Dutch Court Announces Completion of Preliminary MH17 Proceedings

In the Netherlands, they report the completion of pre-trial proceedings in the case of MH17, which was shot down in the skies over the Donbas in July 2014. Soon the 7th anniversary of that drama will come, and for all these years both the investigation and now the trial only gained momentum as a farce, without answering a number of key questions. For example, the investigation did not comment on its own photo with a fragment of a surface-to-air missile, which, on the basis of documentary evidence, has been in the arsenal of one of the air defense units of the Armed Forces in recent years.

According to Dutch media, the court completed preliminary paperwork after examining the so-called layout of the Boeing wreckage. The layout itself looks strange, since when collecting the fragments of the airliner, the Dutch side refused to deliver some to the Netherlands for unclear reasons.

The wreck is welded to the frame at the Gilse en Reyen military base.

At the same time, the examination of the "layout" took minimal time. Within a few minutes, the Dutch judges examined the same frame. For this, they were even offered a special lift.

Court spokesman:

This made it possible to better understand the damage.

The president of the court noted that "now the judges will concentrate on analysis and comments." Moreover, the concentration, judging by the statements of the chairman of the court, will take much longer than the examination of the aircraft wreckage continued. The results of the inspection are planned to be presented only on June 7.

The press service of the court added that the examination, which was carried out by the judges, will allow them to form their own idea of ​​the nature of the damage. And this despite the fact that most of the Boeing fragments are missing.

Comments

[NF68]

The cards were juggled. Let's see what happens. They are not stupid in Malaysia either. Yes, and in Russia, it is quite possible, too, something is waiting in the wings.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: NF68

They are not stupid in Malaysia either. Yes, and in Russia, it is quite possible, too, something is waiting in the wings.

There were no tantrums from Malaysia towards Russia, that's for sure. And from us I hope there will be no stupid rash calculations like "a picture of a Ukrainian fighter from a satellite."

[xorek]

Quote: NF68

The cards were juggled. Let's see what happens. They are not stupid in Malaysia either. Yes, and in Russia, it is quite possible, too, something is waiting in the wings.

Both sides are waiting for suitable political conditions, but for now hints, incomprehensible accusations .. Politics, damn it .. And people died.
PS If Russia were guilty, I think all the cards would be laid out at once .. We will wait until we take Kiev, then maybe it will become clear

[out of habit]

When are you going to take Kiev, and why?

[xorek]

Quote: out of habit

When are you going to take Kiev, and why?

Not I, but the Ukrainians themselves, must cleanse it of Bandera and other horses of goat herders ..

[Andrei Nikolaevich]

Ukrainians have a great life, under any government and with any master. Would have been "Galya in the garden, but the pig at the little corner" Well, payments for housing and communal services, at least. Mentality, sir.

[Stepan S]

Quote: Andrey Nikolaevich

Well, payments for housing and communal services, at least.

Judging by the tickets and the satisfied smiles of the Ukrainians, the prices of housing and communal services are strangely disturbing to them.

[Maikcg]

Do they need it? They are happy with everything if you look at the last 30 years.

[Vladimir Mashkov]

We examined it in a quick way, now they will concentrate ... Ugh, scoundrels! After all everything is clear to everyone long ago that the plane was shot down by velikokry!

[Clear]

Quote: out of habit

When are you going to take Kiev

On the way back from Brussels.

Quote: out of habit

and for what?

Let's give Donbass.

[out of habit]

Let's give Donbass.
I think this is the last thing they want in Donbass.
And who are you talking about when you say "give"?

[Clear]

Quote: out of habit

I think this is the last thing they want in Donbass.

I do not think

Quote: out of habit

And who are you talking about when you say "give"?

Definitely not about the European Union and not the Anglo-Saxons

[novel66]

lady, how will we pass by on the way to Brussels

[Clear]

Quote: novel xnumx

lady, how will we pass by on the way to Brussels

Well, hello Roma of course through NATO's Achilles heel - the Suwalki Corridor of Horror.

[Ruslan Sulima]

Let's give Donbass.

In the wrong steppe, Clear, in the wrong steppe.

[Clear]

Quote: Ruslan Sulima

Let's give Donbass.

