Die Anklage ist dagegen, dem Antrag der Verteidigung zu entsprechen, den Sprecher des russischen Verteidigungsministeriums als Zeugen zu laden. Es soll offenbar unter allen Umständen vermieden werden, daß der Weg der infrage stehenden BUK-Rakete nachgewiesen werden kann.
"In Dutch criminal law, there is no reference to the chain of custody for evidence. In the rest of the world, this is the idea that the planting of evidence, or tampering, forging, and faking of evidence must be prevented by a scrupulous record which is independent of police, prosecutors, and court officials. This record must preserve the sequence of discovery, control, transfer, analysis, storing, and disposition of the physical or electronic evidence which reveals no gaps. The evidence record must be provably the same at the end of the process as it was at the beginning.
But there is no such control over the evidence for Dutch prosecutors, investigating magistrates and judges. ....the defence in a criminal case cannot require the prosecution to prove the chain of custody, and the judge can decide to accept the prosecution’s claim that its evidence hasn’t been faked with no chain of custody record at all.
This is the loophole which makes legal in the MH17 trial of the District Court of The Hague, and the judgements of the three judges........to accept Ukrainian government, military and SBU evidence which would not be admissible in British, American, Canadian, Australian or international courts."
Wegen dieser Besonderheit des niederländischen Rechts kann dieser Prozess überhaupt stattfinden. Deshalb denke ich, daß das Urteil bereits feststeht - beweisfrei.