed by all by livestream, on this website for instance.

Court days reserved in June 2020
The courtroom has been reserved in June 2020 from Monday, 8 June to Friday, 3 July 2020. It is not yet known whether the court will sit every day. Circumstances may require that hearings be shortened, re-scheduled, suspended or even cancelled.

Present in courtroom
The guidelines issued by the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM) and the justice authorities apply in the JCS. Everyone will be expected to maintain a distance of 1.5 meters from each other and people with mild cold symptoms or a fever will not be admitted to the building. In addition to the judges, clerks and prosecutors, a maximum of two relatives' counsel, two defence counsel and a limited number of representatives of the press will be present in the courtroom. The public gallery above the courtroom will be reserved for a limited number of relatives. It will not be possible to accommodate other interested parties during this block of hearings. They will, therefore, be obliged to follow the proceedings by livestream.

The press centre will be closed.

Future hearings
After the hearing block in June, the next block of court days is scheduled for September. The plans for conducting the MH17 criminal proceedings and attendance by relatives, media and interested parties will be adjusted anew in light of the national guidelines in force at that time.

28

https://www.courtmh17.com/en/news/2020/ … uwsbericht

Ослабление правительственных мер по сокращению коронавируса и объявленных мер, которые будут применяться с 1 июня 2020 года, позволило Гаагскому районному суду в конце концов принять решение об открытии пресс-центра.
...
В судебные днях , запланированных во втором блоке слушаний с понедельника 8 июня по пятницу 3 июля 2020. Пока не известно , будет ли использоваться каждый день заседания суда. Судебные дни могут быть сокращены, перенесены, приостановлены или даже отменены, в зависимости от обстоятельств.

Запланированные судебные дни 2 сессии
С   8 по 12 июня 2020 года
С 15 по 19 июня 2020 г.
С 22 по 26 июня 2020 года
С 30 июня по 3 июля 2020 года

29

Summary of the Day in Court, 9 June 2020

Today, the prosecution had the floor. It continued with its presentation of the investigation. Therefore, the court will not be holding a Day in Court summary session today.

It is expected that the prosecution will complete its presentation tomorrow.

30

https://twitter.com/CourtMH17/status/12 … 5019952131

The hearing will resume on Monday, 22 june 2020 at 10.00 a.m. CET


Вы здесь » MH17: как и кто? » Суд » Новости: Суд.