Three life sentences in MH17 criminal trial, one acquittal

Three life sentences in MH17 criminal trial, one acquittal

https://nos.nl/collectie/13835/artikel/2452782-drie-keer-levenslang-in-mh17-strafproces-eenmaal-vrijspraak

The District Court of The Hague has sentenced three of the four suspects in the MH17 criminal case to life in prison for their roles in the shooting down of the Malaysia Airlines plane over eastern Ukraine on July 17, 2014. The fourth suspect was acquitted by the court.

Russians Igor Girkin and Sergei Dubinsky and Ukrainian Leonid Khartyenko receive life imprisonment. The charges against the Russian Oleg Pulatov are not considered legally and convincingly proven by the court and he therefore goes free. The prosecution had demanded life in prison against all four defendants.

Girkin, Doebinski and Khartchenko must also pay damages totaling more than 16 million euros to the relatives of the disaster.

Buk missile deployment proven

The court finds proof that the MH17 plane was shot down with a Buk missile from an agricultural field in eastern Ukraine held by pro-Russian rebels. There is an abundance of evidence for this, according to the court, including from found fragments of the missile, photographs, satellite images and witness statements.

At the time of the disaster, Russian-backed rebels were fighting the Ukrainian army in the area. Girkin (51) was the defense minister in rebel Donetsk Republic (DPR). He directed units and maintained contact with Russia. Doebinsky (60) was the head of intelligence in Donetsk. His deputy Pulatov (56) was the coordinator of the rebel group in the area, while Ukrainian Archchenko (50) was commander of the fighting rebels.

Close cooperation

According to the court, the convicts worked closely together to get the Buk missile system from Russia to the rebel-held area and take it down again. They did not push the button themselves, but are still held responsible for the shooting down of flight MH17 by the court because of their directing military role and conscious cooperation for the purpose of shooting down a plane.

The deployment of the Buk system was initiated by Doebinski, the court said. Archchenko was in charge of the transport. Doebinski and Khartshenko are therefore considered co-perpetrators.

Pulatov knew about the deployment and saw the missile beforehand. Yet, according to the judge, there is no evidence that he "himself made any contribution" to the deployment of the Buk. He is therefore acquitted of the charges.

Girkin was the military leader in the Donetsk People's Republic, responsible for building and deploying the military arsenal and fighters, and in that role ultimately responsible. Although it cannot be proven that he knew about the Buk in advance, he thought the deployment was acceptable, according to the court. Therefore, he is considered a "functional perpetrator." Under his authority, aircraft had previously been downed. Moreover, he actively worked to take the Buk back to Russia as soon as possible.

The court does not care whether the intention was specifically to hit MH17, only that a plane was intentionally shot down. Who ultimately ordered the firing of the missile and why, according to the court, cannot be determined.

According to the court, Russia was in full control of the self-proclaimed People's Republic of Donetsk at the time of the incident. The defendants cannot claim immunity under the law of war because both Russia and the separatists deny that the rebels were part of the Russian Federation.

Convicted in absentia

The convicts were not present in court at the Schiphol Judicial Complex during the verdict because Russia does not want to extradite them. So they were convicted in absentia. Only Russian Oleg Pulatov was represented by lawyers, who had also demanded an acquittal for their client. However, there were many relatives and (international) media in the courtroom.

A large amount of footage, tapes, transmitter data, witness statements and expert reports were used to investigate which weapon was used, which route the missile took and where those involved were at what time.

This does not necessarily end the MH17 criminal case. The court's ruling can still be appealed. This must be done within two weeks. In addition, the investigation into others involved in the disaster continues. Numerous proceedings are also ongoing at the European Court of Human Rights, and the Netherlands, together with Australia, has held Russia liable at the International Court of Justice for involvement in the downing of MH17.

The first hearing of the MH17 criminal case was on March 9, 2020. Many bereaved families used their right to speak. For three weeks last year, they told how their lives has been affected by the loss of their loved ones. On top of the grief, some experienced psychological problems, others lost their jobs or their relationships ended.

team
Kötter L'Homme Plasman Lawyers

  Here the highest
possible level of
  legal assistance
      pursued 

December 4, 2025
Advocaat Micha Jonge Vos van Kötter, L’Homme & Plasman Advocaten staat een van de verdachten bij in een Delftse strafzaak waarin het Openbaar Ministerie spreekt van vermeende ‘maffiose incassopraktijken’. Zijn cliënt, Carlo M., zou betrokken zijn geweest bij een poging tot afpersing, maar Jonge Vos betwist de betrouwbaarheid van het door het OM gebruikte bewijs, waaronder zendmastgegevens. De rechtbank doet uitspraak op 17 december.
December 3, 2025
In HLN verscheen een artikel over de ontuchtzaak tegen Marco Borsato, waarin mr. Peter Plasman namens het minderjarige slachtoffer optreedt. Plasman benadrukt dat de verdediging van Borsato probeert af te leiden van de kern van de beschuldiging door randverhalen. De strafrechtadvocaat stelt dat alle bijzaken irrelevant zijn: het gaat enkel om de vraag of Borsato het meisje ongepast heeft aangeraakt. Zijn cliënte vraagt geen celstraf of geld, maar erkenning.
November 24, 2025
Tijdens zittingsdag 6 in de strafzaak tegen ‘Walid’ hebben mr. Simcha Plas en mr. Jordi L’Homme betoogd dat Nederland geen rechtsmacht heeft over de tenlastegelegde mensensmokkel. Volgens de verdediging zijn de feiten volledig in Afrika gepleegd en ontbreekt een concreet aanknopingspunt met Nederland. Ook zou de identiteit van de verdachte niet vaststaan en schiet het bewijs tekort: getuigenverklaringen verschillen sterk en zouden beïnvloed kunnen zijn door sociale media.

Contact form

Please fill in your details in the form below and we will contact you as soon as possible.

EN