was responsible and had the authority to somehow influence the course of events, the court decided that it is expedient to first determine the specific role of the accused in the downing of the plane, and after it is determined whether the accused is guilty or an accomplice in committing the crime of substance, considers the issue of functional complicity. thus, the court analyzed events in accordance with this general structure, kachenko

e ordered his e-e subordinates e to move the installation to a location near pervomaisky, after that information was provided that it was successful the installation was used and after it was used, the installation was moved by order of dubinsky, accordingly, the question of the participation of these defendants in the launch of the book missile that shot down the mh17 is being considered, because it was noted by kyshchenko in the e-e personally e-e was responsible for the

movement of the artillery installation, he is considered an accomplice to this crime, in addition, he is also de facto responsible for the criminal action of his subordinates and from the launch of the rocket, he was not only responsible for the movement of the installation, but he also gave orders to his team to move this installation to the field in question and then move it from there. thus, the court assesses rolchenkov as the role of the person responsible

for the commission of the crime, tvinskyi organized the movement of the installation to the place and security, he also gave orders to the people who operated it, the court believes that it was absolutely is a key issue in the commission of the crime, therefore, it cannot be considered only complicity - it also corresponds to the responsibility

for moving the installation after its use, and with what judges 1:2 of the panel of judges agree at the operational level, the accused girkin was the highest military leader of the formation of the dpr , accordingly, he was responsible for the hostilities carried out by the so-called dnr, in addition, he was in contact with moscow regarding hostilities to capture parts of the territory of ukraine, the only possible purpose of obtaining installations of

e-e installations, such as the installation for launching the hm buk missile, was to use this base in the armed conflict with ukraine, and as a result, there were corresponding consequences. thus it is very likely, but the evidence does not show that gorkym personally knew that the sword 17 planes would be shot down before it happened, so he is not an accomplice in the traditional sense of the word, but of course he was informed about how the fighting was going on, he gave orders and he was generally

responsible for combat operations, however, at the same time, he did not give the order to launch the rocket personally, and as a combat leader, girkin, according to his position as the so-called minister of defense, who was recorded as being higher than the other two accused, had the authority to stop this decision, in addition, according to the intercepted conversations, gorkhin would give the necessary orders in order to later move the installation to the territory of russia again after the launch of the missile, in addition, the armed conflict as a method of realizing the goals of the dnr was actually

partly the responsibility of gorkhin himself, because of which and there was a downing of a plane and a slide, of course he was aware that an armed conflict would lead to the loss of lives, this also applies to the use of anti-aircraft weapons in order to shoot down the plane, although the case files do not contain evidence that the gorkys were aware of the presence of the buk missile launcher at the time of their use. girkin himself, by virtue of his position, should have been aware of such a

possibility, he also m -m in his position er submitted to his supervisors er a request for such a weapon and he did nothing to stop it , moreover girkin actively participated in operations in er this supply corridor instead of condemning the use of er he actively uses this weapon took part in the concealment of the crime, therefore the court considers it proven that girkin had control over the use of the device and he should have been aware of the consequences of such use. thus , girkin is a functional accomplice and this

accordingly leads to the same conclusion regarding the previous defendants that the prosecution in complicity in the crime are considered to be proven in a lawful manner and beyond any doubt the accused ward was in that region had people under his care and it was his job the court believes that it was important in order to strengthen the position of the dpr in donbass bulatov as a coordinator had an important position and role in that in that part of donbas, the interception of the conversations just quoted

if analyzed together that the tasks of the e-e included the number of tanks and the location of the launch system buku dubinsky told palatov that kharchenko would bring the e-e system to pilatov and bulatov would place it in a position before dubinsky and kharchenko had similar instructions, saying that it was necessary to bring the system to pervomayskyi and to accompany her, the file shows that kharchenko, after receiving instructions from dubinsky, began to move with the system, where he agreed to meet with the

ward, the conversation was overheard, it shows that at lunch on july 17, 2013, there was a conversation, a meeting between kharchenko and pilatov kharchenko came there with the system, but the file is not shows what happened, it is clear that, after these meetings, kharchenko simply continued to carry out the instructions received from dubinsky , so the court cannot fully conclude that kharchenko continued to go to pervomaisky for by the instructions of the pilot - because he was given these instructions by dubinskaya, it is clear that palatov did not stop kharchenka from continuing to carry out the order of

palatov after the meeting. this not er not made contact did not have any serious effect on the instructions or we cannot determine this connection between the paid in our opinion is speculative and does not show that platov is the main figure, it

is also clear that palatov was not near the launch site at the time of the shot. the court does not consider it proven that platov individually made any contribution, so i cannot consider him an accomplice like dubinsky and kharchenko. this leaves the question of whether palatov is a suspect , how can he be qualified in this context, the court believes that it was determined that the suspect ward verbally spoke about the location of the letter system kinetically, besides this, there is no evidence that platov

e-e did not agree to the arrival of the letter system that it will be used in the operation, therefore the court believes that the charge regarding other requirements regarding the control of the beech system, the court believes that the chamber received specific instructions from dubinsky to stay close to pervomaysky to supervise the beech system, but as we have already said, the order to accompany the system to pervomaysky had already been given by dubinsky to kharchenko as well, and kharchenko

fulfilled them he accompanied transport from donetsk to pervomaiskyi and he agreed on security there. there is no evidence that bulatov's involvement could have influenced and there is also no evidence that his involvement could have influenced the launch of the missile. give orders to kharchenko, there is no evidence that the fee should have changed what dubinsky gave the order, this does not put him above dubinsky, the court comes

