Note that there is not a single piece of interest expressed
by any Royal Military Police in EU concerning the massive invasion of EU
countries by war criminals/terrorists/paramilitary/fuerzes
especiales/guerrillas/francs tireurs or any other non uniformed combatant, to
be shot on sight during war time, disguised as refugees so we can draw some
conclusions.
- All
police forces in Europe are colluding
with the destruction of their countries.
- The
Military Police is doing the usual Keystone Coppery around a Johnny Depp
EU State sponsored war crime financed/instigated/ordered by Don Gov Mafia
- The Apirujudiciary
know that they will always be in place no matter whether the
country/state/city/sanctuary is a stone aged shithouse or a time
travelling hypersociety because they will never have minds in their hive.
- All
the National Socialist hunting was a fake. How come no universal war
criminal is getting hunted down now to a kibbutz?
- How
come no one in the RMPs , or any other well funded secret society of lay
abouts, tracked down the Bolshevik war criminals in their well known
retirement dashas. As I said all fake.
- Apirujew
as victim, is a unionised restricted acting role, a trade that pays well.
Enjoy.
The European Court of Human Rights is refusing to act on a year-old case
from the daughter of a Dutch passenger killed when Malaysia Airlines Flight
MH17 was shot down on July 14, 2014. Denise Kenke, daughter of Willem
Grootscholten, accuses the Ukraine Government of failing its legal duty to
prevent civilian aircraft from flying into the airspace Ukrainian officials
knew to be dangerous. Her court papers say the claim is also founded on the
conclusion of the Dutch Safety Board, reported last October, that the
government in Kiev had been negligent in failing
to act on “sufficient reason for closing the airspace above the eastern part of
Ukraine”.
Although the 11-page
application
was filed on November 17, 2014, the Court has imposed a secrecy blackout on all
details of the case, preventing website access. After Kenke’s lawyer, Elmar
Giemulla of Berlin,
a leading German aviation law specialist, filed additional argument, legal
precedents, and evidence from the Dutch Safety Board (DSB), the Court refused
to acknowledge receipt or to reply. Tracey Turner-Tretz, spokesman for the
European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) and its registrar, Roderick Liddell, a
British national, said this week: “the application in question was granted
confidentiality.”
Giemulla for the Grootscholten family said he had not applied for
confidentiality, and was not informed by the court that it had been imposed. “I
do not know anything about ‘grant of confidentiality’ . I do not even know
whether the court has ever dealt with my complaint apart from internal
administrative procedures.” When Liddell and his spokesman Turner-Tretz were
asked what communication the Court has been having on the Kenke case with Ukraine government representatives, and whether Kiev had requested
confidentiality, they refused to reply. A US
attorney with a US and Ukraine practice says “it’s not possible for a US court to
seal a case from public disclosure without argument in court by lawyers from
both sides, and without a recorded ruling.” From Berlin, Giemulla said this morning:
“Someone, I don’t know who, has decided that this case is confidential — from
the plaintiff!”
Malaysian Airlines assigned Grootscholten (below, left) seat 11D on MH17. He
was on his way to his
Indonesian
fiancé Christine (right).
For more details of Grootscholten’s life and death, see this memorial video.
His daughter’s application was submitted by Giemulla in November 2014, well
within the 6-month time limit required by the ECHR between the cause of the
complaint and the filing. Additional papers were filed in January 2015, and the
case was assigned case number 4412/15. On March 9, 2015, Giemulla wrote the
court asking for confirmation of the proceeding. He received a reply
“advis[ing] me not to bother the court by phone considering its high work load.
That´s all.”
If the attempt is made to search the court
website, there is no trace of the
case. On
September 4, 2015, Giemulla (right) submitted additional evidence from the
newly released DSB report, together with 7 pages of legal argument. The ECHR
refused to acknowledge receipt. Last week, Giemulla wrote the ECHR again. “With
urgency may I ask to be informed [by the Registrar] about the state of the
present proceeding and the other steps intended by the Court.”
