After M/S Estonia summary of the report
Ur KB:s samlingar
Digitaliserad år 2015
I
M/S
After Estonia
Summary of the report by the Commission for guidance and information after the M/S Estonia-disaster
KUNGL. BIBLIOTEKET STOCKHOLM
M/ S
After Estonia
Summary of the the Commission for
report by
M/S Estoniaguidance and information after the distaster
Swedish titel Efter Estonia ISBN 91-38-20483-5
ISSN 0375-25OX
Graphic Systems AB, Göteborg 1997
Contents
l Background 5
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 My Commission 6
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 The purpose of the Commission 6
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 The execution of the assignment 6
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 The issue of salvaging 10
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 The negotiated settlement with Skuld 12
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Summary of the Conclusions and Suggestions 17
. . . . . . . . . . .
After M/S Estonia
Summary in english
of the report SOU 1996: 189 by Jur.dr. Peter Nobel, commissioned by the Government of Sweden to give general guidance and information to the relatives of the victims and survivors of the M/S Estonia-disaster.
1 Background
Shortly after midnight on September 28th, 1994 the ferryship M/S Estonia, sailing under Estonian flag its from Talinn to
on way Stockholm was shipwrecked during rough weather and sank international waters at about 70 meters deep south of the Finnish island Utö. was the greatest disaster befalling any of the Nordic countries since World War II.
As far as has been possible to establish there 989
were persons on board of which 137 rescued and 94 found dead. The number of
were missing dead 758. 49 Swedish citizens survived. 551 from
persons Sweden died in the disaster. This number depending
can vary on whether includes only Swedish citizens or also others domiciled Sweden. The number of family members and relations Sweden who were close to the victims estimated to more than 3 000 persons. They are found all over the country.
Only ten days before the disaster general elections had been held Sweden. The conservative-liberal coalition under Prime Minister Carl Bildt had lost to the Social Democratic Party led by Mr. Ingvar Carlsson. Both Mr. Bildt and Mr. Carlsson publicly expressed their shock and their sympathy with the victims and their families. Both also made statements which could hardly be understood other than promise
a that M/S Estonia and all victims which could be found would be
salvaged.
2 Commission
My
On November 8th, 1994, Cabinet Minister, Mrs. Marita Ulvskog, at that time Minister of Public Administration, following a mandate of the Government commissioned the author, Jur. Dr. Peter Nobel, to act as a special investigator for general information and guidance to familymembers and relations of victims as well as survivers after the M/S Estonia-disaster. My commission was to last from November 4th, 1994 and until June 30th, 1995.
3 The of the commission
purpose
The assignment had been given by the Government of Sweden. was meant only Swedish citizens and those domiciled Sweden
to cover and thus under Swedish jurisdiction. The task to give general information and guidance understood that I was not to be legal
was counsel, advisor or therapist of the individual. This meant that my duty was restricted only to give general advice to individuals turning to me for advice. Finally I have sought strict impartiality in issues where the views and preferences of the relatives have stood wide apart and conflict with each other, e.g. the question whether the ship and the dead should be salvaged and brought up or not.
4 The execution of the
assignment
Contacts with the relatives of the victims and the survivers were made mainly three ways; Messages addressed to the entire group by letters through the media, Meetings with various associations and
or crisis-groups formed among them, Dialogue or correspondence directly with individuals.
should be mentioned approached by others than
that I was many those directly affected by the M/S Estonia-disaster. There were inventors and others who had ideas about how the sunken ship, the dead or the goods should be salvaged. Others presented ideas about everything from memorials to safety at sea. Some seemed worth listening to and where their suggestions had relevance to assignment I referred them to
no my
proper instances. Clearly catastrophe of this magnitude did release
a a considerable creativity, to some extent undesirable. In the beginning there were reports of burglary of the homes and business-premises of persons who were reported missing and false invoices sent to them or their money for some kind of alleged memorial purpose was reported to the police. was discovered that the swindlers operated from abroad. Their identity not established since the attempt to end
was came an when the police started looking into the matter.
Those struck by other tragedies
There were also persons whose family members had been struck by other tragedies like traffic-accidents, homicide, etc. They all declared that they well understood that was not my task to give advice or support to others than those suffering after the Estonia-disaster, but still
their desperation they wanted to communicate to someone how little understanding and assistance they had received from insurance companies, authorities etc. This indicates the need of better assistance in crisis due to everyday disasters striking thousands every year Sweden.
