Further to Draft Final report submitted December the 4th, 2007 by Italian ANSV we first of all would like to reiterate, that according to data communicated early this year and available in Mr (...) and Mr (...) reports, the accident occurred in international water and thus the investigation have to be conducted by state of registration of the aircraft, in this specific case Tunisia.
Even though Italy, in accordance, with article 38 of ICAO convention, had notified ICAO of non existence of any difference with annex 13; during the investigation process, the ANSV has not observed International Civil Aviation Convention Annex 13 rules especially provision of articles 5.3 and 5.25. For instance, accredited representative of Tunisia has not been allowed to participate to investigation process; CVR was made available to media...
It should be reminded that, in the beginning of investigation process, ANSV has claimed that Tunisian Authority was shackling investigation process and Italian authority have banned TUNINTER further to first ANSV findings and recommendations. As far as we know, such an action has never been taken after any accident before.
On the other hand, neither Annex 13 paragraph 4.2 g and k nor annex 13 Paragraph 4.4 were observed by ANSV.
"Format and content
4.2 The notification shall be in plain language and contain as much of the following information as is readily available, but its dispatch shall not be delayed due to the lack of complete information:
[...]
g) position of the aircraft with refrence to some easily defined geographical point and latitude and longitude;
j) an indication to what wxtent the investigation will be onducted or is proposed to delegated by the State of Occurrence;
[...]"
"Additional information
4.4 As soon as it is possible to do so, the State of Occurrence shall dispatch the details omitted from the notification as as other known relevant information".
In this context, it must be emphasized that some information is different from previously communicated by ANSV and Italian justice ones particularly when dealing with the impact and wreckage coordinates. One shall bear in mind the annex 13 paragraph 5.3 and 5.3.1:
"5.3 When the location of the accident or the serious incident cannot definitely be established as being in the territory of any State. The State of Registry shall institute and conduct any necessary investigation to another State by mutual arrangement and consent.
5.3.1 States nearest the scene of an accident in international waters shall provide such assistance as they are able and shall, likewise, respond to requests by the State of Registry."
Moreover and according to ANSV, it was impossible to stick to annex 13 rules as judicial authorities did not recognize the right granted by annex 13 paragraph 5.25 and 5.27:
"Participation
5.25 Participation in the investigation shall confer entitlement to participate in all aspects of the investigation, under the control of the investigator-in-change, in particular to:
a) visit the scene of the accident;
b) examine the wreckage;
c) obtain witness information and suggest areas of questioning;
d) have full access to all relevant evidence as soon as possible;
e) receive copies of full pertinent documents;
f) participate in read-outs of recorded media;
g) participate in off-scene investigative activities such as component examinations, technical briefings, tests and simulations;
h) participate in investigation progress meetings including delibrations related to analysis, findings, causes and safety recommendations; and
i) make submissions in respect of the various elements of the investigation.
However, participation of States other than the State of Registry, the State of the Operator, the State of Design and the State of the Manufacture may be limited to those matters which entitled such States to participation under 5.23."
"Rights and entitlement
5.27 A State which has a special interest in an accident by virtue of fatalities or serious injuries to its citizens shall, upon making a request to do so, be permitted by the State conducting the investigation to appoint an expert who shall be entitled to:
a) visit the scene of the accident;
b) have access to the relevant factual information;
c) participate in the identification of the victims;
d) assist in questioning surviving passengers who are citizens of the expert's State; and
e) receive a copy of the Final Report"
According to above mentioned facts, it became obvious that ANSV, in total violation of international civil aviation convention, did not take into consideration the right of Tunisia as the state of registration to conduct this investigation. Furthermore ANSV did not have any procurement or habilitation from Tunisian authority to lead this investigation.
"3.1 The sole objective of the investigation of an accident or incident shall be the prevention of accidents and incidents. It is not the purpose of this activity to apportion blame or liability."
Thus the objective of the investigation process was not observed by ANSV causing major prejudice to the operator even though that all data was provided by Tunisia accredited representative before this banning in confirmity with annex 13 rules.
It's crucial to remind that during the investigation process, and in contradiction to what ANSV declared in the beginning, Tunisian authorities had strictly respected annex 13 standards and would have wished similar attitude.
