Telecom and intercepted conversations

The defence have made a number of requests regarding telecom data and intercepted calls. The Public Prosecution Service has opposed the granting of all these requests, with the exception of the request to interview reporting officer Primo 17-170 (No. 70).

The court notes that to date the accused has not commented on whether the telephone numbers attributed to him by the Public Prosecution Service were indeed his, or on whether he in fact participated in the conversations for which the Public Prosecution Service believes this to be this the case. As a consequence, it also remains unclear whether the accused, if he was indeed party to the conversations, believes that his statements have been mistranslated or, for example, had a different meaning to what the Public Prosecution Service has assumed, in the context of other conversations not included in the case file. Finally, it is currently unknown whether the accused, if the phones were indeed his, believes they were incorrectly traced on 16 and 17 July 2014.

As long as the accused has not specifically commented on the intercepted conversations attributed to him personally, and it remains unclear whether, and if so, how he contests them, the court cannot assess which investigation steps are necessary for a proper defence to be conducted. Currently, partly because corona restrictions impede confidential consultation between the accused and the defence, it is not certain whether the accused - the court emphasises without being compelled to do so will comment on these matters at a later stage. Given that the accused has already stated that he is prepared to make a statement solely for the benefit of the Dutch court in the presence of his Dutch lawyers, however, this certainly cannot be ruled out.

Since the Public Prosecution Service may well rely heavily on the content of the intercepted conversations and the telecom data in its evidentiary edifice when it comes to the (alleged) personal involvement of the accused, the court, unlike the Public Prosecution Service, considers rejecting these requests (almost entirely) for lack of substantiation inappropriate at this time. Therefore, the court will postpone a decision on these requests, until it is clear whether the accused will testify in this regard and, if so, what the tenor of that testimony is.

Section 4b, Cockpit Voice Recorder and ATC tapes

With reference to the presentations given by the Public Prosecution Service with regard to the sound wave or sound peaks that were allegedly audible on the CVR and the findings of the DSB with regard to that sound wave, the defence have requested that inquiries be made with the DSB as to which investigators made these findings, with a view to interviewing those investigators. The Public Prosecution Service has argued, with reference to Art. 69(4) of the DSB Act, that the request must be rejected.

The court considers that the description of the work done on the CVR the DSB (Annex H to the final report) mentions that during the last 20 milliseconds in the CVR recording two sound peaks were identified; these sound peaks were also graphically depicted. Section 3.5.2 of the final report contains the findings of the DSB with regard to the sound peaks and/or sound wave, to which the Public Prosecution Service refers. It is not apparent from the DSB report which investigator(s) made the relevant findings.

Art. 69(4) of the DSB Act stipulates that an investigator must not be summoned as a witness or expert in respect of an investigation in which he has been involved. Pursuant to Art. 14(1) in conjunction with Art. 32 of the DSB Act, this also applies to "experts designated by [and] reporting to the Minister who have assisted the Board in the investigation. However, Art. 14 of the DSB Act allows the Board to hire experts from outside central government.11 Said articles do not prevent such "external" experts from being called as witnesses or experts.

Given that, based on the above, who conducted the investigation and as a consequence whether or not that person or persons may be interviewed as a witness(s) in view of the aforementioned rules remains unclear, the court will postpone deciding on the defences request, and instruct the Public Prosecution Service to inquire first who conducted the investigative work referred to by the defence and in what capacity. Only once the name or names and the capacity of that person or persons is known, can the court assess whether interviewing is feasible and appropriate.

Given the number of requests for investigation, and in some cases that they comprise multiple layers, the court, despite careful consideration and assessment of the requests, may have omitted to take a decision on a given request. Should that be the case, the defence are expressly allowed to reiterate the request at a subsequent hearing, after which it will be assessed by the court based of the same criterion as applied for its interlocutory decision of 3 July 2020.