The Support-Groups
Very soon after September 28th, 1994 various associations and crisisgroups were formed. They can be divided into three categories:
A Local Support-Groups
Very soon after September 28th, 1994 various associations and crisisgroups were formed. They can be divided into three categories:
A Local Support-Groups, these are local organizations of those affected
and sympathizers, with adopted statutes and elected board-members,
which have been formed spontaneously or on the initiative of some
existing institution with the purpose to give needed assistance to
those affected. There are about a dozen Local Support-Groups. About
half of them have received a single financial support from the
Government for covering administrative costs.
B Two National Support-Groups which are ambitiously recruiting
run,
members all the country with clearly defined aims going
over
beyond satisfying the direct need of assistance and support. They too
have adopted statutes and elected board-members. They have also
received money from the Government to cover their cost of
administration.
C Crisis-Groups, which came up spontaneously connected to various
centra for therapy and crisis-support without forrnalizing the
activities through adopted statutes etc.
Local Support-Groups seem to have been functioning very well and in accordance with their aim, which to support members struck by the disaster. Notwithstanding some assistance from outside the mutual support of the members themselves has been their most important role. An essential prerequisite has been that the Groups as such have observed impartiality controversial and heartrending
issues such as the salvaging of the ship, the dead or not.
The two National Support-Groups are different. The International Support-Group for relatives and survivers Den Intemationella Stödgruppen för anhöriga och överlevande, DIS, based Stockholm under the Presidency of Mr. Gunnar Bendréus. The Foundation Estonia victims and relatives Stiftelsen Estoniaoffren och anhöriga, SEA, based Borlänge the province of Dalecarlia and presided over by Mr. Lennart Berglund. my impression that both their respective organizations have been very much characterized by their respective presidents. Both decided at an early stage to recruit members from all over the country, DIS as its name indicates recruited members abroad as well. Yet they are different in many respects and have had partly conflicting aims.
DIS has been neutral in the salvaging-issue, gave priority to solving the problems of indemnities from the Norwegian Assurance Association Skuld and early got touch with Norwegian solicitors, who had been engaged against the same insurer following the fire on board the ferryship Scandinavian Star 1990. In the beginning DIS suggested that those who claimed indemnities did not have their own
to engage legal counsels, was enough to sign a power of attomey for DIS and their solicitors. DIS has also launched support-programmes in Estonia and are trying the possibilities of an international indemnity case to be litigated against the constructors of M/S Estonia and the responsible Classification-society.
SEA has been actively compaigning for the salvaging of the sunken ship, not for bringing up as many victims as possible. SEA initially
held that the primary issue concemed who should be held responsible for the disaster and that the issue of financial compensation should be secondary.
The two National Support-Groups have acted with little interaction between them or with the Local Support-Groups. Many of the families and the relations of the victims were distressed and confused about which support-group to join and whom to empower to handle their claims. Other have found their support to be of value.
Personal account
I started on my mission on 14th November 1994, seven weeks after the disaster.
The most important part of the task was that of the issue of financial compensation from the Norwegian Assurance Association Skuld and other insurers, either under public law or private contracts. There
were some initial difficulties with the National Support-Groups of which one opposed that the claimants should engage legal counsels of their
own and the other was against giving priority to the issue of financial compensation. However after initial misunderstandings became clear that we were all stringing the direction and that the issues of
same financial compensation on one side and legal responsibility for the disaster on the other could be dealt with separately.
I did recommend that every one entitled to compensation engage a well reputed local lawyer and this for the following reasons: Knowledge about legislation, case law and the personal circumstances of the client are needed for proper presentation of his or her claims. The offer from Skuld could be expected to be so complicated that professional legal advice would be required to evaluate Most of the affected had other legal issues as well, which they needed to discuss. 4. If a case was wrongly handled the Swedish Bar Association could offer some legal remedies, provided that the assigned was a member of the Bar.
Everything that was done the aftermath of the shipwreck of M/S Estonia was overshadowed by the heartrending conflict over whether the ship and the dead should be salvaged or not. I met bittemess and disappointment from those who where made unhappy by the Governments decision of 15th December 1994 not to salvage the sunken ship nor any of the victims. I will come back to some of the deliberations that preceded the decision.
