will it still take? How much time should we take into account? Do you expect to
ever present to the world how many people, and of what nationality, you
formally suspect of shooting down flight MH17? (between now and 5 years?).
It is a known fact that the investigation is taking place under difficult
circumstances. This is mainly because it had to be carried out in a conflict zone,
and the conflict still continues, which makes it difficult to identify the
whereabouts of potential witnesses or suspects. It is impossible to make an
estimate of the time that is still needed for the investigation; it also depends on
the circumstances and developments in the area in question.

Recently the Malaysian Prime Minister said that the investigation will be
concluded at the end of the year. In Australia there were such messages as well.
Now you are saying that it will still take considerable time. Do you believe there
is good communication between the JIT-countries?
Late May there was a message on an Australian news site which suggested that
Malaysia and Russia would be setting up their own joint investigation, separate
from the JIT. This message was incorrect.
Malaysia has assured us that just like the other JIT members it is fully committed
to the JIT. Malaysia has expressly requested not to give credence to reports in the
media that suggest the opposite. The JIT countries are in close contact with each
other to recognise such disinformation timely and to refute it.

You are giving a brief presentation, but you do not publish a report which shows and
explains all the evidence, like the Dutch Safety Board (OVV) did. So how can you expect
the world and Russia in particular to consider the results reliable? They cannot read
them and verify them.
Criminal investigations never result in reports that are published. The purpose of a
criminal investigation is to build up a case which ultimately can be presented in court to
allow the judge to render his decision. Because of the large global impact of this case, we
have decided to present a provisional state of affairs to the relatives and the public. In
this presentation we tell you – where possible – what evidence we have collected so far.
This evidence will lead to conclusions of which we are convinced that they will stand in
court.

The JIT claims to have looked at all the scenarios with an open mind, but soon drew the
conclusion that the most likely scenario was that flight MH17 had been shot down by a
BUK missile. Then, how open-mindedly can you investigate other scenarios as well? Did
you not only investigate the other scenarios in order to be able to exclude them?
All scenarios were investigated with the same open mind on probability and provability.
This is necessary since they may be addressed in a future trial

The mobile radar that recorded these images was a standalone test setup and
did not belong to the known network of radar stations of which images had been
requested earlier. As a result, for quite some time it was not known that this
radar existed, that it was functioning at the time of the crash of flight MH17 and
had recorded images that are relevant to the investigation.

The images provided by Ukraine are processed data. Why didn’t they provide
raw data; is it possible that these processed data have been manipulated?
Radar data are automatically processed by the system. Without this processing, a
type of filter that creates legible images, the data are useless. Most systems do
not save the underlying raw data, partly because of the size of those files.

Earlier, the Prosecution (OM) said that they did not need any more radar/satellite
images. Why is that? After all, isn’t this important evidence?
The available radar data (raw secondary and processed primary) offer sufficient
information about the air traffic at the time of the crash. Raw primary radar data could
potentially provide more information about a missile trajectory. The JIT does not have
these data yet, but has requested these data from both Russia and Ukraine. Ukraine has
indicated that no primary radar data were recorded, while Russia made it known that at
the time, raw primary data were recorded, but not saved.
Today during the presentation it was announced that the JIT has gathered sufficient
information in order to determine the launch location.
With regard to the satellite images: the JIT does not have images of the launching of the
missile. Because of clouds no usable images are available.
The U.S. authorities have shared data from their own security services with the
Prosecution. For the time being, this information is confidential, although it may be used
in the investigation.

Why does the Prosecution not want to request the Dutch government to put pressure
on Russia and Ukraine to make those images available?
Where necessary, the Prosecution requested the Dutch government for support and in
certain cases this support was actually provided, e.g. during diplomatic consultations the
government drew the attention of other states to follow-up on pending requests for legal
assistance.

Are these images available to the relatives?
The radar images have been included in the OVV investigation and therefore they are
available to everyone

17 July 2014 was a cloudy day, so what can examination of satellite images such as those
from ESA add to the investigation?
It is true that clouds have a negative effect on the ability to take pictures, but there are
also commercial satellites that are not that much affected by clouds. Moreover, the JIT
was not only interested in images of 17 July 2014, but also of the days before and after.
Relation with Russia

Are you in touch with the Russian authorities and those in Eastern Ukraine with regard
to the investigation? And are they helpful in tracing potential witnesses and other
people involved?
By way of different requests for legal assistance, the Prosecution has requested the
Russian Federation for information relating to the investigation.
Sending such requests to the self-proclaimed governments in Eastern Ukraine is not
possible, since the Dutch authorities do not recognise these governments.