Decisions on applications by the Public Prosecution Service

Requests granted

Interview of witness M58

Given that the defence for the accused have agreed with the request to interview this witness, the court will, as previously considered, allow witness M58 to be interviewed (anew) regarding statements which (according to the defence) are inconsistent, contradictory and regarding implausible claims this witness has made. The court is referring the matter to the examining magistrate to this end.

Interview of witness X48

To explain the application to interview X48 as a witness, the Public Prosecution Service stated at the hearing on 10 June 2020 that the application had not been made earlier, because, at that time, the council chamber of the court had not yet ruled on the appeal by the accused against the decision to grant a number of witnesses, including witness X48, the status of anonymous threatened witness; the Public Prosecution Service was thus unable to express a view on a possible additional interview of this (or those) witness(es) at the time. Witness X48 testified briefly to the examining magistrate that on 17 July 2014 he or she was present at or in the immediate vicinity of the launch site identified by the Public Prosecution Service and saw a missile being launched there. The Public Prosecution Service was able to submit only a few written questions prior to the examining magistrates interview of this witness. It is therefore in the interest of the investigation and thus of the prosecution that the Public Prosecution Service be given the opportunity to put further questions to this witness, notably in view of the testimony since given by witness M58. The court is referring the matter to the examining magistrate to this end.

Expert regarding manipulation of TELAR footage in Snizhne

The same interest applies to the request by the Public Prosecution Service that an expert be appointed to scrutinise further possible indications of manipulation of footage in the case of two versions of the same video of a possible BUK TELAR in Snizhne that have been included in the case file and the assertion that the version of that same video referred to by the Russian Federation must have been uploaded by 16 July 2014 and thus must have been recorded prior to that date. The court is also referring this application to the examining magistrate to this end.

Requests rejected

Interview of witnesses S07, S17, S27, S32

The court notes that these witnesses have already made a statement to the JIT. Unlike X48, these witnesses have not stated that they were at the launch site identified by the Public Prosecution Service. Nor have these witnesses made statements regarding the personal involvement of the accused. Lacking further substantiation as to why further questioning of these witnesses is material to conducting a proper defence, not least given that the Public Prosecution Service has now stated that they need not be interviewed in the cases against the other accused, who are suspected of committing the same offences, these applications have been rejected.

Compilation of recordings of interview of M58

Witness M58 was interviewed several times by the examining magistrate in October 2019 in the absence of the Public Prosecution Service and the defence. The interviews in question are recorded audiovisually. For that reason, the M58s appearance was obscured.

Upon request, the Public Prosecution Service explained the utility of its request that the relevant parts of the recorded interviews of M58 conducted by the examining magistrate be compiled, entered in the case file and played in court, by noting that it was not known whether M58 could be examined in court, and that the right of the accused to examine the witness therefore needed to be addressed. The Public Prosecution Service pointed out that entering the interview footage in the case file and playing it at the hearing should be seen as compensatory measures that may help satisfy the right to examine the witness. The Public Prosecution Service also argues that showing the footage in court would render the proceedings comprehensible to the public.

Even after additional substantiation by the Public Prosecution Service, the necessity for, and in line with that the prosecutorial interest, of entering a compilation of the footage concerned to the case file and presenting that compilation at the hearing is still not sufficiently clear to the court. The fact that the defence has not supported this request and has therefore not endorsed the utility of (showing) this compilation as a compensating measure in the interest of the accused has also been taken into account by the court. In addition, M58 will be interviewed again by the examining magistrate, on which occasion the defence will also be able to question to the witness in a manner to be determined by the examining magistrate. The court does not consider that presenting footage from sections of interviews of a witness whose appearance has been obscured and voice distorted is necessary in the interests of rendering the trial more comprehensible to the public, as important as that is, and does not appear to be in the prosecutorial interest either.

The court therefore rejects this request, noting that any similar request made later with additional substantiation will be assessed anew.