The Archbishop of the Swedish Church, Rev. Gunnar Weman, was also criticized, firstly because his statements were interpreted as backing
the Govemments decision and secondly because a proposed memorial service the site of the disaster could not be fulfilled.
at sea on
The Government had declared that national memorial would be
a built Stockholm. In the beginning of 1995 this led to a debate which involved a number of national and local authorities concerning the proper place for the memorial. I proposed a letter to the then Minister of Culture, Mrs. Margot Wallström, to intervene and take a decision which she promptly did. However no national memorial has been built to this day.
When the Government announced their decision of December 15th in 1994 neither to lift the wreck nor any of the deceased, the Government also pledged that the sunken ship should be considered a graveyard and a resting-place and that measures would be taken to guarantee its The protection of M/S Estonia and the place were
peace.
rests at the bottom of the sea would be legal as well as technical.
On the 23rd February 1995 the Government of Estonia, Finland and Sweden signed a treaty binding the contracting states to respect the wreck of M/S Estonia and a rectangular area around as the place of the final rest for the deceased and that activities violating this peace would be punishable by law. Laws have been enacted accordance. The treaty includes an obligation for each one of the contracting states to report to eachother ship under the flag of any of these signatories
a gets involved in activities thus criminalized. The treaty open for accession to other states. I submitted a couple of remarks to the Parliament during the of legislation. Firstly I indicated the
process desirability of reporting even criminilized activities carried out from ships under other flags than those of the contracting states. Secondly I pointed out that the wording of the proposed law should not exclude future activities of an entirely acceptable character, e.g. technical research or securing of evidence. Neither remark influenced the wording of the legislation.
5 The issue of
salvaging
The Ethical Council
Although I observe impartiality issues were there serious disagreement between various groups of mourners and relatives, I think
to give account of some of the background to the
proper Governments decision to let the wreckage and all the dead remain at the bottom of the sea.
Already on the 11th October 1994 the National Marine Board had reported to the Government that salvaging of the sunken ship probably was technically possible and that there were no legal obstacles. The 20th October the Government requested the Board to analyse the consequences of salvaging and of handling the bodies of the victims from M/S Estonia. The day the Government authorized the
same Minister of Communications, Mrs. Ines Uusmann, to appoint council
a to guide the Government ethical issues and considerations after the Estonia-disaster. The Ethical Council constituted respected members of the society. However their competence questioned and their
was recommendations were criticised.
The Ethical Council held four meetings. I attended
the first three as observer. The members were well of how divided the relatives of
aware the victims far salvaging the ship concerned. The
were as as was Council held that was hardly possible to reach decision that would
a not for entail bitter disappointment.
many a
Statements and reports were presented by the National Marine Board, by experts forensic medicin and by the Identification Commission of the National Board of the Police. Photographs taken inside other sunken vessels showing human bodies in decay and the commotion board,
on were also circulated.
No one submitted that salvaging would be legally prohibited
or technically unfeasible. Financial aspects not mentioned. But the
were great number of dead and the span of time needed to take of them
care all as well as the expected effects the bodies and remnants of the
on victims due to the technical measures such, much into
as came very view. was claimed that to turn the hull of the ship upright order to lift would have meant repetition of the disruptment of everything
a movable board which supposed to have occurred during the
on was ship-wreck. The steelwires used for lifting would cut deep into
or press into the upper decks due to their light and fragile constructions. Furthermore all the bodies could only be taken of step by step
care because of the clearance operations board. Many of the bodies would
on be exposed to air and temperatures causing quick decay, the
summer as operations would have to be carried, when waters calm and free
are from ice. In their final opinion the Ethical Council stated: "If the ship
salvaged many will see as an unworthy to handle corpses."
manner
Police officers, rescue-servicemen, pathologists and other personal were prepared to perform their duties. But the number of would
corpses expose the staff involved to psychological strain spite of
severe debriefings and other support-measures. Psychiatrists confirmed such risks.
