Back

Press release of the Russian Embassy in the Netherlands

Press release of the Russian Embassy in the Netherlands

On the MH17 trial

 

In connection with the trial on the crash of flight MH17 on July 17, 2014 in the airspace of Ukraine which started in the District Court of the Hague, we would like to express once again a principled assessment of these developments.

The Russian Federation is not a party to the case. At the same time, Russia, while remaining fully committed to the letter and spirit of the UN Security Council resolution 2166, has consistently advocated and advocates for a comprehensive, thorough and independent investigation, as well as for a just punishment of those who are responsible for this tragedy. To this end, our country has provided and continues to provide all necessary cooperation to the international investigation through legal assistance channels.

At the same time, we cannot help but pay attention to the fact that the media in the Netherlands is fanning an accusatory campaign against Russia and its citizens. This, obviously, has been done in order to fill in the existing gaps in the evidence base and to strive towards the confirmation of the determined version of the alleged involvement of the Russian Federation in the tragedy.

To amplify the desired effect, references to witnesses whose names are classified, indications of the sources that cannot be disclosed or, on the contrary, are found in the social media and cannot be verified for authenticity have been made. At the same time, however, the issue of Ukraine's non-closure of its airspace for civil aviation flights in the context of an internal armed conflict in the summer of 2014 has been hushed up. A significant amount of information and data about the circumstances of the incident transmitted by Russia has been ignored so far. The investigators are not interested in why all the prosecution officials who had been investigating the crash were dismissed in the Ukraine exactly on the eve of the trial’s opening.

All this once again gives us reason to doubt objectivity, impartiality and transparency of the Joint Investigation Team’s work, in the activity of which we were denied the opportunity to participate.

We do not wish to prejudge the court's decisions. We hope that it will consider impartially all the available information and not only the arguments articulated by the prosecution in the course of the adversarial proceedings.