What kind of information did you receive from Russia? How do you know whether this
information is reliable?
In principle, everything we receive in reaction to our requests is confidential so we
cannot comment on the exact contents of the information obtained from Russia.
Information provided by this country is checked in the same way as information from
other countries and assessed on its usefulness for the criminal investigation.
Like many other countries, Russia, in a general sense, has been asked to provide all
information relevant to the investigation. In addition we had some more specific
questions which relate, among others, to the underlying material of the Russian press
conference on 21 July 2014, to the investigations conducted by Almaz Antey, to the radar
data and to the expertise and reference material concerning relevant weapon systems.
The Russian authorities have answered these questions partially. Just like the
information from other countries, the Russian information is also continually checked
and judged for its usefulness for the criminal investigation.

Russia claims that the Netherlands is biased in the investigation, that the JIT did not
accept Russia’s offer to participate in the investigation and that the JIT does not do
anything with the information supplied by the Russians. Could you please comment on
that?

For reasons of workability, it was decided that the JIT should be kept as small as possible
and that it would be limited to countries with victims and Ukraine, because of the fact
that the incident took place there. Just like other countries who do not form part of the
JIT, we cooperate with Russia on the basis of requests for legal assistance.
Russia claims
that the Netherlands is biased in the investigation and does not do anything with the
information provided by Russia. Why don’t you make use of the technical knowledge

I cannot anticipate on that.

How does the Prosecution judge Bellingcat’s information? As being useful information?
The information from Bellingcat (in so far as not yet already known by the investigation
team) has been secured and examined. The information is useful in the sense that
Belingcat continually shows in a transparent way how they work, step by step.

Why does the Prosecution take a (politically motivated) organisation like Bellingcat
seriously?
Bellingcat carries out an investigation on the basis of public sources, which sources, for
the larger part, are also available to the police. Although many of Bellingcat’s sources
are known to the JIT, it might be interesting for the police to see whether the Bellingcat
report contains new sources that may be useful for the investigation.
Prosecution and trial:

You are focusing on 100 persons, including persons who have escorted the transport.
Why don’t you issue an arrest warrant against these people?
Arrest warrants will only be issued if the JIT is ready. This means that there must be
sufficient evidence for criminal involvement of the persons concerned, that the
whereabouts of the persons have been sufficiently identified, that they may be
extradited and that they will not become aware of the arrest warrants in advance and
hide themselves.

It is not yet clear in what form the trial will take place. This depends on what?
As long as not all the facts have been clarified, it is impossible to make definitive
statements about the judicial framework and associated assessment on the feasibility of
prosecution. The factors which will mainly influence the decision as to where
prosecution will be possible, are the nationality of the alleged perpetrators, their
whereabouts and the specific offences for which sufficient evidence is available.

What are the available options for prosecution? For instance, what is your position on
prosecution in Ukraine?
There are two realistic options for prosecution and trial: national prosecution (meaning
a trial in one of the countries involved, for example Ukraine) and prosecution and trial
by an international tribunal. The Netherlands are working in close consultation with the
other countries involved on the above mentioned two options in anticipation of the
outcome of the criminal investigation. In recent months great progress has been made
in this respect.
What will be the position of the relatives in future proceedings? Will they get access to
the complete criminal file? Can they act as witnesses in future proceedings? Will they
be able to claim damages or other compensation from the perpetrators in future

Experts from all JIT countries were involved in this investigation, which included
forensic, tactical and digital research. This way, the investigation team collected a large
amount of evidence. Altogether, it indicates that the launch site was located in an
agricultural field near Pervomaiskiy.

Why can’t you demonstrate which type of BUK missile was used? You only mention the
series.
The types within the identified series are virtually identical to each other and therefore,
there is no added value in further differentiating within this range.

In the investigation, the JIT has dismantled BUK missiles and detonated missiles in a
controlled environment. How did the JIT get hold of these missiles?
These missiles and other reference material were made available by Ukraine.

How many witnesses to the launch have you got?
The investigation team has gathered an enormous quantity of evidence regarding the
launch of the missile. The conclusions are based on this evidence which includes witness
statements. For reasons of their safety I cannot say how many witnesses have
contributed.

Shouldn’t the radar of the BUK-TELAR have identified flight MH17 as a civilian aircraft?
This depends on which type of ‘Identification friend-foe’ (IFF) system was used by the
BUK-TELAR when launching the missile. If that system was not able to receive the signal
which was emitted by the transponder of MH17, then the BUK-TELAR would have
considered MH17 to be a foe (enemy). However, it is not yet known which type of IFF
was used when flight MH17 was shot down.

