On Thursday, Egyptian investigators announced that traces of explosives had been found on the remains of victims of the EgyptAir 804 crash, indicating that the plane was taken down deliberately. The evidence has been turned over to a public prosecutor who will start a criminal investigation.

The plane crash in May has long been a mystery. In June, a French ship detected a signal from the plane’s black box, in the Mediterranean Sea north of Egypt. In July, the sound recordings from the box indicated that the plane had gone down in a fire, but it was unclear what caused it. The plane was heading from Paris to Cairo when it went down, killing all 66 passengers on board.

News Alert: Traces of explosives found on EgyptAir victims. pic.twitter.com/lSnDM3yviR

— Fox News (@FoxNews) December 15, 2016

In October 2015, a Russian passenger flight crashed in Egypt, killing 224 people. The Islamic State later took responsibility for the crash, saying it had smuggled explosives on board. But since no terrorist group has claimed responsibility for the fate of flight 804, investigators believed that technical failure was to blame. Also, the cockpit voice recorder revealed that the pilots tried to extinguish a fire aboard and electronic evidence showed that smoke detectors went off in a bathroom. That indicated that there was a slow fire rather than an abrupt explosion.

The relationship between France and Egypt has been tense since the incident, as has the probe. Since the investigating team consists of officials from multiple countries, Egypt and France among others, the operation has been contentious at times. Egyptian officials have not wanted to share information with foreign investigators. And the French investigators don’t agree with the Egyptians’ recent findings, though they “can’t exclude that the plane was brought down intentionally,” an official said to the Wall Street Journal.

While France has wanted the victims’ remains to be returned to their families as soon as possible, Egypt has refused, citing the ongoing investigation. “France expects that the transmission of this report to the Egyptian prosecutor clears the way for the victims’ remains to be returned to their families as quickly as possible,” a spokesman for the French foreign minister said.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Explosives Found on Victims of EgyptAir Crash Prompt Criminal Probe appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Motive For OSU Attack Still Unclear

Yesterday, a student at Ohio State University posted a rant online saying “America! Stop interfering with other countries, especially Muslim Ummah [community]. We are not weak. We are not weak, remember that.” Then he drove a car straight into a crowd at Ohio State, before getting out and stabbing multiple people. Abdul Razak Ali Artan was only 18 years old and police are still investigating a possible motive for the deed. None of Artan’s victims died, but 11 people were taken to the hospital and Artan was killed by the police.

Now many people fear that this will increase tensions between the left and right and that Islamophobia and anti-refugee sentiments will get a boost, as Artan was a Somali refugee. And certain controversial political figures got in on that debate right away:

Brutal attack on Americans by Somali refugee today demands urgent electoral reform! Next time, we must be allowed to vote for Trump twice.

— Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) November 29, 2016

Watch as Ohio State University stops trending now that twitter knows it was a Somali Muslim refugee student taking an Americans kid’s spot

— Jared Wyand (@JaredWyand) November 28, 2016

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: November 29, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

A new Dutch probe into the downed Malaysian Airlines passenger jet that crashed in Ukraine in 2014, leading to the death of all 298 passengers, concluded that the missile used to shoot it down was Russian in origin. Investigators also said that Russia participated in the cover-up afterwards. The report mainly confirmed existing speculation that Russia was somehow linked to the attack and is part of international investigators’ attempts to collect enough hard evidence to build a case against Russia.

“Possibly they will bring charges of murder–and possibly even charges of war crimes,” said al-Jazeera’s Neave Barker who was at the news conference in Nieuwegein, Netherlands.

The incident only increased tensions between Russia and the West, and victims’ families are impatient for details about the truth.

“As a family we are impatient. We want to know what happened, how it happened and why? We want those responsible to face justice,” said Silene Fredriksz to media before the news conference. Her 23-year-old son and his girlfriend were on the plane.

The Evidence

The jet had taken off from Amsterdam and was heading toward Kuala Lumpur when it was unexpectedly shot down in July 2014. Though investigators didn’t say explicitly that Russia ordered the attack or named any individuals, the results of the probe show that the missile system, called Buk or SA-11, was delivered from Russia after a request from Russian-backed separatists just hours before it was used. After a missile had been fired and the plane wreck crashed in a field, the missile system was returned to Russia. Investigators made it clear that their intention is to find who is responsible, name suspects and potentially press criminal charges.

