During the plea by the Dutch lawyers Boudewijn Van Eijck and Sabine ten Doessschate while defending their client Oleg Pulatov many silly remarks and nonsense requests were made by these two Dutch lawyers. This post is part of a serie of blogposts showing these silly remarks made at June 22 and June 23. All blogposts on this topic can be read here.
The defence wanted an investigation into the failure of Ukraine to close its airspace. The lawyers stated they might investigate if selfdefence could be case fot Pulatov. The public prosecutor stated this is nonsense. Pulatov himself went to a neighboor country to fight against the government army.
Taken from the Public Prosectutor statement
For other requests, the substantiation has been formulated in such a way that the question arises as to whether there is actually a real desire for further investigation. Take, for example, Pulatov’s assertion that research into the non-closure of the airspace is necessary with a view to “a self-defence and in the extreme case related to a punitive defense”. Pulatov is a suspect who indicated in March that he denies any involvement in the charges. He is also a suspect who has traveled to a neighboring country to take up arms against the government there. That alone makes an appeal to self-defence extremely unlikely: after all, he has committed himself to an armed conflict without law or reason against the lawful government of another country. Furthermore, there is no concrete starting point in the file that could lead to an investigation into an emergency weather situation. We have already pointed out in March that for research requests such as this, a statement by Pulatov might give rise, but not a bare request from his counsel.  Now Pulatov’s counsel at the hearing when making this request once again emphasizes that a self defense is currently only “theory”.  While these counselors are well aware that research wishes into theoretical possibilities that contradict what the suspect himself states and for which no other point of reference exists, are never granted. Nor for research into questions that are understandable but not relevant to this criminal case.