The question to salvage not to salvage thoroughly discussed
or was stressing the fears and hopes of those who for as well as those
were who against. The Ethical Council saw no real solution to this
were dilemma. Finally the evaluation of the risks for the personel engaged the operation decisive for the recommendation of the Council not
was
to salvage the ship. This standpoint led to the question of whether one
should try to bring possible of the deceased from the
up as many as ship and its vicinity not. Members of the Council had difficulties
or accepting selection entirely governed by accessibility to the various
a sections of the hull. The eventual separation of for example couples who
lying the also mentioned. The were now same grave was recommendation not to salvage any. This led to the
was recommendations aiming at the legal and technical protection of the wreckage.
SEAs enquiry
When the Government the 15th December 1994 resolved to salvage
on neither the ship the deceased, the National Support—Group SEA, that
nor had been campaigning for salvaging decided to undertake its own enquiry in order to find out what the relatives wanted. This initiative
controversial but nevertheless carried out March 1995. The was was wordings of the questionnaire were criticized. The results however were checked authorized auditor.
by an
810 questionnaires had been distributed whereof 517 to addresses i Sweden. 82 percent Sweden did reply, 35 percent for taking
were
of deceased, 40 percent against, 7 percent were not sure while care were 18 percent did not at all. In Estonia and other countries 73
answer percent replied with majority for salvaging In total 49
a corpses. percent were for and 51 against.
6 The settlement with Skuld
negotiated
Guidance directed at safeguarding the financial interests of those directly affected by the M/S Estonia-disaster stood out as the most important part of my task.
In the last decade there has been a series of severe accidents northwestern European waters. On 6th March 1987 the British ferry Herald of Free Enterprize capsized outside Zeebrügge on the Belgian
whereby 188 killed. On the 7th April 1990 fire coast persons were
broke out on the Bahamas-flagged passengership Scandinavian Star
on route between Fredrikshavn and Oslo killing 158 On the 14th
persons. January 1993 a Polish ferry, Jan Heweliusz, sank the Baltic Sea between Poland and Southern Sweden claiming 54 lives. The greatest disaster of them all occurred on the 28th September 1994, when M/S Estonia sank and 852 people were killed.
A catastrophe of this magnitude entails different claims for
many financial compensation and indemnities amounting to large of
sums money, on the other hand the money available be limited for
may various reasons including legal restrictions well. Litigation in courts
as of justice expensive and time-consuming. A shipping
company as defendant a case concerning legal counsels but also has to set aside administrative resources at the of routine activities, employ
expense expertise, risk negative publicity etc. Small and middle-sized companies can reach a point where their future existence could be at stake. Typically therefore the interest not only of the claimants but also of the ship-owner and the insurance company to avoid being dragged down a swamp of court—cases.
With the above in mind the parties after the Scandinavian Star accident 1990 reached an agreement without much delay. As the case of M/S Estonia, the ship insured by the Norwegian Assurance
was Association Skuld. The claimants were represented collectively by
a delegation of Norwegian lawyers, who reached negotiated settlement
a with Skuld. based division of those related to the victims
was on a into a number of categories and a system of standard compensations for damage and indemnities to be paid entitled, depending
to everyone on which category they belonged to. This solution, which inspired by
so called class-actions known the Anglo-american legal system, to
came serve as a model-settlement for the Estonia-case, involving the
same insurance association and the Norwegian lawyers.
same
Beside the settlement with Skuld, many of the families of the deceased and the survivors have received and will receive compensation under a number of other insurance-contracts well public insurance
as as which part of the Swedish social security system. There private
were life-insurances, travel-insurances, employment-insurances, etc. In
some cases the accumulated sum considerable, but this varies depending
on the insurance-profile of the individual. At crucial stage of the
a negotiations, Skuld and relevant Swedish insurance companies reciprociacally declared that they refrained from requesting repayment or deduction of the amount in case had been received from other
an insurer as well. This mutual declaration greatly facilitated the agreement with Skuld. also resulted higher compensation than the claimants
would have been able to obtain through litigation having to prove the justification for every detail of the claim. This combination of multiple compensation and the standard amount from Skuld can be said this case to have dissolved the relation between loss and hardship suffered on the side and the amount paid indemnity on the other.
one as
noted that most Swedish insurance companies involved acted promptly after the disaster offering to meet the immediate financial needs of those victimized. The central Swedish tax authorities confinnation that compensation received would only exceptional cases be subject to taxation, was appreciated.