Giemulla is well-known in Germany
as a specialist on public liability for air crashes. He is also representing
kin of German passengers killed in the Lufthansa pilot suicide crash of
Germanwings Flight 4U 9525 in France
in
March
2015.
The case against the Ukrainian Government in Kiev does not depend, Giemulla has argued in
the ECHR papers, on evidence or speculation about what weapon brought down
MH17; who fired it; or what the cause of death for passengers and crew had
been. This evidence, and the lack of it, were tested in an international court
for the first time last month; that’s when a coroner’s court in the Australian
state of Victoria
held an inquest on the deaths of Australian passengers on MH17. For reports of
that court proceeding, read
this
and
this.
“The final report of the Dutch Safety Board from October, 2015, supports the
view”, Giemulla testified to the ECHR in September, “that the government of the
Ukraine bears the
responsibility for the disaster because it has not closed the airspace above
eastern Ukraine
at the altitude of the flight plan in spite of knowledge of the circumstances.”
In support, he has submitted the DSB report’s analysis of Ukrainian airspace
management, military operations in the eastern region airspace, and Ukrainian
government officials’ failure to protect civil aviation in the Dniepropetrovsk
air traffic control area through which MH17’s flight path, L980, crossed.
Source: DSB Report of October 13, 2015:
http://www.onderzoeksraad.nl/en/onderzoek/2049/investigation-crash-mh17-17-july-2014
The DSB report noted that airspace below the MH17’s altitude had been
restricted, but that its flight path L980 at 30,000 feet was open. The DSB
concluded the Ukrainian military were responsible for deciding on airspace
controls, and that “the Ukrainian authorities took insufficient notice of the
possibility of of a civil aeroplane at cruising altitude being fired upon… No
measures were taken to protect civil aeroplanes against these weapon systems…
the sovereign state bears sole responsibility for the safety of the airspace” (
DSB
report, page 209). The DSB also noted, without definitive conclusion, that
“considerations other than those related to safety could also have played a
part in Ukraine’s
decision not to completely close the airspace to civil aviation, such as
possible financial consequences [loss of overflight fees]. A complete closure
may also have given the impression that the state had lost control over a part
of its airspace.”
Published
estimates from Washington indicate that before
the MH17 crash, the government in Kiev
was collecting $200 million per annum in overflight and air transit fees.
Giemulla has put the government in Kiev
directly on trial in an international court for the first time in the MH17
case. The coronial court proceeding in Australia,
and the
postponed inquests in the UK, are investigations of cause of death, and
only indirectly address responsibility in Kiev.
Giemulla’s written submission to the ECHR is that Kiev is now liable to pay compensation for
the death of passenger Grootscholten. “The Ukrainian government was… obliged to
close the airspace concerned. Contrary to its legal obligation, it has not
blocked the airspace at cruising altitude. This caused, inter alia, the death
of the father [Grootscholten] of the complainant [Kenke].” The actions of the
Ukrainian government in not closing the airspace had been “intentional
actions”, the court papers argue. “The Ukrainian government has failed to meet
its legal obligation to avert an existing danger to human life by obvious and
available measures.”
In a separate submission, Giemulla has also told the ECHR the Ukrainian
courts and their judges are too easily subject to political intervention to
provide a remedy for MH17 claims. Giemulla told the court it was not appropriate
or relevant to determine who fired the weapon or what caused the crash. “It
cannot be judged from the outside which is the correct one of the versions [of
cause of crash] and what actually happened. Regardless, it can be understood
that in this critical situation the Ukrainian courts have been reluctant to
deal with the investigation of the facts and [reluctant to] condemn their
government…”
In legal support, Giemulla cited the ECHR’s own rulings on the corruption
and bias of Ukrainian judges. “The ECtHR has in the case of Tymoshenko v.
