Four months after the beginning of the long court procedure regarding the shipwreck of the tanker Erika, which was flying the Maltese flag, a decisive stage will be reached tomorrow when the two public prosecutors, Marjorie Obadia and Laurent Michel list what they are asking of Total, the rescue services, the owner of the tanker, the leasing company, the captain and the classification society which certified the ship as seaworthy.

Of the 15 under charge, who all proclaim their innocence, only the three military officers responsible for the rescue services are held to be the ones who do not have much to worry about as the deputy prosecutor Laurent Michel has already expressed doubts regarding their responsibility. At most they may be faulted only about their lack of means.

As regards the others, the prosecutors are expected to ask for the punishment as demanded by law for pollution crimes and/or for bringing the life of others in jeopardy. This could mean one or two years in prison and fines up to a maximum, for a company, of EUR375,000.

Besides these fines, there is obviously the possibility of damages being asked in a civil court for up to EUR1,000 million as demanded by 100 associations.

But many of those who suffered damages by the black tide of oil from the ship in December 1999, which ravaged 400 km of the coast, have, generally speaking, been conspicuous by their absence both because they lack the financial means to come to Paris to follow the court case, but also to avoid associating the name of their town with this event at the start of the tourist season.

The most visible have been the people of the marshes who had to fight the viscous mass that penetrated the swamps, and the supporters of the League for the Protection of Birds who described the ornithological massacre.

The absence of the captain, Indian Karun Mathur, whose whereabouts remain unknown, has not permitted the viewing of the event than through the thousands of pages of the reports submitted.

Naval architects, maritime law experts, and professors have produced thousands and thousands of words to demonstrate with equal conviction the thesis they espoused, even if they contradicted each other.

And if the practices of maritime transport have been given a thorough airing, the very important subject of the flag nations has hardly been touched. Malta, in fact, where the Erika was registered, is not among those being judged.

Why did the captain first launch, then withdraw, a call for help? Did Total know of the pollution risk and when did it come to know? Did the owner and the lessor cut back on repairs because they were short of money?

There are two further juridical questions to be resolved:

Can the Italian certification company, Rina, which issued a navigability certificate to the ship, claim diplomatic immunity because it claims it was acting in Malta’s name?

And can Total claim it was just hiring or leasing the ship and thus not responsible for the state it was in?