All 298 people on board, most of them Dutch citizens, were killed https://t.co/kBSIRtDuJ9

— Al Jazeera News (@AJENews) September 28, 2016

Among the evidence in the report was the testimony of a Russian rebel who allegedly guarded the missile system when it was sent back to Russia after completing its mission. The discovery of a missile nose cone and fin was also an important factor. One piece of evidence that was revealed last year was a piece of shrapnel in one of the pilots’ bodies, with characteristics unique to the exact type of Buk missiles that Russia uses; that particular model is not used by Ukraine.

In phone conversations included in the evidence, separatists were heard requesting the missile system because they wanted to defend themselves against Ukrainian air attacks. They received word that they would get it the same night. The Buk system was brought in by trucks across the Russian border. Prosecutors have figured out the exact route the missile was transported, where it was fired, and how it got back to Russia.

Russia’s Stance

Additional recordings of phone conversations showed the reaction from a militant to his superior when he realized it was not a Ukrainian plane but a passenger jet: “It was 100 per cent a passenger aircraft…there are civilian items, medicinal stuff, towels, toilet paper.”

Shortly after the plane was downed, a separatist leader named Igor Girkin appeared to be boasting about having shot down a Ukrainian military plane on a Russian social media website. He also wrote “We warned them–don’t fly in our sky.” The post was soon deleted.

Russia denies all involvement with the crash and calls the accusations “speculation, unqualified and unprofessional information.” Russian officials also have some interesting versions of what they think happened, including a theory that the CIA stuffed some hundred bodies in a drone and crashed it in Ukraine to discredit Russia. Another one is that Ukraine aimed to shoot down Russian president Putin’s plane but accidentally hit the Malaysian Airlines plane instead.

But even if prosecutors find the responsible individuals, what can they really do about it? Russia’s government prohibits the extradition of Russian citizens to trial in foreign countries. It is also unclear where, if any specific suspects are found and named, they would go to trial.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New Probe Shows Missile that Downed Malaysia Airlines Flight is Linked to Russia appeared first on Law Street.

So as I predicted in my previous article, issues of liability were around the corner. It looks like they came sooner than expected and from an unexpected volunteer. On Tuesday, Malaysia Airlines announced the first batch of payments it would make to families of passengers on Flight 370. The amount? $5,000 per passenger. This pre-emptive payment is not by any means the final payment by Malaysia Airlines, as the Montreal Convention set the $150,000 threshold, and experts expect next of kin compensation could eventually exceed millions of dollars per passenger.

So far, Malaysia Airlines has also provided money for food, lodging, and any travel expense the families may have since the incident unfolded on March 8. The airline has pledged to continue this aid for as long as possible. But with more and more people assuming all lives have been lost, people are turning their eyes toward compensation for the families of passengers.

One attorney, Monica Kelly, spoke to CNN and said that within her experience, Malaysia airlines may be forced to pay between $400,000 and $3 million per family.

Another attorney, Mike Danko, said the amount of money families are awarded has a lot of to do with where they filed a lawsuit. For instance, U.S. courts will probably give families more money than those in China. Passengers on Flight 370 came from 14 different countries, so lawsuits could be filed in any of those.

At least in the US, one of the more difficult (and arbitrary) set of decisions will come when the courts decide how much each family gets… by figuring out how much each person’s life was worth in the first place. Each passenger will be assessed separately, and the amount of money awarded to each family is decided on a number of factors. For instance, someone with 3 small children may receive more money than a single person in his 40s.

But Malaysia Airlines may have some help, as well. Airlines tend to be covered by insurance policies ranging between $2 to $2.5 billion, with as much as $10 million set aside by each passenger, according to Brian Havel, director of the International Aviation Law Institute at DePaul University.

And as previously discussed, the logistics surrounding this still-missing aircraft could slow the process down. But assuming a long period of time goes by and no sign of the aircraft is found, courts might go ahead and rule the passengers as deceased, allowing families to sue for damages and collect life insurance.

[CBS] [CNN] [Yahoo]

—

Molly Hogan (@molly_hogan13)

Featured Image Courtesy of [Allen Watkin via Flickr]

Molly Hogan

Molly Hogan is a student at The George Washington University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Molly at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post First Payments from Malaysian Plane Crash: Only $5,000? appeared first on Law Street.

