MH17: ?

, ! .

» MH17: ? »  MH17 »  JIT: JIT 28 2016

JIT: JIT 28 2016

1 15 15

1 JIT 2016.pdf?dl=0

Questions & Answers presentation 28 September 2016
Results in general

The presentation demonstrates that the criminal investigation has not yet
produced much more than facts already known through the media. Isnt that
The criminal investigation is about collecting conclusive evidence which can be
used in a future trial. Today we will show you that we succeeded in doing so with
regard to the weapon that was used, the route to and from the launch location
and the launch location itself. From there we continue to work on the
investigation into the perpetrators.

You say that you are still confident that the final conclusion of the investigation
will be successful. What is this confidence based on? Isnt it impossible to have
perpetrators who are in Russia or in pro-Russian areas arrested and extradited?
The JIT is already looking at a large group of persons who, one way or another,
seem to have been involved in the shooting down of flight MH17. It is the JITs
task to identify them and to determine what their exact role has been. This is
what we continue to work on with much energy. Eventually it will become clear
where certain persons can be found and what the possibilities are for their
extradition. There is no point in thinking of impossibilities, as was demonstrated
for example by the Lockerbie attack.

What was the intention of the launchers of the BUK? According to experts in
newspaper it was just a stupid accident and the perpetrators did not
have the intention to hit a civilian aircraft. Do you also think this was the case?
It is a possibility, but more investigation is needed to say something substantial
about it.

What are the chances that in the end the perpetrators will not be brought to
justice at all?
I am not going to anticipate on that. We keep on putting all our energy in the
investigation. For this reason, yesterday the agreement with the JIT was
extended again for another year, until January 2018. For the JIT truth finding is
paramount. There is still work to be done.

The investigation has lasted more than two years now and the results are still
limited. There is still no prospect of prosecuting the perpetrators. Recently (on 6
September) the European Council expressed their concern about the lack of
progress in the JIT investigation. Why does it take so long and how much time


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

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


What is the most important evidence that you are still missing?
Disclosure thereof would provide too much information about the state of the
investigation, in particular about the gathering of evidence. For that reason we will not
publicly disclose which information we still need.

Is evidence still being found in Eastern Ukraine, and if so, is it brought to the
During earlier salvation operations we gained contact with local people who still can
provide information about newly found material. Should there be indications that this
material might contain evidence which could be necessary for the investigation, then the
JIT will make an effort to get it shipped to the Netherlands.

What if it proves to be impossible to bring the perpetrators before a court? How can
justice be done to the victims and their relatives? Would it be possible to sue Malaysian
Airlines, or Ukraine? What possibilities do you see?
You are talking about civil proceedings in which relatives can claim damages. The JIT is
not involved in that; we focus on the criminal investigation which is intended to identify
the perpetrators and to prosecute them.

How many Dutch victims were there exactly? In some media they spoke of 192 or 196
and the OVV mentioned 193 victims.
There were 193 Dutch victims. The different numbers were due to double nationalities
and whether or not a certain nationality had been maintained, adopted, registered
properly or if it was known.

2. Radar and satellite images

Recently, you travelled to Moscow to ask again for the radar images, among
others. Have you received them in the meantime?
Earlier, the Russian Federation provided us with video footage of a combination
of processed primary and secondary radar data, while they also indicated that
they do not have any other data. At our insistence they looked at it again, but
that did not lead to any other results.

However, now you did receive radar images from Ukraine. Why did this take so
long? After all, the Ukrainian authorities should have been aware of the
existence of these images recorded by a mobile radar?
It is actually through intensive investigative efforts, including the hearing of
witnesses that we succeeded in making this material form part of the criminal
investigation. That is a fine piece of work.


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 didnt 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, isnt 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

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


How would you assess the statement made by an expert during a parliamentary hearing
saying that it is strange that at that moment in time the Ukrainian radar was not
In Parliament, radar expert Van Genderen showed that he was surprised about this
maintenance, but this was because in their question some members of Parliament had
told him that three radar systems had been out of order for maintenance at the same
time. Such simultaneous service would have been strange indeed, but this was not the
case. The airspace in which flight MH17 was shot down was within reach of a limited
number of civil primary radar systems. Of those three systems, two were out of service
because of the war (destroyed and disabled). The third system was operational and
working, but only the secondary radar was active; the primary radar was subjected to
routine periodic maintenance. Such maintenance is common and prescribed. Also
according to Van Genderen, periodic service is necessary.

Do you have footage of the launch of the missile? Why not? Kerry clearly said that the
attack could be seen on satellite images. Is he wrong?
There are no satellite images in the sense of a video showing a missile that goes up into
the air. However, the U.S. authorities have data available on the basis of which a launch
can be established. In their response to a request for legal assistance, the U.S. authorities
supplied a report regarding the conclusions of an analysis of those data. In principle, this
report can be used in a Dutch court. The conclusion of the U.S. authorities is that flight
MH17 was shot down by an SA-11 surface-to-air missile which was launched from a site
about six kilometres south of Snizhne in Eastern Ukraine. The U.S. authorities also
explained how they arrived at this conclusion. In addition they say that they are sure of
the fact that Ukrainian air defence systems could not have done it and that an air-to-air
scenario is impossible.