The official report of the interview of V11

The council chamber of this court granted the appeal by the accused against the examining magistrates decision pursuant to Section 226a DCCP assigning V11 the status of protected witness (hereinafter the decision on status) and rejected the prosecutors application for status to nonetheless be granted, in short, because erroneously the application was not made specifically with respect to the case of the named suspect, he was not given the opportunity to express his views on the matter either in advance or after the fact, and this error could no longer be remedied, given that the official record of the interview of V11 had already been provided to the Public Prosecution Service. Although not hearing the views of a suspect on the matter of granting a status to a witness is unavoidable in cases were a witness is interviewed in a case where no suspects have yet been identified yet (a case against a person or persons unknown), in the case of V11 the suspect had been identified by the time the Public Prosecutor requested that the examining magistrate designate him/her as a threatened witness. The request to grant this witness the status of threatened witness should therefore have been filed with respect to the case against the named accused and not in a case against a person of persons unknown, so that the accused would be given the opportunity to express his views on designating this witness as a threatened witness.

The legal consequence of the error ascertained is specifically prescribed by law in Section 226b (3) DCCP. This paragraph states that if an appeal against an order given for granting status is deemed well-founded, and the examining magistrate has already interviewed the witness, the examining magistrate shall ensure that the official record of the interview is destroyed. In such a case, the statement does not appear in the case file, and the statement therefore cannot be used as evidence.

In the present case however, the witness's statement is already in the case file. This happened because the granting of status seemed irrevocable, given that it had been (wrongly, as it was later established) applied for and granted on the basis of a case against a person or persons unknown and not in the name of the accused. Contrary to the defence, the court, in its capacity as the court hearing the case, sees no legal means of doing what the examining magistrate is instructed to do in the aforementioned Section. The court does not have the discretion to remove, let alone destroy, documents from the case file. It will, however, determine that the statement by V11 to the examining magistrate and, moreover, all underlying anonymised statements by V11 to the police and all other documents, insofar as they relate to (statements of) V11 are excluded from the evidence. The objective pursued in Article 226b(3) DCCP, namely to prevent the statement(s) from being used as evidence, will thus be achieved. That the court has already had sight of the statements is unfortunate but not insurmountable. It is not unusual and is even inherent in the opportunity to exclude evidence that the court has taken cognizance of documents it may not subsequently include in its considerations.

Decision on the requests made by counsel for the relatives

Counsel for the relatives has requested a (digital) copy of the additional documents. The court sees no ground to provide all additional documents in the case file, nor does it see grounds to take cognizance of the witness interviews conducted by the examining magistrate that have been added. In the view of the court, the interest of the relatives in these documents has not been properly substantiated, not least in light of the documents already provided. The court does see the utility of providing the additions to the summarising reports, as these will provide counsel for the relatives with an understanding of which documents have been added to the file and will enable counsel to submit a properly substantiated request for those documents, if desired. To that end, the court will also provide a copy of the indices currently in the case file, naturally insofar as these have not previously been provided. In addition, the court considers that it has been sufficiently substantiated that counsel for the relatives has an interest in receiving a copy of the documents relating to the transfer of the criminal proceedings from Ukraine to the Netherlands, inter alia in light of the jurisdictional issues that may come into play in the assessment of the claims that the aggrieved parties are likely to lodge. The court will ensure that counsel for the relatives receives a copy of Primo-13940 and the underlying documents linked to it. All these items are provided subject to the conditions and restrictions set out in the courts decision of 23 March 2020.

Planning ahead

Matter to be addressed during the upcoming hearing block from August through November 2020

This hearing block will be followed by another one, running from 31 August 2020. There will be three successive two-week periods, each separated by a two or three-week interval.

In the court decision of 23 March 2020, the court set out a number of questions regarding possible claims for compensation by the relatives. These questions have been partially and provisionally answered by the Public Prosecution Service. Counsel for the relatives has announced that it will have a response ready in early September.