In the wrong steppe, Clear, in the wrong steppe.

Of course, it is terribly difficult to portray joy in
gift. Especially when the giver understands this ...

[Ruslan Sulima]

Yes, I'm not talking about that) This is where the error in your reasoning is:

of course through NATO's Achilles heel - the Suwalki Corridor of Horror.

Until a coup has already passed through the corridors, along the gateways, in Kiev, they admit defeat to the DPR / LPR, we will have to introduce our commandant's office.
What kind of gift is it then?)

[Clear]

Quote: Ruslan Sulima

What kind of gift is it then?)

Well, we don't need her either
Maybe Poland will take it? Talk, you're closer there.

[Ruslan Sulima]

Talk, you're closer there.

Well, don't be cunning, it's still closer from Kaliningrad, the Republics have no direct border with Poland)
Although, judging by the historical facts, she would not have refused. After the proposed scenario, who will give?
If I had my way, I would give a piece to the Hungarians. Only because of the memories of the service at the KCHF. He was a good friend, somewhere from the Vinogradovo district ...
Eh, how many years have not seen each other ...)

[isv000]

Provocateur ...

[ecolog]

is not a fact. why spread it right away? you can blackmail, they say, if anything, then wow.
It does not fit logically - why did we do it? Not why. (maximum oversight). But ukram and especially their curators (with their centuries-old experience of setting them up - they blew up their cruisers, and here the Cheburekovsky litak) is very even.

[Tusv]

Quote: NF68

The cards were juggled. Let's see what happens. They are not stupid in Malaysia either. Yes, and in Russia, it is quite possible, too, something is waiting in the wings.

What cards? It’s not the fault of Ukraine. Even if the Russian air defense is shot down, it is simply not subject to jurisdiction. A huge pepelats flies in the direction of the border, all civilian corridor, at mark B-52, the distance from the border is scanty, voice commands and his stranger does not answer. What will the air defense of the Russian Federation do? Shoot down, but not Buk. The deletion is too big. Shot down Donbass, military actions are also not subject to jurisdiction. What for then this hysteria?
For example, I think that we shot down a South Korean Boeing in accordance with all the rules of air border protection. Well, that's how they taught us. Navigation lost, follow us. No blame yourself

[Victor_B]

Personally, has Putin finally been appointed the official culprit?

[tihonmarine]

Quote: Victor_B

Personally, has Putin finally been appointed the official culprit?

To be afraid, what if Putin has a second such missile. And when the judges fly to Fashington, who knows what they can, and where to fly from.

[Clear]

Quote: tihonmarine

And when the judges fly to Fashington

Flights are unsafe now. Who does not believe, ask Lukashenka

[tihonmarine]

Quote: Clear

Flights are unsafe now. Who does not believe, ask Lukashenka

And why should Lukashenka ask, and so everyone knows that Ukraine has already shot down two passenger planes.

[Serg koma]

Also, Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Boshirov did not appear. So Putin is in line.

[DMoroz]

New meme. Major Boshirov visited Comrade Major Petrov ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ici25YuQpIk

[SERGE ANT]

Within a few minutes, the Dutch judges examined the same frame.

The fact that this action would not look like a farce was clear already seven years ago.

[prior]

Now the Netherlands has turned up to throw a petrol on the fire of Russophobia before the meeting of the presidents.
The European representatives are right in the crowd with their slander.
In the queue ... in the queue. They will receive all theirs in due time.

[paul3390]

On the feijoa, the judges are there to examine something in order to form their own opinion? Are they experts in this field? To assess at a glance what happened? It always seemed to me - that the court should rely on the conclusions of specialists in the technical part, shouldn't it?

[Snail N9]

The whole accusation, in fact, is based on radio interception, where one person says that the guys from there allegedly filled up another transporter. This is recognized in the West as irrefutable proof. Any other evidence of the guilt of others from the opposite camp is simply brushed aside.

[Victorio]

Quote: Snail N9

The whole accusation is, in fact, based on the radio interception, where one person says that the guys from there allegedly overwhelmed another transporter. This is recognized in the West as irrefutable proof. Any other evidence of the guilt of others from the opposite camp is simply brushed aside.