You mentioned that tests with missiles have been performed. What exactly were the
results of those tests?
These tests, called Arena tests, are primarily intended to establish the location of the
launch site of the BUK missile. This location can already be identified with certainty
based on all other evidence, but because of the importance of this determination it was
decided to perform these Arena tests for the purpose of gathering additional evidence.
These tests have been carried out successfully and provided data which need to be
analysed further. The final report can be used as evidence in the courtroom.
Perpetrators

You specify that you are only looking at a group of pro-Russian fighters who were
involved in the organisation of the arrival of the BUK, so you have no idea about the
crew of the BUK and possible persons involved in Russia, although the latter must be
those who were really responsible. How is it possible that, after two years of
investigation, the Prosecution still has not been able to identify all of them?

used in this particular case depends on the results of the investigation, among others.
Ukraine has similar arrangements.

In the media there has been much talk about Strelkov who allegedly was jointly
responsible for the attack. In their response to a request for legal assistance, the
Russians answered that he was interviewed as a witness. What did he testify about?
Any information about whether or not persons were interviewed as witnesses is
confidential. Public announcements about this matter could jeopardise the persons who
have been heard and could harm the investigation.

Have you requested the RF to allow other witnesses to be heard and if not, why not?
Persons whose testimonies may contribute to the investigation will possibly be heard. If
cooperation of another state is needed in that respect, we will request that cooperation.

Just now it was announced that this afternoon a number of intercepted telephone
conversations would be published on the website of the JIT, requesting information
regarding certain participants to those conversations. Are they considered to be
suspects in the investigation?
The JIT wants to establish who they are and what was their exact role. This information
might contribute to identify those responsible for the downing of MH17. It is still too
early to qualify the exact role of those persons.
Possible questions (also) for Ukraine at the press conference (for a part these are questions for the
Ukrainian government, but journalists will probably not make the distinction):

Is Ukraine really an appropriate partner in the JIT? After all, Ukraine is a party to the
conflict during which flight MH17 was shot down and Russia pointed out that Ukraine is
guilty of the attack. How can Ukraine participate in an independent investigation?
All members of the investigation team are aware that one of them, Ukraine, itself is a
party to the conflict in which flight MH17 was shot down. This issue has already been
discussed during the first meeting with the Ukrainian authorities themselves, shortly
after the disaster. It became immediately clear that Ukraine, better than anyone else,
understood the importance of a critical international test, i.e. the importance to have
the results of the investigation in their own country critically tested by the other
members of the investigation team, so that the results could not be questioned in an
international context. Thus, the importance to especially carry out such investigation
together. For this reason, a team of Australian and Dutch investigators are permanently
present in Ukraine, in a so-called Field Office. There, they work together with Ukrainian
investigators. Ukraine allows this on the basis of the JIT-agreement. In the Netherlands
the investigation results are validated and verified. In this way, the investigation will
remain critical and independent and it shall lead to reliable and convincing results.

Two victims have not yet been identified. What do you think the chances are that they
may still be identified?
Despite maximum efforts we were unable to identify that last two victims.
Unfortunately, the likelihood of this happening yet must be considered to be very small.

The OVV (Safety Board) has confirmed that around the time of publication of its MH17
report, attempts had been made to hack the OVV. Has the Prosecution already been hit
by hackers (in the build-up to this presentation)? If so, did the hackers succeed in
penetrating the Prosecution website and files?
Given the sensitivity of the investigation, from the outset, the security of information
gathered in the investigation has been our main concern. For safety reasons, we cannot
comment on this subject any further.

You claim that the BUK was brought into Eastern Ukraine from Russian territory, but
you don’t know where. The only evidence you have shown is an intercepted telephone
conversation where someone says that the BUK “has crossed the line”. Isn’t that very
little evidence for such a big accusation?
In criminal cases the full evidence is presented in the courtroom.
Today we only give you some examples of investigation results which contribute to our
conclusions.
Four additional Q&As (23/09/2016):
1.
Almaz-Antey has announced that they have found raw primary radar data and that these will
be made available to the MH17 investigation. Have you also received raw primary radar data from
the Russian Federation?
-
No, we are aware of the reports in the media, but we have not received additional
radar data from the Russian authorities.
-
On (... date) we received data from the Russian authorities. These seem to
originate from Almaz-Antey. The data are still being examined.
2.
What kind of data are you talking about?