to the conclusion that there is no evidence that the fee is a certain contribution to the system's toppling, therefore he does not bear criminal responsibility and the conclusion what what the chamber needs to be acquitted platov's defense made a conditional request for an investigation and some of the requests in this judgment are considered separately and the court also considers in the context of this decision that these requests are not relevant according to

exemption from criminal responsibility . thus, they refuse them as far as ekin dubinsky and kharchenko are concerned, they are theirs, she is proven, respectively, on two or more accusations related to causing the downing of the plane, and this in particular, uh, also uh, guilt for committing murder, this is criminal the crimes for which gorkym dubinskaya and kharchenko

are responsible, so i want to go to the comments on compensation, the court received 306 requests for compensation from relatives 304 were submitted by the council of relatives which concerned exclusively moral compensation and in two cases a request was also submitted for material compensation for, in particular, the loss of a laptop and for lost tickets in accordance with the release of a paid person from criminal liability, he is not responsible for

such compensations in the e-e, despite the fact that the e-e accused are not present at the e-e meeting, the decision may be announced in their absence, such issues of compensation must be considered in accordance with ukrainian legislation in accordance with ukrainian civil law in 2014, the relatives of the deceased have the right to compensation according to the dutch civil law , such non-pecuniary damages are recognized only after 2019, according to the court in the case of the hill on kharchenko and the dubinsky hill such er requests for compensation are invalid according to ukrainian

legislation because girkin dubinskyi kharchenko is guilty of both of them, again the accusations er revealed to me what exactly works er of the accused, they were found guilty and led to moral the suffering of the victims, as for the amount of damages, they can be calculated in accordance with ukrainian legislation, in accordance with ukrainian legislation, and the moral and material damages of the relatives of the deceased can be paid . belongs to those relatives who are e-e parents adoptive parents children

adopted children husbands wives e-e and other close relatives of the victims brothers and sisters who did not live with the victims cannot be recipients of compensation july 17, 2014 suffered and faced the situation of the death of one or more loved ones as a result of the mh17 plane crash during the last years, these people had to live with the fact that they knew to the end how the situation happened and after the plane was shot down at the beginning they did not know what happened and the information

they received received by the court shows what role the deceased played in their families in their communities in e-e and how much they are missed by those from whose lives they unfortunately left comments from relatives about this loss and its consequences are many victims suffer from er depression from post-traumatic stress disorder and why increased attention to the situation from the media also contributed to this, in addition, studies show that the need for er reburial

of the remains or the absence of machines e-e relatives e-e can cause greater stress and the court also believes that there are other circumstances that could complicate this situation for e-e relatives because the e-e plane crash site was inaccessible not only to e-e relatives but also to e-emergency workers services, because it was a combat zone, the bodies of the victims remained for days, weeks or even months at the place of the plane crash, and all this caused enormous stress to the relatives, who could only helplessly wait and hope that the bodies would be returned to them e-e and e-e property of their

loved ones and this delay in the search for the body also caused delayed mourning in some cases relatives could only return not e-e only small fragments of the bodies of the deceased in two cases e-e body fragments were not found at all the justification of the requests of the relatives also includes the point that a long trial also increases their sense of grief, they also made several negative statements regarding the disaster itself , all these aspects should be included when considering

compensation, when considering the case on the merits, the court found that the damage caused was qualitative justified, and the court first found that arbitrary specific amounts of funds, that is, the calculation corresponds to the practice of ukrainian legislation. thus, the court considers that moral compensation is not unreasonable or unjust, therefore the court does not agree that this compensation should be considered according to the dutch legislation e-e, which came into force in 2019, and

instead it is considered according to ukrainian legislation. the court does not apply the exclusion of partners to sexual partners according to ukrainian legislation, because it constitutes discrimination according to ukrainian civil legislation, as in accordance with irish civil legislation, brothers and sisters who did not live and who died cannot receive compensation and for e-e independent reason the council relatives did not submit any statements of this nature, the court notes that many brothers and sisters felt that this was an unfair exclusion and that it

underestimated their moral suffering, it was very obvious that the brothers and sisters and their lives also changed on them, a significant influence was exerted because of this catastrophe not only because they lost a loved one but because they played a much bigger role that they took on with love but forced to take care of the children of their dead brothers and sisters or in relation to joint parents, respectively, the court supports the request of the relatives to include in the assessment of the future act of emotional damage, the statements of relatives declared brothers and sisters who did not live with the deceased, relatives who submitted

documents for compensation who did not they comply with ukrainian legislation requests for material compensation cannot be granted comply with the rules this means that they are guilty of committing a crime hyrkin kharchenko and dubinskyi must pay compensation to the victims the court intends to issue a separate warrant for compensation for of each such request regarding the sentence

, first of all, the court declares that there may have been others involved in this situation who were not directly responsible, but still had part of the responsibility for the movement and use of the installation of letters, accordingly, the court is convinced that all who were involved in this decision are at least morally responsible for such a decision for the decision to use a weapon which by its very nature is extremely destructive it is this destruction that led to the deaths of 298 people

on board the plane instantly without warning, their lives were cruelly cut short at that moment, these people were deprived of their lives and their future, the comments of relatives only confirmed that the victims still had a lot of potential in the future, that they had a long life and these chances for the future were cruelly cut off, and that too greatly affected the lives of their relatives, relatives commented on how much their lives changed after the plane crash