Ukraine of 30 July 2013 (Application No 49872/11, S. 41 and 45), and with
reference to the earlier case Kaverzin v. Ukraine (Application No 2389/03)
adopted an exception to the requirement for exhaustion of legal remedies in the
domestic courts, in accordance with Article 35, on the ground that that the
available [court] remedies were not capable of ensuring effective legal
protection.”
This is a reference to Yulia Tymoshenko’s claim to the ECHR that her
conviction and imprisonment by the Ukrainian courts in 2011 had been
politically motivated. For more on that case, read
this.
Tymoshenko (above, left) as prime minister in Kiev
had supervised the appointment of Ganna Yudkivska (right) to the list of ECHR
judges, following political infighting in Kiev,
and controversy at ECHR headquarters in Strasbourg,
over manipulation of the
appointment.
Yudkivska has not only defended the new regime in Kiev on the court bench. She lectured at Harvard University
last year on how the court is defending “democratization processes” in the
Ukraine.
For more on Yudkivska, read
this.
ECHR documents indicate this Ukrainian judge has been involved in the MH17
case, and almost certainly that she has supported the Kiev government’s request for the blackout —
the decision to issue what Registrar Liddell calls the “grant of
confidentiality”.
Liddell said this week, through Turner-Tretz, that in March 2015 he had
“informed the applicant [Kenke, Giemulla] by letter of the registration of the
application. The letter specified in particular that the Court would deal with
the case as soon as practicable on the basis of the information and documents
submitted by her and that she would be informed of any decision taken by the
Court. Generally speaking, it is difficult to say how long the processing of an
application will take, as this may depend on a number of factors. The order of
dealing with cases is governed by Rule 41 of the
Rules of Court
and further specified in its
priority
policy.”
The ECHR’s Rule 41 says: “In determining the order in which cases are to be
dealt with, the Court shall have regard to the importance and urgency of the
issues raised on the basis of criteria fixed by it. The Chamber, or its
President, may, however, derogate from these criteria so as to give priority to
a particular application.” The ECHR policy statement referred to says that
“according to this Rule [41] the Court is to have regard to the importance and
urgency of the issues raised in deciding the order in which cases are to be dealt
with.”
In a series of email exchanges this
week, Turner-Tretz refused to disclose Liddell’s name as the ECHR registrar.
This was despite the publication on the court blog that his appointment
commenced last month.
Through his spokesman Turner-Tretz (above, right), Liddell (left) was asked:
what notification has the Court Registrar made to the Defendant, the Government
of Ukraine, and on what date? What response filing has been made in the case by
the Government of Ukraine? On what application, on what date, and from what
source was the application for confidentiality made? What Court official
authorized on what date what you report as the “grant [of] confidentiality”?
Liddell refused to answer. Giemulla suspects the Ukrainian government has
been informed of the case, and is likely to have been given the case papers. He
says the ECHR has withheld these communications from him, if it has made them.
Liddell has sent an email to say “please note that the case was given
confidential status under Rule 33 (public character of documents) of the
Rules of
Court. This decision was taken by the President of the Chamber to which the
case has been allocated.”
Court rules of procedure reveal that in the Chamber section which is
considering the MH17 case in secret, Ukrainian judge Yudkivska is a member.
Court rules of procedure
say:
“Chamber: composed of 7 judges, chambers primarily rule on admissibility and
merits for cases that raise issues that have not been ruled on repeatedly (a
decision may be made by a majority). Each chamber includes the Section
President and the ‘national judge’ (the judge with the nationality of the State
against which the application is lodged).”
Yesterday Liddell’s spokesman Turner-Tretz was asked to name the president
of the chamber to which Liddell now admits the MH17 case has been allocated.
“In normal court jurisdictions,” Turner-Tretz was told, “a ruling to seal a
case file cannot be made without an application by one of the parties and a
hearing before representatives of all parties; the ruling to seal cannot lawfully
be taken in secret by a judge keeping his or her name secret. You will be
reported by name as speaking for Roderick Liddell, your new Registrar, as
confirming that the Court has communicated in secret with the Defendant in this
case, and is attempting to keep every detail of the case secret.”
