CCPR/C/130/D/3042/2017 their respective search and rescue areas, so as to include, in addition to the respective territorial waters of each State, portions of the high seas, with the identification of a single competent search and rescue authority for said area. As a result, in all circumstances, a single rescue centre, which is responsible for coordinating operations in its own area and to which operational choices reserved must be identifiable. Under the Convention, only one authority is responsible for the coordination of rescue interventions in each search and rescue area. The choice of the most suitable naval vessels and aircrafts mandated to carry out search and rescue operations is the prerogative of the responsible rescue centre. The State party notes that in the present case, the shipwreck occurred outside its search and rescue area. 4.5 The State party submits that as the alleged violation of the duty to protect the lives of the alleged victims took place outside Italian territorial waters and outside its search and rescue area, the facts under review do not fall within its jurisdiction under article 2 of the Covenant and article 1 of the Optional Protocol. It notes that under the International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue, 1979, the responsibility for protecting the lives of persons on board a vessel on the high seas belongs to the competent rescue centre of the State responsible for that search and rescue area. The State party argues that in the present case, that responsibility belonged to the Maltese rescue centre, and it submits that it cannot be argued that Italy would have de facto responsibility over the area concerned merely due to the fact that Italian authorities organize rescue interventions, in an autonomous and nonobligatory manner, in the Maltese search and rescue area. The State party argues that by establishing its own search and rescue area, Malta has assumed the power and responsibility to fulfil its own obligations in its own area, and it submits that the vessel carrying the migrants was not under the jurisdiction, understood as power and control, of Italy. The State party further notes that the Maltese authorities had made a formal undertaking of coordinating the rescue operation. Although the Italian rescue centre informed Malta that there was an Italian naval ship in the area, Malta also sent rescue assets to intercept the vessel in distress. The State party argues that Malta had therefore formalized its intention to exercise its jurisdiction of the rescue operation, and had in fact exercised it. The State party notes that the ITS Libra also intervened in the rescue operation, even prior to a formal request from Malta, and it became the focal point of the rescue operations, thereby saving many lives. 4.6 As concerns the merits of the communication, the State party notes that a very complex judicial investigative procedure has been opened into the incident. It notes that the process has involved different tribunals and has been carried out with the aim of verifying the modus operandi of all the assets involved in the general international scenario, including over the six months before the tragic events and thus, not only with specific regard to the case under reference. The intervention at the level of the Supreme Court has also been necessary, in order to establish whether the investigation should fall under the competence of military or ordinary courts. The Supreme Court has determined that the investigation falls under ordinary jurisdiction before the Ordinary Tribunal of Rome. 4.7 The State party notes that investigations into the events of the shipwreck were initiated after a complaint was filed on 11 April 2014, at the Consulate of Italy in Frankfurt, Germany, which was transmitted to the Palermo Public Prosecutor’s Office in Italy. Additional complaints have subsequently been lodged by family members of victims of the shipwreck and by some of the persons who had survived the shipwreck. The Syracuse Public Attorney’s Office filed a motion of dismissal with regard to one complaint on 27 February 2017. Following the transfer of proceedings from the Agrigento and Palermo Public Attorney’s Offices to Rome, the Rome Public Attorney’s Office has filed motions of dismissal concerning two complaints, on 3 April and 18 July 2017. Following an additional complaint, a third criminal proceeding has been initiated in Rome. This proceeding is ongoing and the complainants were notified about their right to participate in a pretrial hearing that, at the time of the submission of the present observations, was to take place on 29 October 2018. In the course of the proceedings, charges have been brought against officers from the Italian Navy, the Harbour Master Corps-Coast Guard and personnel on duty at the Italian rescue centre. The charges include the criminal offences of failure to provide assistance and negligent homicide. The State party notes that the authors of the present communication are not parties to the pending proceeding as they did not file the complaint. It notes that the investigation into the shipwreck has been complex owing to the high number of stakeholders involved and the difficult reconstruction of facts. The State party argues that the 5