The Cold Truth About MH17 and How the European Court of Human Rights Finally Holds Russia Accountable

It begins with an indictment that was long overdue. For years, the families of the victims of flight MH17 fought for justice - against the machinery of international politics, against Moscow’s refusal to accept responsibility. And then, more than a decade after that terrible day, the UN finally issued a clear verdict: Russia is to blame. Nearly 300 people lost their lives on July 17, 2014, when the Malaysian Airlines aircraft was shot down over eastern Ukraine. It was a flight number that became a grim milestone in aviation history: MH17. A BUK missile system, of Russian design, brought the plane down. Two-thirds of the passengers were Dutch nationals, 38 were Australians, and 30 were Malaysians. No one survived - and the long road to the truth began. Since that day, the Netherlands and Australia have fought for answers. It was a struggle against time, against the tangled web of geopolitical interests. But then, in May 2025, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) ruled: Russia was to blame. It was the first time in the history of the UN’s aviation authority that it intervened in a dispute between member states. The decision was not merely symbolic. It was an act of resistance against Moscow’s attempts to shed responsibility. “This decision was an important step toward uncovering the truth and achieving justice for the victims of MH17,” declared Dutch Foreign Minister Caspar Veldkamp. Australia’s Foreign Minister Penny Wong also made it unmistakably clear: “We call on Russia to finally accept its responsibility and provide reparations.” Truth in times of lies.

Russia reacted as expected: dismissive, unbothered, cold. The Kremlin called the ruling “scandalous.” A statement that was hard to top in arrogance. For years, Moscow has denied all responsibility, rejected the facts, and protected the guilty. In 2022, two Russian men and one Ukrainian were convicted in absentia in the Netherlands - for murder. Russia refused to extradite them. The international community faced a moral dilemma: How do you deal with a state that shields its citizens from justice and refuses to acknowledge its role in a mass killing? The UN has no enforcement mechanism, no way to compel punishment. But the truth was now written in black and white: Russia had violated international aviation law. For the families of the victims, the ICAO’s decision was a ray of light in a long night. A late acknowledgment that the lives of their loved ones would not simply be swept under the rug of politics. In the Netherlands, the bereaved gathered for a memorial, held candles, whispered prayers. The banners bore a single word: “Justice.” But the question remained: What does justice mean in a world hesitant to act? In a world where powers like Russia hide behind political immunity? These are painful questions. Questions that lay bare the cold reality of international law.

What remains is the memory of a summer afternoon when a plane took off and never landed. The families know that the ICAO ruling cannot bring back the dead. But it was the first step toward pulling the truth from the cold grip of lies. Perhaps it was a sign that wrongdoing does not always go unpunished - even if the perpetrators hide behind walls of power and propaganda. Then, on July 9, 2025, came a ruling that echoed like thunder through international law. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg officially held the Russian state responsible - responsible for the downing of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 over eastern Ukraine, responsible for a long series of war crimes, systematic violence, and severe human rights violations in the areas controlled by Moscow. In perhaps the most symbolically charged ruling in its recent history, Europe’s highest human rights court condemned conduct that presiding judge Mattias Guyomar described as “manifestly unlawful on a massive scale” - and that the court itself called an unprecedented breach of the “post-World War II international legal order.” Nine years after a Russian BUK missile brought down a Boeing 777 with 298 people aboard, this ruling provides the first unambiguous legal classification under international law: Russia was responsible - not just indirectly, not merely politically, but concretely, structurally, with full control over the pro-Russian separatists who operated the system that killed 80 children, 193 Dutch citizens, 43 Malaysians, 38 Australians, and citizens from eight other nations. And Russia is also, according to the court, responsible for the abduction of Ukrainian children, the executions of civilians, systematic torture - including sexual violence - and the destruction of the rule of law in parts of Ukraine.

The judges - among them, in addition to Guyomar, Ksenija Turković (Croatia), Armen Harutyunyan (Armenia), Pere Pastor Vilanova (Andorra), Ivana Jelić (Montenegro), and Erik Wennerström (Sweden) - drew a picture of Russian control so clear and detailed that it leaves little room for doubt. The evidence, according to the court, showed “a Russian presence and command structure at every level” in the breakaway regions of Luhansk and Donetsk - including military command chains, intelligence structures, and paramilitary units that were directly financed, equipped, and commanded by Moscow. In a world where political upheaval, geopolitical interests, and diplomatic considerations often obscure legal clarity, this ruling is a monumental signal. And a legal watershed. For the first time, it is not just a government being held responsible for a series of individual human rights violations, but an entire state apparatus of violence, which, according to the ruling, systematically and deliberately violated the European Convention on Human Rights. The murder of prisoners, arbitrary detentions, the deportation of Ukrainian children to Russia, the targeted destruction of civilian infrastructure - all of these were found by the court to have occurred in numerous cases. The ruling carries particular gravity and symbolic power through its classification of the MH17 case. The judges fully accepted the findings of international investigative bodies and emphasized that the BUK missile used came from a Russian military air defense system - delivered, operated, and withdrawn under direct supervision of the Russian military. The Grand Chamber’s decision thus builds on years of investigations led by Dutch and Australian authorities, which already led to criminal convictions of three individuals in 2022 - and now adds a legal determination of historic magnitude. Russia’s reaction was predictable. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov declared in Moscow that the ruling was “null and void” - a stance Russia has taken repeatedly since its expulsion from the Council of Europe in 2022. Since then, the Russian Federation no longer recognizes the jurisdiction of the Strasbourg court. But the ruling pertains to actions committed before September 16, 2022 - a time when Russia was still a member of the Council of Europe and thus a party to the European Convention on Human Rights. Legally, the ruling is therefore fully valid - even if its enforcement, particularly regarding reparations or individual claims, faces significant political obstacles. For the families of the MH17 victims, the ruling nevertheless marks a milestone. “Nothing can take away this pain and suffering, but I hope the ruling offers a sense of justice and recognition,” said Dutch Foreign Minister Caspar Veldkamp in The Hague. Ukraine’s Ministry of Justice also called it “one of the most important decisions in the history of international state practice.” Because what is now written in black and white in Strasbourg can hardly be ignored in future proceedings before the International Criminal Court, before arbitration panels, or in diplomatic negotiations. The ECHR has announced that it will next decide on individual compensation - a measure that, while symbolically significant, will likely fail in practice due to Russia’s lack of cooperation. Nevertheless, Ukraine, Australia, and the Netherlands are preparing further legal action: in addition to cases before international tribunals, new arrest warrants for Russian military and political figures are being considered - figures who could potentially be detained on European soil in the future. But beyond its legal substance, this ruling is also a moral document. It shows that even in a world of growing violence, the erosion of international norms, and the decline of international law, there are still places where truth can be established, responsibility named, and injustice documented. The Strasbourg ruling is not the end of the story - but it is a beginning. A beginning of the legal reckoning for one of the gravest war crimes of our time. And perhaps a beginning of justice for the 298 people who never reached their destination on July 17, 2014. If the world needed one more piece of evidence that law can stand against power - it can be found in these 501 pages. It began with an indictment - and ends with a cold, irrefutable truth: Russia is responsible.