===
probably also on "killer" photos from the Internet

[Motorist]

Quote: Snail N9

The whole accusation, in fact, is based on radio interception, where one person says that the guys from there allegedly filled up another transporter.

You are probably confusing: there was a conversation the other day for "drying" ("I fell for Yenakiyevo"). After providing the complete record, Bezler ceased to be an accused (suspect?).

Or am I confusing ...

[Clear]

Quote: paul3390

It always seemed to me - that the court should rely on the conclusions of experts in the technical part, shouldn't it?

Yes. And besides this:

[Avior]

If they don’t look at the wreckage, you will write - how are they going to judge, they didn’t even look at the wreckage, but did they start to judge?

[Thrifty]

They did it quickly and half a century has not passed! Although, this is only a preliminary investigation, which means that they will still find time to pull the heart for genetics .

[Cron]

7th anniversary coming soon

By the decade they will declare that Russia is to blame, no evidence will be shown. They will say that they were obtained on secret equipment, the characteristics of which they will not disclose. So that Russia cannot study them and then shoot down passenger planes with impunity. Well, you get the idea ...

[123456789]

Everything secret will become apparent, nothing will be left without retaliation.
- Quidquid late apparebit, Nil inultum remanebit.

[Xlor]

Even before the investigation began, I knew that this plane was shot down by Petrov and Boshirov ... Or maybe Putin personally!

[Alexander Kopychev]

Are the judges as "experts" as I am? Well, how can a completely ignorant person understand anything here? Surely they were showing them with a laser pointer - pay attention ... Only in the video this is not.

[BABAY22]

What is there to watch at all?
Here, look - a hole! From the rocket, probably ...
Itit-pound, you have a bunch of expertise there - all you need to do is answer the question - who shot.

[Doliva63]

Quote: BABAY22

What is there to watch at all?
Here, look - a hole! From the rocket, probably ...
Itit-pound, you have a bunch of expertise there - all you need to do is answer the question - who shot.

No, it is not the court, but the experts who should answer the question "who shot". The court must answer the question "guilty or not". As for the Dutch, of course, they do not know, but it seems that what is happening has little to do with legal proceedings.

[Clear]

Quote: BABAY22

What is there to watch at all?
Here, look - a hole! From the rocket, probably ...
Itit-pound, you have a bunch of expertise there - all you need to do is answer the question - who shot.

So according to the report of the Dutch Security Council, from September 2014, the cause of the catastrophe was "structural destruction caused by external influences."
Where have they come in seven years?

[GRIGORIY76]

I still didn't get it. Did they take our evidence into account?
I mean a satellite photo of an airplane attacking a Boeing, a dispatcher's testimony and an air force major's testimony, who saw an airplane with an air-to-air missile.

[Normal]

Quote: GRIGORIY76

I mean a satellite photo of a plane attacking a Boeing

You really didn't get it.

[rocket757]

The press service of the court added that the examination, which was carried out by the judges, will allow them to form their own idea of ​​the nature of the damage. And this despite the fact that most of the Boeing fragments are missing

... And what about the judges, experts in such a complex matter as an examination of damages ???

[Gunther]

"Now the judges will concentrate on analysis and comments"

- your last word, defendant!
- ten thousand greens!
-the court is removed to the meeting! ......
But seriously, it is necessary to summon these "judges" to the Bassmanny Court of Moscow - in order to establish their competence, suddenly it (competence) is thinner than that of Judge Khakhaleva.
however, having fixed the international priority over the national one in the Russian Constitution, the regime should relax and have "pleasure."

[Normal]

Quote: Gunter

in the Constitution of Russia priority

There is no priority of "international over national" in the Constitution of the Russian Federation

[Avior]

Article 15.4

4. The universally recognized principles and norms of international law and international treaties of the Russian Federation are an integral part of its legal system. If the international treaty of the Russian Federation establishes other rules than those provided for by law, the rules of the international treaty are applied.

[Normal]

Avior-y
In the text you cited, there is no priority (even there is no such word) of the principles and norms of international law over the legal system of the Russian Federation, because they are just part of, Not a priority, but an integral part. The part cannot be more important than the whole.