Why are the American satellite images a state secret? Cant this state secret be lifted,
now that so much is at stake?
Precisely because of the importance of the case the U.S. provided the Netherlands with
information. Moreover, the National Public Prosecutor for intelligence affairs was given
access to the underlying information to be able to make an assessment of the
information provided. In that way the Prosecution (OM) was allowed to subject this
information to the same type of verification as is common in the Netherlands in other
criminal cases where information from intelligence services is used.

What kind of investigation did ESA exactly conduct for the JIT?
ESA has made an analysis of the images of various types of commercial/civil satellites
that flew over Eastern Ukraine on or around July 17. In this respect, the route and
potential launch sites of the BUK which was used to shoot down flight MH17 were
brought into focus


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 Russias 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

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 dont you make use of the technical knowledge


which is present in the RF regarding this type of weapon systems and missiles? Could
you please give your reaction?
From the outset, the JITs goal has been to collect as much information as possible which
can contribute to truth finding. This includes information from Russia. Just like the
information from other countries, information provided by Russia is checked and judged
for its usefulness for the criminal investigation.
(By the way, Russia has not answered all questions from the requests for legal
assistance, and has not granted permission regarding all information to share that
information outside the setting of the Dutch investigation.)

The Russians have carried out their own calculations and come to a different launch site.
In your presentation you do not address these calculations. Could you explain why,
according to you, the Russian calculations are incorrect?
We did include these calculations in our investigation, but in view of other findings, we
thought they provided insufficient cause for another conclusion about the launch site
than the conclusions that are presented by us today.

The presentation shows that the BUK was supplied by the Russians and that it was
launched from a pro-Russian region. This demonstrates a clear involvement of Russia.
How far does this involvement reach? After all, everything still suggests that Russia is
responsible for launching the BUK that shot down flight MH17? Why cant you confirm
The presentation does not tell who supplied the BUK. The mere fact that the route begins
and ends in Russia is not sufficient to draw conclusions about any possible involvement
of Russia. This matter will be investigated further. It is too early to comment on this
subject just now.

Do you think that eventually Prime Minister Putin was involved? That he was aware of
the situation or that he gave orders?
We have no access to information in that respect.


Bellingcat has come up with twenty persons who might be involved. Is the Prosecution
also investigating those people?
The JIT is investigating a larger group of persons who seem to have been involved, one
way or another, in transporting the BUK and downing flight MH17. It is the task of the
JIT to identify them and to determine their exact role. In order not to play into the
perpetrators hands, we do not comment on the identity of these persons involved.

On several occasions Bellingcat published information demonstrating that according to
them the 53 rd brigade was involved in the downing of flight MH17. Are you investigating
them as well?


I cannot anticipate on that.

How does the Prosecution judge Bellingcats 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
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 Bellingcats 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 dont 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


proceedings? And is that still possible if they have already received compensation for
damages from another party, such as MAS?
This depends on the form in which the trial will take place: the rights of relatives are
different in each legal system. The position of the relatives is a factor that will be
explicitly taken into account when making a choice for a certain prosecution option.

Do you think that Russia will extradite any suspects?
Like many countries, Russia has the rule that it does not extradite its own nationals.
Should any of the subjects have Russian nationality, this rule will certainly limit the
chances of prosecuting these suspects outside Russia. By the way, this also applies to

A comparison is sometimes made with the Lockerbie trial. To what extent is this
comparison valid?
In both cases it concerns an investigation into a complex crime with victims from various
countries and a legal course of action that cannot be determined in advance but which
also depends on the outcome of the investigation, including the nationality of the
suspects and the specific offences for which sufficient evidence is available.
From the outset, the JITs goal has been to conduct a criminal investigation in order to
collect as much information as possible which can contribute to truth finding. This
investigation is still ongoing. At present, there is no full picture yet, but the Prosecution
is hopeful that after the completion of the investigation, there will be sufficient
information for a hearing-ready file, i.e. a file containing evidence regarding the
missile used to bring down flight MH17, the location from where flight MH17 was shot
down and the involvement of different persons.

What if it turns out that it was an accident? That they actually meant to bring down a
military aircraft? Will prosecution still be possible?
If the investigation shows that the perpetrators actually meant to shoot down a military
plane and that flight MH17 was hit by mistake, prosecution will still be possible, but it
will affect the provability of some of the crimes and the possible punishment
Weapon and Launch Site

Why is it so important to establish the location of the launch site?
The determination of that location is important for the assessment of the value of
witness statements and the location can help during further investigations.

You have shown some evidence regarding the launch site. What has been the
conclusive evidence?
The combination of various pieces of evidence has been conclusive. The JIT has carried
out different types of investigation to determine the precise location of the launch site


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 cant you demonstrate which type of BUK missile was used? You only mention the
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

Shouldnt 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.

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?