The court intends to use the hearing block starting on 31 August 2020 to discuss the views of counsel for the relatives, the defence and the Public Prosecution Service and to take decisions if necessary, in order that counsel for the relatives may submit claims for compensation if desired.

In addition to the defence, counsel for the relatives, and the relatives represented by that counsel, the courts decisions may be relevant to relatives or other victims who are considering claiming compensation independently.

The court would also like to raise the matter of the point in time by which claims for compensation must be filed. The court proposes that the substantive discussion of those claims be preceded by a round of written submissions, in which the defence and the Public Prosecution Service put questions or respond to the claims as necessary. Counsel for the relatives could then respond to that in turn. Such preparation will render the discussion of those claims later on in the trial more efficient.

Furthermore, on 31 August 2020, the progress made by the defence in framing its additional requests for investigation will be discussed, both the requests that the defence can formulate without consulting its client, but also those requests which are contingent on such consultation. The defence has requested to be allowed two non-overlapping eight-week periods to formulate these requests for investigation. The court will accommodate this to some degree.

The court requests that the defence ensure that its other requests for investigation are submitted during the hearing period that begins on 28 September 2020. This gives the defence nearly three months to prepare from today. The court wishes to be apprised no later than during the hearing period that begins on 2 November 2020 of investigation requests the defence can formulate only after meeting with the accused.

The court expects that by then there will have been sufficient opportunity to establish contact between the defence and the accused. The court also assumes that the defence and the accused will use the opportunities available to meet in person. One possibility might be to meet outside the country in which the accused resides. It seems to the court that, if permission from any authority is required, such travel might be qualified as essential travel for the accused in light of his interests as an accused person.

Dates earmarked for hearings in 2021

The court has reserved the following weeks in the courtroom schedule for 2021:

-
weeks 5 and 6 (February 1 through 12)

-
weeks 9 through 12 (March 1 through 26)

-
week 15 (April 15 and 16)

-
week 16 (April 21 and 22)

-
week 20 (May 20 and 21)

-
week 21 (26 through 28 May)

-
week 23 (7 through 11 June)

-
week 24 (17 and 18 June)

-
week 25 (21 through 25 June)

-
week 26 (1 and 2 July)

-
week 27 (5-9 July)

-
weeks 36 through 38 (6 through 24 September)

-
weeks 44 through 46 (1 through 19 November)

Weeks 23 and 24 have been added to the list which the court announced at the hearing of 26 June 2020. Furthermore, not all weeks are available in full. This has been specified in the list.

Based on the above, the accused may be summoned for the hearing periods that begin on 15 April 2021 (through 28 May 2021); 7 June 2021 (through 9 July 2021), 6 September 2021 (through 24 September) and 1 November 2021 (period through 19 November 2021).

Hearing on the merits

With regard to the matter raised by the court of how the hearing on the merits of the case might be structured, the presiding judge will discuss it further with the defence and the Public Prosecution Service. The matter is more suitable for discussion other than in a public hearing, given that it largely concerns organising and arranging the proceedings.

The Decision

The court grants the following requests for investigation made by the defence and applications made by the Public Prosecution Service and refers the matters in the case against the accused to the examining magistrate entrusted with criminal matters in this court:

1. to appoint an expert to conduct further investigation into:

possible indications that footage has been manipulated in the two versions included in the case file of the same video of the BUK-TELAR in Snizhne (No. 2c)

the assertion that the version of the same video referred to by the Russian Federation must already have been uploaded on 16 July 2014 and must therefore have been recorded prior to that (No. 2c)

2. to appoint an expert from [company] to respond to the NLR and RMA reports regarding calculation of a launch area/the launch site

3. to interview the following witnesses/experts in a manner deemed appropriate by the examining magistrate and in a sequence to be determined by the examining magistrate and in timeframes to be determined by the examining magistrate (if applicable, after receipt from the defence of a report by the person accompanying them to inspect the wreckage of MH17):

