“Truth and transparency must be owed to victims and their families“, affirms the lawyer of the association Utopia 56, Emmanuel Daoud, this Monday on franceinfo. The association lodged a complaint for” manslaughter “and” failure to provide assistance “against the maritime prefect of the Channel, the Regional Center operational surveillance and rescue (Cross) and the British coastguard after the death of at least 27 migrants in the Channel on November 24, who were not rescued although they had warned the emergency services.
franceinfo: Why did Utopia 56 file a complaint against the Channel Maritime Prefect, the Cross and the British Coast Guard?
We now know that the exiles and refugees – we call them that rather than “migrants” – sought to join, as their boat sank, the British and French rescue services, who passed the buck. They did not come to the aid of people who were in distress and, from that moment, we consider that the question of responsibilities in the criminal sense of the term arises. There are authorities in charge of coordinating sea rescue, on the French side it is the maritime prefect of the Channel and the North, the head of the regional operational center for rescue and rescue at sea, and on the side British Coast Guard. I wouldn’t go so far as to say that they let them die because an investigation needs to take place, but in any case, truth and transparency must be owed to the victims and their families.
“There are some extremely disturbing facts. This is not the first time Utopia 56 has seen the British and French rescue services pass the buck.”
Me Emmanuel Daoudto franceinfo
We let the boat drift, either on French territorial waters or on English territorial waters, and we do not intervene. I do not know if this was the case on November 24 and the investigation must make it possible to determine it.
How did the facts unfold, exactly?
These refugees and exiles, from 2:30 am to 2:40 am, sought to join the French and British rescue services. They also called their families to tell them that they were lost, that their boat was sinking. And, what is striking is that infinite time has passed since the fishing vessel spotted the first bodies from 2 p.m. and that is when the rescue was officially registered. We already know that these calls were made because the fadettes were recovered. It will be necessary to know – and justice will say it, I hope it – whether or not these appeals were treated in a coordinated way, while respecting the texts in force.
Are British and French relief forces obliged to coordinate and help migrants in difficulty in the Channel?
There are very precise texts on the matter which oblige – I say “oblige” in an imperative way – the British and French services to coordinate and to come to the aid. There is a Franco-British bilateral convention that organizes this. One has the impression that this convention was not respected in this case. This is a prime example of what must not happen. But we should not caricature the action of the rescue and rescue services.
That night of November 24, several hundred people were saved on both sides. There is remarkable work being done by the rescue and rescue services. Sometimes, because the authorities do not coordinate, because they are passing the buck, there can be this type of drama. The English Channel should not turn into a cemetery like the Mediterranean. There is a legal, penal and moral obligation to provide assistance in all circumstances to these exiles and refugees.