Censor.NET reports citing Australia's ABC quoting London lawyer Samuel Wordsworth who defends Russia against Ukraine in the International Court of Justice.
Wordsworth did not run the normal Kremlin defense. Instead he said there was no evidence of intent to provide weapons to shoot down a civilian aircraft.
"There is no evidence before the court," he told the judges, "plausible or otherwise, that Russia provided weaponry to any party with the intent or knowledge that such weaponry be used to shoot down civilian aircraft."
"Whoever was allegedly supplying this Buk was acting in response to a series of armed strikes by Ukraine's military aircraft," Wordsworth stressed, adding that Ukraine's prosecution allegedly lacks data about how the Buk could possibly be used.
He also noted that Ukraine had not provided any fundamental evidence of Russia supplying weapons to militants in the east of the country.
Related materials: Russian terrorists downed MH17
"Russian Buk is the only credible candidate": Bellingcat publishes summarizing report on MH17 crash. PHOTOS(0)
"Person with call sign Khmuryi identified in many wiretapped terrorists’ conversations," – SBU spokesperson on MH17 probe(0)