M58 (No. 35)

X48

Primo 17-496 (No. 61), Primo 17-495 (No. 62), Primo 17-511 (No. 63), Primo 17-512 (No. 64)

[name 2] (on operating a BUK missile (range, impact detonation, and with respect to what is known as the error scenario and the human-shield scenario)) (No. 14)

G9081 (on the operation of a BUK missile (impact detonation and with respect to what is known as the error scenario and the human shield scenario) (No. 50)

aforementioned expert from [company] (on the operation of a BUK missile (impact detonation and with respect to what is known as the error scenario and the human shield scenario), on the extent to which the damage pattern observed on the wreckage of MH17 indicates the use of a BUK missile, on the calculation of the launch area/launch site)

[name 7] (on the extent to which the damage pattern observed on the wreckage of the MH17 indicates the use of a BUK missile, on the calculation of the launch area/launch site) (No. 21)

[name 4] and/or [name 5] and/or [name 6] (on the extent to which the damage pattern observed on the wreckage of the MH17 indicates the use of a BUK missile, on the calculation of the launch area/launch site) (Nos. 22, 23 and 24)

4. to investigate the possibilities and conditions under which the satellite images of a (BUK) missile launched on 17 July 2014 from a location approximately 6 kilometres south of Snizhne, which are apparently available to the (authorities of the) United States of America, may be made available to the court and, if appropriate, actually to request them

5. to request the reports already drafted by [company] on (the launch site of) the BUK missile, if the Public Prosecution Service does not obtain these from the RMA or NLR and, if necessary, to have them translated into English

6. as well as, where appropriate, to take a decision regarding:

a. translation into Russian of documents contained in the case file

b. translation into Dutch of non-Dutch documents contained in the case file

c. a request of the public prosecutor to grant authorisation to refuse the defence access to documents not included in the case file.

The court entrusts the documents to the examining magistrate to carry out the aforementioned and to perform whatever tasks the examining magistrate deems necessary for the purpose of, or further to, the aforementioned.

The court orders the Public Prosecution Service to:

7. request the RMA and/or the NLR for the reports of [company] available to them regarding (the launch site of) the BUK missile and, if necessary, to have them translated into English; these reports must be provided to the examining magistrate

8. enquire of the DSB as to the name and capacity of the investigators who examined the CVR

9. facilitate an inspection of the reconstructed aircraft in [place 6] by the defence, assisted by a third party they have deemed competent.

The court considers it highly desirable that the Public Prosecutor's Office:

10. group the files in the media file of the case file, so as to render the media file more user-friendly, for example by grouping the files contained therein thematically aligned on the structure of the case file.

The court entrusts the documents to the examining magistrate to carry out the aforementioned.

The court grants the request of the counsel for the MH17 relatives for a copy of the additions to the summarising reports, the indexes in the case file, as well as of Primo-13940 and the underlying documents linked to therein.

The court rejects the request of:

1the defence, that the following be interviewed:
a. [witness 3] (No. 18)

b. persons from the SASE responsible for producing NOTAMs (No. 52)

c. persons from the Ukrainian aviation authority responsible for informing the separatists about the NOTAMs (No 53)

d. the representative of the Russian Ministry of Defence who was involved in providing the missile administrative records to JIT and has knowledge thereof (No. 55)

e. officials who conducted the investigation into the dismissal of prosecutors in Ukraine (No 57)

f. the investigating officer in charge of the investigation into the death of [witness 1] (No. 58)

g. Primo 17-311, insofar as the interview would concern calculation of the launch site (No. 60)

h. [witness 2] (No. 83)

2. the defence, that the Public Prosecution Service be ordered to give the defence the opportunity to have the CVR examined in a more technical manner, in particular to ascertain whether the CVR received by the DSB on 22 July 2014 was entirely intact and unaltered (known as a 'verification investigation ') (No. 1b)

