CCPR/C/130/D/3042/2017 investigations undertaken by the domestic authorities have been thorough, prompt and effective, and it notes that the aim of the ongoing proceeding is to determine the responsibility, if any, of persons involved in the events of the shipwreck. Authors’ comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 5.1 On 15 October 2018, the authors submitted their comments on the State party’s observations. They maintain that the communication is admissible. They reiterate their argument that the Italian authorities are exercising de facto control over the Maltese search and rescue maritime area and that Italy therefore bears responsibility for the failed rescue operation that occurred on 11 October 2013. Regarding the State party’s submission that judicial proceedings are ongoing, the authors argue that those proceedings have been unduly delayed. At the time of the submission of their comments, five years had passed and the investigations had not yet been completed. They also argue that the State party authorities have failed to involve them, as next of kin, in the criminal proceedings. The authors note that the initial complaints regarding the incident were dismissed by the State party’s authorities, and they claim that it was only after a newspaper published information on the events of the incident that two officers were charged with criminal offences. 5.2 The authors note the State party’s claim that the first distress call was received by the Italian rescue centre at 12.26 p.m. on 11 October 2013. They reiterate their claim that the first call from the vessel in distress was made at 11 a.m. They note, however, that in any event, it is undisputed that the Italian rescue centre received the first distress call from the vessel and that under section 3.6.1 of the International Aeronautical and Maritime Search and Rescue Manual, it was under the duty to immediately notify the appropriate rescue coordination centre about the incident and to take all necessary action to coordinate the response until the responsible rescue coordination centre had assumed responsibility. The authors note that the Maltese rescue centre did not formally assume the duty to coordinate the rescue operation until 2.35 p.m. The authors further claim that the coordinates of the vessel in distress had already been provided to the Italian rescue centre in the first distress call at 11 a.m., and that therefore, the Italian authorities did not need to spend any time localizing the vessel. 5.3 The authors reiterate their claims that the Italian rescue centre failed to promptly inform the Maltese rescue centre of the vessel in distress and that it failed to provide the Maltese rescue centre with assistance as it only informed the centre of the presence of an Italian naval ship and two commercial ships in the area, but failed to provide the Maltese rescue centre with the name and position of the naval ship. The authors also reiterate their claim that the naval ship was ordered to move away from its position in order to avoid participating in the rescue operations.5 When the Maltese authorities identified the presence of the naval ship in the area and sent a request to the Italian rescue centre for the ship to proceed towards the vessel in distress, the request was refused by the Italian rescue centre, which informed the Maltese authorities that the naval ship was conducting surveillance operations in another area and was therefore unable to reach the requested area. Radio calls made minutes before the shipwreck from the Armed Forces of Malta to the naval ship also remained unanswered. The authors submit that the State party authorities therefore failed in their duty to cooperate with Maltese authorities in order to save lives in distress at sea. 5.4 The authors note that they do not claim that the Italian authorities should have assumed coordination of the rescue operations. Rather, their complaint is focused on the failure of the Italian authorities to provide assistance to the Maltese coordinating authorities by refusing to put the ITS Libra immediately at the disposal of the rescue operation, thereby failing to provide prompt aid to persons in distress at sea. State party’s further observations 6. On 4 July 2019, the State party submitted further observations on the communication. It referred to its submission of 15 June 2018 and reported that the judicial proceeding 5 6 The authors refer to recordings between the Italian Navy Command and the Libra, published in an article in L’Espresso, “La legge del mare: così la Marina ha lasciato affondare il barcone dei bambini”, 5 June 2017.