If an international treaty of the Russian Federation establishes other rules

IF.

This only means that if we signed (we signed it of our own free will, right?) an international treaty, then only then will it become an integral part of our legal system and we are obliged to abide by what we have signed. BUT if We did not sign it, then the "priority" of an international treaty over the law of the Russian Federation disappears, like common sense in the heresy of E Fedorov.
Understand what is written literally, and not in the demagogic interpretation of a charlatan.

[Avior]

you read inattentively.
not some abstract "international treaty", but specifically

international treaty of the Russian Federation

which means that the Russian Federation signed it and, if necessary, ratified it, or recognized it in some other agreed form, for example, officially notified the body or party stipulated in the treaty about joining an already existing multilateral international treaty.
It is clear that an international treaty between West Bandustan and East Bandustan is not an "international treaty of the Russian Federation" if it has not signed it or officially announced its accession to it in the way specified in the treaty and has nothing to do with Article 15.

If other rules are established by an international treaty of the Russian Federation than those provided by law, the rules of the international treaty shall apply.

this is literally the priority of an international treaty of the Russian Federation over national legislation. As for the fact that the word "priority" is not there, I think you yourself understand that this is not serious, the content of this priority is disclosed there - "the rules of an international treaty are applied."

there is no priority of "international over national"

maybe you don't quite understand the word priority?

advantage; predominant, overriding value of something

Priority or lack thereof varies from country to country.
in the States, for example, the priority of international laws over the US Constitution and laws is not stipulated, only their equality is indicated

This constitution and the laws of the United States that will be enacted to implement it, as well as all tracts concluded by the United States, must be the supreme law of the country, and the judges of each state must obey them.

[Normal]

No.
This is you, either inattentively read, or deliberately distort the meaning of paragraph 4 of Chapter 15 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation
Leave the mentor tone, you are not the light of science, and I am not a first year student, and do not pour water as in this paragraph -

Quote: Avior

not some .............................................. ......................... does not.

Trust me, I can swim.
I understand correctly the meaning of the word priority - not Newton's binomial.
But you, apparently, do not understand the meaning of the word "if", which, as you know, expresses the condition of fulfillment, existence.

Quote: Avior

the priority of international laws over the US Constitution and laws is not specified, only their equality is indicated

Well. Compare

all treatisesimprisoned by the United States must be supreme law country

(no equality, no condition of existence and direct subordination -
"the judges of each state must obey them")

Quote: Avior

If other rules are established by an international treaty of the Russian Federation than those provided by law, the rules of the international treaty shall apply.

Almost complete semantic coincidence is obvious.

Read what is written line by line, verbatim and understand literally

[Avior]

I understand literally, and you are pulling words out of context.
international treaty of the Russian Federation and how it differs from just an abstract international treaty - have we figured it out?
Now with the word "if" taken out of context by you.
The text directly and in detail indicates the essence and content of the priority - if an international treaty specifies otherwise than in domestic laws, the treaty is executed.
Do you understand exactly the meaning of the word priority? Since it is precisely in this proposal that it is described in detail.
Regarding the American Constitution, you either read it inattentively or simply took it out of context again.
In fact, it is written there unambiguously

as well as all the treatises concluded by the United States

Maybe you understand the word "equal" in some other way? How can you have a semantic coincidence in positions opposite in meaning?
The American Constitution clearly and unambiguously enshrines the equality of the Constitution and the laws of the United States and the international treaties of the United States.
However, perhaps you are simply confusing US and state laws?
This is not the same thing at all.

[Gunther]

Normal, Avior answered in essence, strictly according to the text, without twisting the charlatan - if, according to an international treaty, Russia, for example, recognizes the jurisdiction of The Hague, then a bolt will be hammered into a decision, for example, by the Russian Armed Forces. and the decision of The Hague was adopted, this is the priority.
In this sense, I recommend that you familiarize yourself with the Federal Law of June 7, 2007 N 99-FZ "On the ratification of the Agreement between the states parties to the North Atlantic Treaty and other states participating in the Partnership for Peace program", on the status of their Forces dated June 19, 1995 and its Additional Protocol ".
Maybe then something will come)))

[Gunther]

Yes, Normal, if "clip thinking", and you need a picture.
picture:
a certain rower on galleys visited Crimea, the Sumerians in anger file an application with the international court - anyway, a certain rower on galleys entered our territory without a visa, please write an arrest warrant ...
an arrest warrant has been issued and now Russia, in accordance with the Supreme Law of Russia, takes a rower on galleys under the white handles and sends Miloshovich to the vacated cell.
treat with understanding .....