3. the defence, that the examining magistrate be instructed to enquire of NATO whether on 17 July 2014, around the time that flight MH17 crashed, any observations and/or recordings were made by AWACS aircraft in the area of eastern Ukraine and, if so, to request that those observations and recordings be provided (No 4)

4. the defence, for an index stating which court documents are relevant by sub-subject (No. 9)

5. the defence, for a chronological report of the investigative actions conducted, revealing when and which investigative actions were conducted and which investigative powers were used in the course of the investigation (No. 11)

6. the defence, for an index or a summary listing which documents are in the investigation file (and providing a brief description of a document, if this is not apparent from its name) (No. 12)

7. the defence, for a Dutch translation of the original reports/official records of witness interviews not conducted in Dutch, to be done by a certified interpreter (i.e. from the language in which the interview was originally conducted; not from the English translation or a version thereof) (No. 13)

8. the defence, for a translation into Russian of the parts of the case file referred to in the letter of 24 April 2020 (No. 14)

9. the defence, that the Public Prosecutor's Office be ordered to provide a copy of the radar data from the radars in [place 1], [place 2], [place 3], [place 4] and [place 5] (the court understands: [place 5]) from the investigation file, and that the Public Prosecutor's Office draft a report on what is known about that information

10. the defence, to order the Public Prosecutor's Office to include the audio recordings of the ATC, the telephone communications between Ukrainian air traffic control (ATC Dnipropetrovsk) and Russian air traffic control (ATC Rostov), and the radio communication between Ukrainian air traffic control (ATC Dnipropetrovsk) and civil aviation (Nos. 2 and 16) in the case file (given that the Public Prosecution Service has now promised to add that file to the case file)

11. the defence, that the Public Prosecution Service be ordered to add the original audio file of the CVR of flight MH17 to the case file (given that the defence will now be given the opportunity by the Public Prosecution Service to listen to a copy of it)

12. the Public Prosecution Service, that the examining magistrate be instructed to make a compilation of the video recordings of the examining magistrates interviews of M58

13. the Public Prosecution Service, that the following be interviewed:

a. S07

b. S17

c. S21

d. S27

e. S32

14) counsel for the relatives, that they be provided with a copy of the outstanding recent supplements to the case file and be given access to the recently added interviews conducted by the examining magistrate.

The court postpones its decision regarding:

1The request of the defencethat the following witnesses be interviewed:
[witness 4] (No. 1)

[witness 5] (No. 2)

[witness 6] (No. 3)

[witness 7] (No. 4)

[witness 8] (No. 5)

[witness 9] (No. 6)

[G8150] (No. 7)

[witness 10] (No. 8)

[witness 11] (No. 9)

[witness 12] (No. 10)

[witness 13] (No. 11)

[witness 14] (No. 12)

[witness 15] (No. 13)

[witness 16] (No. 15)

[witness 17] (No. 16)

[name 1] (No. 19)

[witness 18] (No. 20)

[name 8] (No. 25)

[witness 19] (No. 26)

[witness 20] (No. 27)

[witness 21] (No. 28)

[witness 22] (No. 29)

[witness 23] (No. 30)

[witness 24] (No. 31)

[witness 25] (No. 32)

[witness 26] (No. 33)

[witness 27] (No. 34)

S09 (No. 36)

S14 (No. 37)

S21 (No. 38)

V54 (No. 39)

S03 (No. 40)

S27 (No. 41)

S36 (No. 42)

V44 (No. 43)

A26 (No. 44)

N4 (No. 45)

029 (No. 46)

S34 (No. 47)

S10 (No. 48)

S11 (No. 49)

Primo-17-311 (No. 60), insofar as related to interpretation of the flight plans of the Ukrainian air force and insofar as related to his official report Primo-10618

the author of the manual containing the technical description of 9M38M1-series missiles (No. 51)

the head of the SBU Incident Response Centre in Kiev (No. 54)

persons present during the recovery operations (No. 56)

reporting officer from Primo-12501 (No. 59)