Up to now, the focus of the investigation has been in particular on the facts surrounding
the cause of the crash, i.e. the weapon that was used and the precise location from
where this weapon was launched. That was a very complicated and consequently time
consuming investigation which took place under difficult conditions. The results of this
investigation are presented today. From now on, the JIT will focus more on those who
were responsible. The JIT is already looking at a large group of persons who, one way or
another, seem to have been involved in the shooting down of flight MH17. It is the JITs
task to identify them and to determine what their exact role has been. This is what we
will continue to work on with much energy.

How do you think you will get more insight in this in the near future? What is needed
for this?
In order not to play into possible perpetrators hands, we will not comment on this. The
fact remains that the JIT is open to insider witnesses, i.e. people who can say more
about the crew and those who were responsible.

You are looking at approximately 100 people. How many of those are possibly involved
and how many are just witnesses?
I cannot anticipate on that; the investigation is still ongoing.

What do you mean by the chain of command which you are investigating?
The persons who were responsible for providing the BUK and who gave their permission
for its deployment.

The BUK was escorted by persons in uniform. What can you tell us about those
persons? Were they wearing Russian uniforms?
The JIT has made inquiries into those uniforms, but based on the results of those
inquiries the investigation team cannot yet draw any definite conclusions about for
instance the nationality and/or position of the persons who were wearing those

You have interviewed witnesses who were able to tell you something about the BUK.
Why arent they considered to be suspects?
The JIT has heard people who were eyewitnesses, who saw the BUK passing by. They are
not suspects. But also people who carried out odd jobs surrounding the delivery and
return of the system are not automatically suspects. After all, it is not always clear
whether these people had any knowledge of what was about to happen.

Are you prepared to close a deal with alleged perpetrators if this means that they will
not be brought before a court?
In various legal systems, including the Dutch, there are, in short, arrangements on the
basis whereof under certain circumstances accused persons may get reduced sentences
if they are prepared to reveal relevant information. Whether this arrangement will be


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.


The cooperation agreement with Ukraine was never made public, why is that? Doesnt
this reinforce the image of mystery?
An agreement to set up a JIT refers to the manner and intensity of cooperation in a
criminal investigation, including conditions relating to the manner in which information
is gathered, shared and used. Such agreements are never made public and such
conditions as well as purpose limitation are common in international criminal
cooperation. This agreement is not public since this concerns a document with
operational work agreements in an ongoing criminal investigation.

Isnt it a coincidence that just before the presentation radar images cropped up? Why
werent they provided earlier? After all, the Ukrainian authorities were aware of the
existence of these images, werent they?
The mobile radar which recorded these images was a standalone test setup and did not
form part of the known network of radar stations from which images were retrieved
earlier. As a result, for a long period of time it was not known that this radar existed,
that it was operational at the time of the crash of flight MH17 and that it had recorded
images that were relevant to the investigation. Thanks to intensive investigation and
the readiness of Ukraine to hear witnesses and air traffic control employees, this
information is now known.

The relatives were very dissatisfied with Porosjenkos response to their letter, which
they thought was not very serious. Why was there no serious answer?
This is a question that cannot be answered by the JIT, since the JITs involvement is
limited to the criminal investigation.

Why did Ukraine not close the airspace over Eastern Ukraine at the time, while in
hindsight, they believe that this would have been a wise decision?
The JIT does not deal with that question, but focuses on the criminal responsibility of
those who were involved in shooting down flight MH17.

Will Ukraine take responsibility for not closing its airspace and will it pay compensation
to the relatives?
This affects the possible civil liability of Ukraine. The JIT only focuses on the criminal
responsibility of those who were involved in downing flight MH17.
Further questions:

What has been found in the Swiss vault of German private detective Josef Resch, which
was opened at the order of the Prosecution? Did it contain the tip that could break the
case in the search for the perpetrators of the shooting down of flight MH17, as stated
by Resch, or is it just a hoax?
In principle, everything that is obtained in response to a request for legal assistance is
confidential, so we cannot comment on the precise contents of the vault.


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 dont know where. The only evidence you have shown is an intercepted telephone
conversation where someone says that the BUK has crossed the line. Isnt 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
Four additional Q&As (23/09/2016):
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.
What kind of data are you talking about?


According to Almaz-Antey, a Russian manufacturer of military equipment including the BUK-
systems, the data involve unprocessed primary radar data. Whether this is true remains to
be established. The data are still being investigated. It is too early yet to confirm this.
What can you see on these radar images?
The data are still being examined, so we cannot give any comments regarding the
information that can be gathered from them.
In the media it is reported that you have urgently requested the Russian authorities to provide
primary radar data. In the past year however, you have also mentioned regularly that the Public
Prosecution Service (OM) has sufficient radar images. Isnt this contradictory?
The OM wants to find the truth and therefore was, and still is, interested in possible
unprocessed primary radar data. This does not affect the fact that during the investigation
so many other radar data have become available, that on the basis thereof we have a
sufficiently complete
picture of the situation in the airspace on 17 July 2014

» MH17: ? »  MH17 »  JIT: JIT 28 2016