[Normal]

Not really. My colleague Avior has not proved anything to me, except that he is either sincerely mistaken or deliberately demagogic.
I have been familiar with the law you specified for a long time. I will answer with a fragment from the Constitution of the Russian Federation

If international treaty of the Russian Federation ...

What does it mean: - Signed? Get it out. BUT if if you don’t want to do it, (there was nothing to sign and ratify) - denounce it. Exit the contract. "The" priority of "international law" does not prevent this, oddly enough.

Quote: Gunter

a galley rower

A certain rower on galleys, in accordance with international law (it's a shame, right?), Has diplomatic, and in accordance with the Supreme Law of Russia, legal, and in general almost absolute immunity. So Milosevic's cell remains free in sadness and anguish. In any case, for now, and specifically on this matter.
And don't watch the clips.
Read books, laws, the Constitution of the Russian Federation.

[Gunther]

Quote: Normal

in the galleys A certain rower in the galleys in accordance with international law (insulting, huh?) possesses diplomatic, and in accordance with the Supreme Law of Russia, legal, and indeed almost absolute immunity.

I see a problem with logic is not your most serious problem.
in accordance with the recognition (in accordance with an international treaty) of a decision, for example, of the Hague Tribunal, a bolt will be hammered into the Russian Constitution and immunity, and Miloshovich's cell will acquire a prisoner.
this is the priority - the application of an international treaty to the detriment of the national one, clinging to the absence of the word "priority" means not understanding the meaning behind the letters, such a pharisaism.
well, if they are "familiar" with the Federal Law of June 7, 2007 N 99-FZ "On the ratification of the Agreement between the states parties to the North Atlantic Treaty and other states participating in the Partnership for Peace" program, on the status of their Forces dated June 19, 1995 year and the Additional Protocol to it, "we should know that Russia cannot withdraw from it without the consent of the United States.
such things, learn the mathematical part))))
further discussion I suppose meaningless, health happiness, hold on there.

[Normal]

Quote: Gunter

the problem with logic is not your most serious problem

Of course, especially since I, unlike you, have no problems with logic.

Quote: Gunter

such as the Hague Tribunal

Check out the status, objectives and powers of the Hague Tribunal.
Or specify what exactly you mean by the term "The Hague Tribunal"

Quote: Gunter

that Russia cannot get out of it without the consent of the United States.

Hand face.....
And this person is still writing to me

Quote: Gunter

learn the mathematical part)))

Read.

AGREEMENT
between states parties to the North Atlantic Treaty
and other states participating in the program
"Partnership for Peace", on the status of their Powers

Article VI

This Agreement may be denounced by any Party to this Agreement by sending a written notice of denunciation. To the Government of the United States of America, which shall notify all signatory States of this Agreement of each such notification. Denunciation shall take effect one year after such notification is received .............

And that's all.

Quote: Gunter

further discussion I think is meaningless

Don't try to look smarter than you really are.
In simple terms, this is called a plum in the bazaar.
Be there .... there.

[Avior]

I think you're exaggerating.
International courts do not deal with such cases, it is not within their competence.

[Normal]

PS
Minus not mine

[Avior]

PS Plus mine :)))

[Avior]

It's funny. Someone put you a few minuses just because you disagree with me on the merits, you did not abuse the minus. Some representatives of the local group of miners just punched the bottom in all their zeal :)))

[Normal]

Quote: Avior

Funny.

I have been on the site for a very long time and found the times when it was much worse. We have openly agreed and in a coordinated manner have eliminated all the posts of an objectionable commentator for the entire time. The minus victim received skulls for the "epaulet" and was limited in the number of comments.
Now this is impossible, but the need for disgusting pleasure from some not good people has not gone anywhere.
Do not attach too much importance to minuses under your posts. If I see that they are missing out on a massive scale and, in my opinion, not deservedly, I try to compensate in spite of the discrepancy between the points of view and the minus one.