Primo 17-841 (No. 65)

Primo 17-843 (No. 66)

Primo 17-844 (No. 67)

Primo 17-149 (No. 68)

Primo 17-275 (No. 69)

Primo 17-170, 177 or 078 (No. 70)

Primo 17-147 (No. 71)

Primo 17-399 (No. 72)

Primo 17-181 (No. 73)

Primo 17-407 (No. 74)

Primo 17-352 (No. 75)

Primo 17-309 (No. 76)

Primo 17-230 (No. 77)

experts on the impact point in the case of a direct strike, the damage that may be expected in such circumstances and experts who compare all this information with the damage pattern known in this case (No. 78)

[witness 28] (No. 79)

the interpreters who translated those intercepted conversations that are the most relevant to the accused from Russian to English (No. 80)

the interpreters who, according to reporting officers, recognised the voice of the accused (No. 81)

[witness 29] (No. 84)

[witness 30] (No. 85)

[witness 31] (No. 86)

[witness 32] (No. 87)

[witness 33] (No. 88)

[witness 34] (No. 89)

[witness 35] (No. 90)

[witness 36] (No. 91)

[witness 37] (No. 92)

[witness 38] (No. 93)

[witness 39] (No. 94)

[witness 40] (No. 95)

[witness 41] (No. 96)

[witness 42] (No. 97)

[witness 43] (No. 98)

[witness 44] (No. 99)

[witness 45] (No. 100)

[witness 46] (No. 101)

[witness 47] (No. 102)

[witness 48] (No. 103)

expert D21 (No. 104)

[witness 49] (No. 105)

the Russian air traffic controller who was in contact with his Ukrainian counterpart around the time that the MH17 crashed.

2. The application by the Public Prosecution Service for the court to visit the air base in [place 6] to inspect the reconstruction of the aircraft.

This interlocutory decision was rendered by

Judge H. Steenhuis, presiding,

Judges D.A.C. Koster and C.I.H. Kerstens-Fockens,

in the presence of

J.L.D. Timmermans, M. Sepmeijer-Kovacevic and R.A. Hopman, clerks,

and delivered at a public hearing of this court on 3 July 2020.

1Numbering (where included) refers to the memorandum of oral arguments by the defence and Annex 1 enclosed (overview list).

2Memorandum of oral arguments 1 of 9, Introduction & road map, para. 8.

3Memorandum of oral arguments 1 of 9, Introduction & road map, para. 10.

4Memorandum of oral arguments 1 of 9, Introduction & road map, paras 78 and 79.

5Memorandum of oral arguments 2 of 9, Warplane scenario, presence of fighter jet(s), para. 10.

6Memorandum of oral arguments 3 of 9, Warplane scenario, presence of fighter jet(s), paras. 29, 30 and 31.

7Numbering (where included) refers to the submissions and applications of the Public Prosecution Service of 10 March 2020.

8Cf. Supreme Court, 16 March 2010, ECLI:NL:HR:2010:BK3359, Supreme Court, 1 July 2014, ECLI:NL:HR:2014:1496, Supreme Court, 4 July 2017, ECLI:NL:HR:2017:1015

9ECtHR, 15 December 2015, No. 9154/10.

10The court understands that RMA, NLR and TNO refer to three press conferences held by [company], namely on 2 June 2015, 13 October 2015 and 26 or 28 September 2016. It is not clear to the court whether there are reports regarding the calculations presented during the press conferences. In 26DLRPRIMO-05604, Annex 8, TNO mentions two English translations of presentations or reports of [company] dated 29 July 2015 and 6 August 2015. In its report of 10 January 2010, at footnote 5, the RMA mentions a report dated 11 September 2015, which it seems to associate with the presentation by [company] at one of stated press conferences.

11Explanatory Memorandum, Parliamentary Papers II 2002/03, 28 634 (R 1727), No. 3. p.25.