The government said this afternoon that a Council of Europe report on the immigration issue and the plight of migrants who were not rescued from a drifting dinghy for two weeks was confused about Malta's role in rescue coordination.

Referring to the report  “Lives lost in the Mediterranean Sea: who is responsible?” published today by the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, the government pointed out that the  Safety of Life at Sea Convention (SOLAS) and the Search And Rescue Convention (SAR) unequivocally established the international legal framework in search and rescue operations.

Referring to the case where a dinghy carrying 72 migrants reportedly drifted for two weeks without anyone conducting a rescue, the government said  the ill-fated boat was never within Malta’s Search and Rescue Region (SRR) which is controlled by Malta’s Rescue Coordination Centre. Indeed, both positions reported by the satellite phone on board put the boat to be very well-within the Libyan search and rescue region on the 27^th of March 2011 when the ordeal started.

Further to this, the CoE Report clearly stated that RCC Malta was not the first rescue coordination centre to have received information about the boat in question. This was relevant since Article 6.7 of the International Maritime Organisation’s Guidelines on the treatment of persons rescued at sea invariably states:

"When appropriate, the first RCC contacted should immediately begin efforts to transfer the case to the RCC responsible for the region in which the assistance is being rendered. When the RCC responsible for the SAR region in which assistance is needed is informed about the situation, that RCC should immediately accept responsibility for co-ordinating the rescue efforts, since related responsibilities, including arrangements for a place of safety for survivors, fall primarily on the Government responsible for that region. The first RCC, however, is responsible for co-ordinating the case until the responsible RCC or other competent authority assumes responsibility."

The government noted that at the same time of these events, RCC Malta and the Rome Maritime Rescue Co-ordination Centre were also cooperating on a further three reports of boats carrying persons in the Central Mediterranean, some of which had been reported by satellite telephones and others which had been sighted by NATO units engaged in operations north of Libya. In all three of these cases, all persons aboard were accounted for.

"In view of the above, and the fact that the stricken boat remained in the Libyan Search and Rescue Region, RCC Malta acted in support of MRCC Rome (which was the entity co-ordinating the operation) by repeatedly attempting to contact the satellite phone in question and trying to pinpoint the location of the boat. All the necessary possible action which surpasses the legal obligations incumbent upon Malta was taken by the Maltese Authorities in this case," the government said.

REPORT'S FINDINGS

The report,  drafted by rapporteur Tineke Strik of the Netherlands, says that Italy should have taken responsibility for the co-ordination of a search and rescue operation for the dinghy which left Tripoli with 72 people on board only to drift back with only nine survivors after two weeks at sea.

The report also states that a solution should be found to the disagreement between Malta and Italy as to whether disembarkation of rescued migrants should be to the nearest safe port or at a port within the country of the SAR zone.

The report concludes that in this case there were failures at different levels and many opportunities to save the lives of the people on board the boat were lost.

NATO, it said, was not very approachable with regard to requests for SAR operations.

“Although it was known that many refugees were leaving Libya by the Mediterranean Sea route to reach Europe, there seemed to be no working agreement between the SAR authorities and NATO headquarters in Naples.

“This non-communication contributed to the situation in which those on the boat were denied help,” the report states.

The report notes that another failure was the maritime legal framework, which was unclear as to who was responsible for an SAR zone when a country is unable to fulfil its obligations.

Although the CoE investigation focused on a single incident, the lessons learnt had implications for the way forward, the report concludes.

The assembly recommended that member states should fill the vacuum of responsibility for an SAR zone left by a state which could or did not exercise its responsibility for search and rescue, such as was the case for Libya.

“This may require amending the International Maritime Search and Rescue Convention. In the case in question, two Maritime Rescue Coordination Centres (Rome and Malta) were aware that a boat was in distress, but neither took the responsibility to start a search and rescue operation. Rome, being the first MRCC informed of the distress situation, had a greater responsibility to ensure the boat’s rescue.”

Other recommendations are to:

* ensure that there are clear and simple guidelines on what amounts to a distress signal, so as to avoid any confusion over the obligation to launch a search and rescue operation for a boat in distress;

* Avoid differing interpretations of what constitutes a vessel in distress, in particular as concerns overloaded, unseaworthy boats, even if under propulsion, and render appropriate assistance to such vessels. Whenever safety requires that a vessel be assisted, this should lead to rescue actions;

* tackle the reasons why commercial vessels fail to go to the rescue of boats in distress. This will require dealing with the economic consequences for the rescuing vessel and its owners and the issue of compensation and the disagreement between Malta and Italy as to whether disembarkation should be to the nearest safe port or to a port within the country of the SAR zone.

“The International Maritime Organsation should be urged to find a solution to the matter and step up its efforts towards a harmonised interpretation and application of international maritime law,” the report said.

The full report can be read in the pdf link below.