The identities of thirteen witnesses in the MH17 case will remain confidential. According to the examining magistrate, these witnesses are entitled to protection because they may feel threatened or could be in danger. The Public Prosecution Service states there are "significant risks for the witnesses."
Little has been disclosed about the status of these âanonymous witnessesâ so far. It is unclear whether they still live or reside in Ukraine or Russia, or if they have been relocated elsewhere with Dutch assistance. Their testimonies are essential for the evidence against the current four suspects, and possibly for future new suspects as well.
It is also unclear whether they enjoy the same protection as âcrown witnessesâ in regular (major) Dutch criminal cases. Such witnesses sometimes receive (substantial) financial compensation for lost income or damages, or even a new identity and protection.
Notably, most witnesses who receive protection were only heard in 2019. This was done by a Dutch examining magistrate (âinvestigating judgeâ). Their statements were recorded on video, with the witnesses not recognizable on screen. The three Dutch prosecutors (âthe prosecutionâ) and defense lawyers of the suspects (âthe defenseâ) were not present at these interviews.
For one witness, the request to keep their identity secret was rejected by the court. The examining magistrate believes this witness could feel threatened by their testimony, but practically it would be impossible to guarantee that witnessâs anonymity. What exactly this means or involves is not yet clear. It is also unknown whether that single witness will still have to appear in court.
The three prosecutors have asked the court to compile a âsummaryâ of the video interview of witness M58. This witness recently revealed his own identity but is still treated as an anonymous witness in the trial. According to the prosecutors, this suspect was present during the launching of the BUK missile and saw and spoke with several Russian officials.
The prosecutors also want to further question five other anonymous witnesses. This can be done anonymously again by an examining magistrate if the prosecutors and lawyers submit questions in writing beforehand. This could help make a larger portion of the underlying evidence public. It can also partially counter the accusation that much of the evidence is anonymous and therefore could be considered âsuspicious.â
The seven lawyers representing the next of kin have also argued in court that a greater portion of the evidence should be made public. This would allow grieving family members to gain better insight into what exactly happened on that fatal date of July 17, 2014.
The Public Prosecution Service further wants the MH17 court at Schiphol to view the reconstructed replica of the downed Malaysian plane. The wreckage of the plane shot down in eastern Ukraine was transported to the Netherlands in 2015 for the JIT investigation and is now half-reconstructed in a hangar at the Gilze-Rijen airbase.
The three prosecutors proposed this âsite visitâ on the second day of the trial against the four suspects. According to the prosecutors, it is important for the judges to form âa complete picture of the damageâ with their own eyes. The Public Prosecution Service wants the court to decide soon whether the site visit will take place. It could possibly be held in June, when the second part of the trial begins. A third session block is scheduled for early September, and a third phase for February next year.