On the day the Malaysian passenger plane MH17 was shot down over eastern Ukraine by a Russian BUK missile, on July 17, 2014, at least two BUK missiles were present on the battlefield. In rebel territory, multiple fighting groups reportedly tried to seize a BUK launcher, according to intercepted phone conversations.
Apparently, one BUK caught fire. This became clear Monday afternoon during the MH17 trial from an initial explanation by public prosecutor Ward Ferdinandusse regarding the charges against the four suspects Girkin, Doebinsky, Poelatov, and Kharchenko.
Ferdinandusse will provide a more detailed explanation on Tuesday about the methods of the JIT investigative team and the evidence gathered. The Public Prosecution Service may also then make further statements about that second BUK missile. Yesterday, he did not specify which groups were involved that tried to seize a BUK. But because it concerns an intercepted phone call between two as-yet unidentified pro-Russian rebel commanders, it can be inferred that these are definitely not Ukrainian military units.
The presence of BUK surface-to-air missiles on the battlefield has become relevant because Russian officials initially denied that any BUK was ever fired, and later claimed that if a BUK was involved, it must have been a Ukrainian one.
The international JIT investigation established the route of a BUK system from a Russian barracks to the battlefield in eastern Ukraine, based on photos and witness statements, including the return journey of the launcher to the Russian Federation. That missile was fired at MH17 under the responsibility of the four suspects. Moscow also disputes this.
In a 2014 intercepted phone conversation, there is talk of the arrival of a Russian BUK. For a long time, JIT investigators believed this conversation was about the single MH17 missile. But since the identities of the two sources have not yet been determined, and because the conversation referred to a BUK missile that caught fire for unclear reasons, this element has been excluded from the charges against the current four suspects.
For this reason, the aspects of 'flying over a war zone' and 'unrestricted airspace' have also been deliberately left out of the charges: according to the Dutch Public Prosecution Service, they are not relevant to the evidence against these four suspects. The conduct of KLM or Malaysian Airlines or the Ukrainian aviation authorities may raise very interesting questions for relatives and the public about the cause or circumstances, but that is not relevant to the charges against these four suspects. They are accused of transporting and deploying this weapon; not of another weapon or the actions or omissions of other Ukrainian or Russian authorities or individuals, according to the reasoning of the public prosecutors.