Lugansk separatists allegedly refused to cooperate, Malaysia calls for UN tribunal to clear it up
The Dutch prosecutor’s office announced last weekend that the criminal investigation by police and defense ministry experts into the downing of passenger plane MH17, which began two weeks ago, had been completed. With the OSCE’s help, it said it had once again gained access to the crash site, which is largely controlled by Donetsk People’s Republic separatists.
The main objectives of the investigation had been at the crash site. It was about gathering evidence to prove or disprove the different scenarios about the cause of the crash. Samples had again been taken at various locations and the local mobile radio transmitters and the eastern Ukrainian telephone network had been probed. The data obtained in the process has now been analyzed in the Netherlands.
Heavy reproaches are directed by the Hollander to the "People’s Republic of Luhansk". Their representatives, in talks with the OSCE, had so far refused to allow the technical investigation of mobile phone transmitters and the telephone network in their territory to be carried out. What the experts were looking for was not disclosed.
It is known that shortly after the crash, the Ukrainian secret service SBU had published intercepted telephone conversations, which are supposed to prove the involvement of separatists in the shoot-down. However, the latter declared that the conversations had concerned a downed military aircraft. In March, the International Investigation Team, in a video calling on witnesses in eastern Ukraine to pass on information, had referred to three other allegedly intercepted telephone conversations by separatists, which included.A. About a BUK and a vehicle.
Malaysia, meanwhile, is pushing for the establishment of an international U.N. Tribunal to try the perpetrators in light of the continuing lack of clarity about the shootdown. The demand is apparently also supported by the other countries participating in the Joint Investigation Team: Australia, Belgium, the Netherlands and Ukraine. Representatives of the countries met two weeks ago to discuss the proposal. Malaysia now wants to introduce a draft resolution to this effect in the UN Security Council. Transport Minister Datuk Seri Liow Tiong Lai said the tribunal was still under discussion, but that they wanted to push for one, "to speed up the investigation and achieve justice for the victims".
However, when the discussion became known, Moscow immediately opposed such a tribunal. It would be "counterproductive", the Ministry of Agriculture announced. First the investigation must be completed. In Russian media reports it is pointed out that in April the Joint Investigation Team declared 147 documents secret (Who shot down MH17??). At the end of April, a forensics professor was excluded from the investigation team. Moscow is known to accuse Ukraine of having shot down the plane, and repeatedly calls on the U.S. And NATO to provide satellite images of the plane. NATO to release satellite images of the crash site.
Possibly a clarification is imminent
It is well known that an unknown client had ordered the photos through the company Wifka, which among other things.A. Which does economic investigations, offered 30 million US dollars for clues to the perpetrators and another 17 million US dollars for clues to cover-ups by states ("We are trampling on the feet of some powers, in obedience to them"). On 15. June, investigator Josef Resch of Wifka announced that "solid evidence and information" and that the funds would no longer be available. As reported by Capital magazine, evidence apparently satisfactory to the principal was provided by an informant.
Allegedly, Wifka still does not know the principals or their intentions. A Swiss is said to have been the middleman. An avalanche of information had been received, almost all of it was "bullshit" was bullshit. For Resch the silence of the USA is strange, he had also been skeptical that the plane was shot down with a BUK missile of the separatists. Resch does not want to reveal anything about the informant, who is said to have confessed in front of his door a few weeks ago, nor about his information, he does not know details anyway. By the end of May the case was already closed for him. He himself did not know who the perpetrators were: "The longer we investigated, the more obscure it became."
However, he assumes that the client wants to do something with the information: "I expect that something will happen very soon. If you pay that much money for information, you don’t keep it for yourself." If the story is true, there are of course guesses as to whether the client is interested in clearing up the shooting or, on the contrary, in covering up the perpetrators by destroying the evidence. It also remains unclear whether the informant provided evidence of the perpetrators or of a cover-up by a state.
If the alleged client actually provides evidence, he is unlikely to do so himself. Moreover, it will be interesting to see whether there will be really convincing and indisputable evidence. The requested UN tribunal was a possible address, which could lead to the assumption that Malaysia might have been the client.