About the context.
I am pointing out a key point of context and do not reproduce the entire text just for brevity reasons.
I believe that the supporters of E. Fedorov's theory of occupation and the priority of the international over the national are deliberately silent about key words and concepts, which is much worse.
My conclusions do not contradict the context, and the suppression of key words distorts its meaning and essence.

About what you said.
It is boring for me to repeat to you what has already been written.
You repeat what I have already disputed and in no way prove that I am wrong.
It is not me who is confusing, it is you who are trying to confuse me.
Not work out.
I do not see your good will to understand the obvious, and I am not going to bang my head against the wall.
I see no point in spreading a dispute over a dozen posts. If two posts are not enough to understand the obvious things, then further controversy is unproductive.

All the best.

[Avior]

... I believe that supporters of E Fedorov's theory of occupation and the priority of the international over the national are deliberately silent about key words and concepts, which is much worse.

What does it have to do with theories? I don’t know what you’re writing about and what kind of theory Fedorov has.
You simply choose words from the context that match your beliefs.
In any case, domestic legislation is consistent with those international agreements that the state has recognized, otherwise there is no sense in agreements.
The only question is the procedure - either the legislator makes changes when signing the contract and is controlled by the authorized court, or, if there are doubts that the legislator is able to foresee everything, the priority of an international treaty in which the country participates is directly indicated.
Occupation has nothing to do with it, joining the treaty is a voluntary act of the state.
In my opinion, you simply did not initially take into account the difference in terms of an international treaty and an international treaty of the Russian Federation.

[ABC-schutze]

Just in case, "experts" in international law. Russia concludes treaties with the LEGAL authorities of the country. And the legitimate authorities of the former united Ukraine, represented by its President (Yanukovych) or the head of government (Azarov), overthrown by the Kiev coup d'état, never accused Russia of crashing the Malaysian Boeing. And the international legal "weight" of the Kiev coup d'état for Russia is "zero". This time. Well, and the second ... "The new edition of Article 125, clause 5.1.b gives the Constitutional Court of Russia the following powers:" in the manner prescribed by federal constitutional law, [the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation] resolves the issue of the possibility of executing decisions of interstate bodies adopted on on the basis of the provisions of international treaties of the Russian Federation in their interpretation, contrary to the Constitution of the Russian Federation, as well as on the possibility of executing a decision of a foreign or international (interstate) court, a foreign or international arbitration court (arbitration) imposing obligations on the Russian Federation, if this decision contradicts the foundations of the public order of the Russian Federation "".

[Vladimir Vladimirovich Vorontsov]

***
- And who are the judges? - For antiquity
In everything, their enmity towards Russia is irreconcilable,
Judgments are drawn from Western newspapers
Obama's times before the return of Crimea ...
***

[DmSol]

A difficult case for the court. You have to diligently ignore inconvenient facts in order to come to an already made decision.

[Narak-zempo]

Quote: DmSol

A difficult case for the court. You have to diligently ignore inconvenient facts in order to come to an already made decision.

For European judges, this is a piece of cake.
They have been savvy in this since the time of the Reichstag arson process.

[APASUS]

How can one even draw conclusions on the trajectory of the scattering of debris, destroying the forces on the fuselage, during a disaster without involving the aircraft manufacturer Boeing at all. Namely, this information is not available anywhere, so the cause of the destruction was determined by eye?
Well, in Holland, they are super specialists, I'll tell you

[Narak-zempo]

Damn, it's time to close the case for the prescription.

[NF68]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Quote: NF68

They are not stupid in Malaysia either. Yes, and in Russia, it is quite possible, too, something is waiting in the wings.

There were no tantrums from Malaysia towards Russia, that's for sure. And from us I hope there will be no stupid rash calculations like "a picture of a Ukrainian fighter from a satellite."

The fact of the matter is that in Malaysia they may disagree with the results of the investigation. And this is a completely different matter. A lot of uncomfortable questions will surely arise and Malaysia will have to answer these questions.