Liddell replied: “the decision to grant confidentiality was taken by Judge
Casadevall, President of the Third Section. Subsequently, following the
recomposition of the Sections with effect from 1 November 2015, the case was
reassigned to a new Section, the First Section, presided over by Mirjana
Lazarova–Trajkovska, judge in respect of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.”
The implication is that Judge Josep Casadevall — an Andorran who has served on
the ECHR bench since its establishment in 1998 — was taken off the MH17 case.
Lazarova-Trajkovska
was appointed to the ECHR in 2008. Before that, she had been a Macedonian
Interior Ministry lawyer, then the director of the state election commission
during the controversial parliamentary campaign of 2002. Then, as well as
earlier in her career, she has been
aided
by grants from the US Government. Following the outcome of the
2002
poll, she was briefly a judge of the Macedonian Constitutional Court until the
government in Skopje
moved her to the ECHR.
London
lawyers who follow ECHR proceedings closely don’t doubt that in the MH17 case
the Registrar and the judges have been made aware of the Ukrainian government’s
reaction. The sources believe Kiev
officials have sought Yudkivska’s ruling, along with that of the Macedonian
judge, to reject the Kenke case as inadmissible; close down the application
without argument in open court; and keep this process secret. Dutch sources add
that the Ukrainian government is pressuring the ECHR to block all claims from
eastern Ukraine,
as well as from the MH17 shoot-down. French lawyers have been attempting to
file dozens of
claims
on behalf of victims of the Ukrainian military operations in Donbass.
A UK
human rights lawyer says the ECHR has become “notorious” for its onesidedness
and political prejudice. “It’s now a Star Chamber”, he said, referring to the
court run by British monarchs from the 15th century until the overthrow of King
Charles I in 1641. The Star Chamber
operated in secret, and
its name has become synonymous with politically motivated prosecution.
According to ECHR documents, “a case may be inadmissible when it is
incompatible with the requirements of ratione materiae, ratione temporis or
ratione personae, or if the case cannot be proceeded with on formal grounds,
such as non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, lapse of the six months from the
last internal decision complained of, anonymity, substantial identity with a
matter already submitted to the Court, or with another procedure of
international investigation. If the rapporteur judge decides that the case can
proceed, the case is referred to a Chamber of the Court which, unless it
decides that the application is inadmissible, communicates the case to the
government of the state against which the application is made, asking the
government to present its observations on the case. The Chamber of Court then
deliberates and judges the case on its admissibility and its merit.”
Giemulla’s submissions make it difficult for the ECHR judges to rule that
the case should go to the Ukrainian courts. His papers have also met the
deadline of time set by the court. Sources close to the MH17 case in Strasbourg believe Lazarova-Trajkovska and Yudkivska have
been told by Kiev that they should dismiss the
case because the Joint Investigation Team (JIT) of prosecutors of The
Netherlands, Australia, Ukraine, Belgium
and Malaysia
are conducting “another procedure of international investigation”.
According to the plaintiff’s court papers, the forensic investigation of the
cause of the crash and the culprits is an entirely different case, and cannot
be the ground for dismissing the Kenke application. Liddell is concealing the
argument on these issues between the defendant and the judges.
Liddell replied: “the case was given confidential status under Rule 33
(public character of documents) of the
Rules of
Court.”
The text of this rule is much more limited than Liddell’s action has proved
to be. “Public access,” Rule 33 declares, “to a document or to any part of it
may be restricted in the interests of morals, public order or national security
in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of
the private life of the parties or of any person concerned so require, or to
the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the President of the Chamber in
special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.
Any request for confidentiality made under paragraph 1 of this Rule must
include reasons and specify whether it is requested that all or part of the
documents be inaccessible to the public.”