Two weeks in, everyone with a television knows about the disappearing Malaysia Airlines Flight 370. And even if you don’t, turn on just about any news station, and within two minutes you’ll get the gist of it. Recently the Prime Minister of Malaysia said the flight crashed in the Indian Ocean, and rumors about what actually happened are still floating around. But one thing that hasn’t been discussed as heavily as the conspiracy theories: Who is liable?

To be frank, things like this are logistical nightmares. Before compensating families of victims, a number of questions need to be answered: who is responsible for what happened? Does the fact  that no remains have been recovered (yet) make a difference? Would foul play affect the amount of money families are eligible to receive? And, perhaps most basically, who will actually have to pay?

Luckily, we have some answers to these questions. Back in 1999, the Montreal Convention, which outlines rules and rights that passengers have in international air travel, was adopted. In response to who is liable, the article 17 of the treaty puts it quite simply- “the carrier is liable for damage sustained in case of death or bodily injury of a passenger”. The convention even goes on to describe how much money they must pay to compensate for death or injury of passengers. After some conversions, we find that amount is roughly equivalent to $150,000. (Yep, that is a cost of life now a days). Now, if the family members suing the airline aren’t claiming damages worth any more money than that, the airline can’t “exclude or limit its liability.” Basically, the airline is on the hook.

But this is the 21st century, and it would be surprising if families didn’t sue for much, much, more. This is where we hit a fork in the road. According to the Convention, if the crash was the airline’s fault, courts could rule in favor of passengers, giving their families more money. But if the airline wasn’t negligent, or if a 3rd party alone (like a terrorist group) caused the damages, Malaysia Air might be off the hook in paying damages.

So, what’s the most obvious problem with all of this? We don’t know what happened. We don’t know if it was a mechanical failure, if the pilot made a mistake, or if this was intentional. Until there is evidence of a crash, let alone who is at fault for it, determining who is liable for what will be difficult at best, and impossible at worst. Unfortunately, the Montreal Convention didn’t account for this potential lack of information.

But assuming we get the answers to at least some of these questions, there are still a number of things to address.

First, where will these lawsuits take place? In Malaysia, where the airline is based? Or, in the home countries of those presumed dead? The Montreal Convention accounts for this as well. The most likely place for these lawsuits to take place will be the home of the airline, the homes of the passengers on the flight, or the destination of the flight. In this case, that means Malaysia, China, and/or the United States could be involved, among others. Obviously, all three of those countries have vastly different court systems, and could rule incredibly differently. So there is a potential for families to be compensated with vast differences depending on where the lawsuit was first filed.

But wait, there’s still more. Not only is there a potential for families to sue the airline, they could sue the maker of the plane- Boeing, or the maker of the engine- Rolls Royce. And these lawsuits could be based just about anywhere.

There’s a lot up in the air about what happened to Flight 370, and a lot of questions still need to be answered before the victims’ families can be compensated. Because there is so much we don’t know, it’s hard to guesstimate how much the airline will be required to pay as a result of this tragedy. But the Montreal Convention, if nothing else, gives us a good baseline parameter.

[BBC] [Montreal Convention] [ABC]

—

Molly Hogan (@molly_hogan13)

Featured Image Courtesy of [Flickr/Abdallahh]

Molly Hogan

Molly Hogan is a student at The George Washington University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Molly at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Malaysian Airplane Crash: Who’s Liable? appeared first on Law Street.

Asiana Airlines Inc. is being sued by two passengers, Younga Jun Machorro and her son Benjamin Hyo-in Machorro, who were on board the plane that crashed while landing at the San Francisco International Airport on July 6.  The crash killed three people and injured 81 other passengers.

The Machorros filed suit in San Fransisco Federal Court on July 15 arguing that the plane’s pilots failed to observe fundamental procedures for visual landing approach, monitoring flight conditions and reacting to conditions.  In addition, the complaint also stated Machorro and her son suffered extreme bodily and mental injuries. The family is seeking $5 million in damages.

The complaint was filed by Michael Verna, the Machorros’ attorney, and states that the lawsuit is governed by the Montreal Convention. The treaty states the location of the case is based on factors that include the passengers’ final destination.

—

Kevin Rizzo (@kevinrizzo10) is editor of Crime in America. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University senior was a founding member of Law Street. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Aero Icarus via Flickr]

Ashley Powell

Ashley Powell is a founding member of Law Street Media, and its original Lead Editor. She is a graduate of The George Washington University. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Asiana Sued by Two Passengers in San Francisco Crash appeared first on Law Street.