Newsroom
Authorities in the occupied north say no shortcomings were found at the so-called ''ports department'', despite earlier safety deficiencies aboard the Filo Jet. The investigation has also revealed allegations of crew failures, while the cause of the sinking remains unconfirmed. The statement was made during the latest hearing in the investigation into the August 30 sinking off the occupied port of Kyrenia.
Investigators provided further details about the vessel's condition, its inspection history and the actions of its crew, including findings that several items of safety equipment were missing or had not met the required standards.
"Police" said the vessel's Voyage Data Recorder (VDR) contained evidence of an inspection carried out by the "Ports Department" on June 27. The inspection identified several equipment problems, including an expired life buoy on the bridge and the absence of an air band and radio.
A separate inspection conducted under SOLAS safety standards also found that the vessel was missing 14 adult life jackets and 12 children's life jackets.
According to the "police" account reported in court, the company subsequently addressed the deficiencies and informed the "ports department". A subsequent inspection found that the reported problems had been corrected.
Despite these findings, "police" told the court that they had identified no shortcomings concerning the department itself.
First mate accused of failing to assist passengers
The "court" also heard allegations concerning the first mate's conduct during the emergency.
"Police" claimed that he had failed to fulfil his responsibilities on the day of the disaster, including assisting with the evacuation and helping passengers put on their life jackets.
The defence also questioned whether the first mate had checked that the VDR equipment was functioning on the day of the incident. The lawyer argued that responsibility for these technical checks rested with him in his capacity as technical manager.
"Police" responded that investigators had not yet raised this particular question.
Cause of sinking remains unconfirmed
More than two months after the disaster, investigators have yet to establish definitively what caused the vessel to sink.
"Police" told the court they were examining a report suggesting that damage to the front section of the ship may have been responsible. The findings are expected to undergo further technical assessment by a team from Turkey before they can be confirmed.
The defence criticised the length of time taken to establish the cause, arguing that Turk Loydu, the organisation responsible for classifying the vessel, was better placed to determine whether the damaged section could have been repaired.
"Police" said they were still examining responses received from Turk Loydu on November 4.
Investigators examine 57 days of recordings
"Police" also provided an update on the examination of the vessel's Voyage Data Recorder.
The device has been fully downloaded, with experts examining recordings covering a total of 57 days. Investigators said the material included evidence of the June 27 inspection by the "ports department".
However, the defence challenged the extent to which the recordings could establish technical problems aboard the vessel. The lawyer argued that the VDR could not identify the location or source of a malfunction simply through recorded sounds, questioning earlier claims made during the investigation.
The lawyer also disputed whether a damaged section examined by "police" was the same part that had broken away from the front of the vessel.
Questions over management and responsibility
The hearing also addressed the relationship between the vessel's captain and the company director.
The defence claimed that the two did not know each other during the relevant period, questioning how responsibilities were divided under the International Safety Management (ISM) standards governing ship operations. "Police" described this as an allegation.
The lawyer further questioned whether investigators would be able to complete their work within the remaining detention period, given that technical responses and reports from Turkey were still pending. "Police" said the investigation would be completed within the required timeframe.
The nine suspects, who have been held for 74 days in connection with the investigation, were ordered to remain in custody for a further seven days. The "court" was told that the maximum detention period under the investigation was 90 days.
