How can the four suspects who have been indicted for the MH17 disaster be prosecuted honestly if they do not rise up days? How can they defend themselves in the courtroom?

Probably they cannot defend themselves.Whether the process is fair is also the question. The choice of these four suspects is remarkable.

Indeed, they are not the soldiers who have pressed the buttons.Probably these four are the ones who ordered to launch the rocket, assuming they ordered to shoot on a military device.

The fact that there was fighting in eastern Ukraine, however, knew everyone.The question of why the airspace was at all accessible to civil aviation remains so unanswered. This responsibility (the closure of the airspace) was with the pro-Europe Government of Ukraine and the Dutch aviation authorities.

The negligence is in my opinion mainly in this.Not in a few soldiers who, however bad the disaster is, have clearly mistaken. It does not affect the Russians or separatists who are not on the pro-EU side.

The whole affair is very similar to the incident with the USS Vincennes, who fired an Iranian Airbus A300 with passengers on July 3, 1988, because they saw the aircraft for an Iranian F14.The US, through the International Court of Justice, ‘ expressed their deep regret ‘ and paid 61.8 million dollars to compensate the families of the victims.

The commander of the American ship was never sued for firing that rocket.In 1990 he was even distinguished.

Would the three Russian military and Ukrainian who have been indicted to defend themselves, do you think?Do they have to be present? Or would a lawyer do that for them?

If I decide not to come on the canton for days because I am letting my fines run, and the judge condemns me, was this a false condemnation because I did not come on for days?That would be very useful, isn’t it?

It Is good to see that someone has such a passion for honesty in the justice system, that he even wants to defend suspects of the murder of 298 passengers against legal injustice.But rest assured, people can be fully prosecuted in absention.

A better question would be, that if they do not come on, how can we make sure that, if convicted, they are out of their punishment?After all, the punishment cannot be performed without the help of the Russians, which obviously does not come. The JIT also knows that this help is not coming. So I think this indictment serves two other functions:

  1. The accused will no longer be free to leave Russia without risk of being arrested.

This is a scant substitute for imprisonment, but it’s something;

  • The JIT communicates with this how much Intel was collected about the attack on the MH17.
  • Seemingly we know enough to designate individual soldiers. This gives Russian claims of innocence even less legitimacy on the international scene than they already had.

    In spite of the fact that the culprits will not actually be their punishment, one can still condemn the accused in absention.It will argue the complicity of Russian soldiers, a lawyer will argue against the evidence of it, after which an independent court will speak out about the involvement of the military in the attack on the MH17. In addition, this indictment serves as a way to get closure for surviving relatives.

    Were the Americans who once shot the Iranian passenger aircraft ever tried?American beasts who have murdered dozens of Iraqi civilians have received amnesty from the American president. No, a fair trial is not in place.

    Leave a Reply