The Tunisian accredited representative was not allowed to use the rights provided by paragraph 5.25 of ICAO annex 13.
Therefore, and considering the above mentioned facts about non respect of annex 13 rules (Particularly 3.1, 4.2, 5.3, 5.3.1, 5.25, and 5.27) by ANSV: it's established that:
- ANSV is not competent to conduct this investigation
- Above mentioned report is null and void.
Best regards,
Le Directeur Général de l'Aviation Civile
Hamadi BEN KHELIFA
Copy: Secrétaire général de l'Organisation de l'Aviation Civile Internationale.
سلوكات يندى لها الجبين تلك التي يأتيها البعض.. وأفعال ما أنزل اللّه بها من سلطان صارت موثقة بالصوت والصورة ومنشورة على الأنترنات.. هي أكثر من كونها انتهاكات، فهي جرائم من نوع أخر, جرائم في حق الطفولة واعتداءات صارخة على البراءة.. خلال الأسابيع الفارطة شاهدنا صورا لطفلة لم يتعد عمرها الأربع سنوات لكنها كانت تتفوه بكلام مخل للآداب وتأتي حركات دخيلة على مجتمعنا.. كل ذلك كان تحت تلقين أحد الأشخاص.. وقد نددنا على صفحات جريدتنا بهذا السلوك الذي قام به ملقن هذه الطفلة.. حيث اعترف والدها بالخطأ الذي ارتكبه أحد أصدقائه في حق ابنته.. ثم فوجئنا مرة أخرى بمقطع فيديو لطفل لم يتجاوز ربيعه الخامس كان ضحية ممارسات خطيرة أقدم عليها البعض..
تحت عنوان «لابد من محاكمة هذا النوع من الأشخاص» تمّ نشر الفيديو الكارثة, هذا الفيديو الذي تضمن مشاهد لطفل يحتسي الخمر بل بالأحرى أرغم على احتسائها.. حيث أجلسه بعض الأشخاص في زاوية نائية باحدى الحدائق ثم وضعوا بجانبه كيسا مملوءا بما طاب من الجعة.. كان الطفل ينظر غير مستوعب ما يجري حوله, فتح له أحدهم علبة الخمر ثم أمره باحتسائها.. استجاب الطفل للطلب وانهمك في معاقرة الجعة، لم يكتف المنحرفون بذلك بل أجبروا هذا الملاك على التدخين.. كان الطفل يتوسل محتجزيه بصوت مرتعش وعينين غلب عليهما الذهول.. وحتى يكمل هؤلاء المعتدون جريمتهم كانوا يلقنونه شتى الألفاظ البذيئة.. فيما تعالت قهقهات البعض...
رأي القانون في هذا السلوكولأن ما اقترفه هؤلاء الأنفار لا يمكن تجاهله أو السكوت عنه فقد اتصلنا بالأستاذ والمحامي عصام الحمدوني لمعرفة ما ينتظرهم جرّاء اعتدائهم الخطير على الطفولة فأكد لنا أن المشرع التونسي مكّن مندوب حماية الطفولة من التدخل الوقائي في جميع الحالات التي يكون فيها الطفل مهددا.. كما حمّل كل شخص واجب الإشعار بوجود حالات تهديد للطفل.. أما بالنسبة للأفعال الظاهرة في الشريط فقد ذكر لنا الأستاذ الحمدوني أنها تدخل تحت طائلة استغلال الطفولة بتحريض هذا الطفل على التفوّه بالكلام البذيء وتعاطي الخمر والتدخين ـ وهذه سلوكات تندرج ضمن خانة العنف اللفظي وسوء المعاملة.. ولأن مسؤولية ما تعرض له هذا الطفل يتحملها أكثر من طرف فإنّ الفصلين 22 و23 من مجلة الطفل قد حرّما ترك الطفل دون رعاية واتيان أي عمل ينبني على القساوة مما يؤثر على توازن الطفل العاطفي والنفسي حيث لا يتحمل الأبوان فقط المسؤولية في الرعاية.. بل هناك عناصر أخرى كالمحاضن أو المتعهد بالرعاية...