M/S Estonia was owned by a limited company registered Cyprus. The Estonian shipping company Estline Ltd. leased the ship and was the contracting part vis vis the passengers and thus was under strict liability following the Swedish Marine Law. This liability was covered by insurance from Skuld, which a Norwegian so called Protection and Indemnity Association. Under Marine Law however the liability limited through the system of "Special Drawing Rights", SDR. Accordingly the liability for a passenger shall not exceed 100 000 SDRs
and usually much lower as there also a total limit at 25 million - SDR. The value of one SDR noted on a daily basis on the international monetary and currency-market. In the autumn 1994 was about 10,5 Swedish Crowns, SEK. In short the roof for the total amount of compensation for claimants who lost relations the M/S Estoniadisaster estimated at about 260 million SEK. However the actual
was sum that being paid out expected to exceed 400 million SEKs.
The Swedish Law of Torts as well as the Swedish Marine law were applied. The Estonian Law of Torts was considered less favourable for the claimants. Under the Law of Torts compensation due to accidental death shall be given for loss of alimonies or provision, funeral costs and other reasonable expenses. A crucial question whether and to what extent compensate the emotional and mental suffering caused
one can by the sudden loss of someone loved. Swedish case-law ectremely restrictive almost inconsiderate, recognizing financial claims by those not directly victimized, namely the third parties. In 1993 the Supreme Court passed verdicts on two extremely repulsive cases of sexual murder. In both cases the court accorded each of the parents the sum of 25.000 SEK after having been convinced that their suffering motivated that much. The settlement with Skuld should be seen inter alia the light of these rulings.
Esteemed lawyers with extensive experience Marine Law and the Law of Torts concluded that the application of class—action against
soon Skuld would be best for obtaining a quick and good result, primarily
through negotiation otherwise by litigation. I supported their judgement
and the proposed line of action. However SEA wanted to give priority to the question of responsibility for the accident the issue of
over compensation. Furthermore there few practising lawyers
were a
propagating litigation order to establish who was responsible for the
tragedy. This would have meant of court-room hazards without
years compensation to the claimants, considering that many of them really needed the money, and the risk that the entire compensation available would be limited according to Marine Law, and consumed by costly litigation.
In letters to all known relatives, through the media, private consultations and a letter to all members of the Swedish Bar Association I recommended joint action against Skuld.
On the 21st November 1994 a number of lawyers from Estonia, Norway and Sweden, representing about 250 estates of the deceased, gathered at Stockholm-Arlanda airport. They decided to form a joint delegation for negotiation under the leadership of the Norwegian advocate Mr. Espen Komnaes together with seven more lawyers from the three countries. Other lawyers representing families and estates of the deceased were to be a reference-group. The delegation and the representatives of Skuld promptly set out to work, and spite of several difficulties an offer for a negotiated settlement presented
was as early as the 3rd January 1995. The lawyers in the delegation strived at obtaining better compensation through the settlement than by having to prove loss and damage at court, under Swedish Law of Torts. They found that this had been achieved.
For Skuld was important that as many as possible accepted the offer. Skuld therefore posed the condition that they would not be bound by the offer unless was accepted by at least 90 percent of the closest family members and the survivers. Among the closest were counted those who had lost wife, husband or similar, and children or young dependant persons who had lost one or both parents or guardians. Those of minor age or for other reasons lacking legal capacity of course had to be represented by trustees. Parents who had lost their children were not included among those whose acceptance was required. The last day for acceptance of the offer was set on the 20th March 1995.
The offer based on classification of the claimants nine
a categories with sub-groups depending on the closeness of kindship or other relationship to the deceased. Category 10 are the survivers. For each group and sub-group a standard compensation granted which calculated excess of what would have been under Swedish Law of Torts. For some families the total amount far above the maximum
stipulated by the Marine Law. The agreement includes a special guarantee. A claimant entitled to additional compensation he can prove that the method of calculation used vis á vis another claimant would have given a better result.
Each surviver receives 150.000 SEK and with a certain right to raise further claims of future complications related to the accident.
case
However those who have accepted the offer have also thereby abstained from the possibility to sue Estline or Skuld. In accordance with customary law the agreement explicity regulates compensation between the parties once and for all. This does not prevent anyone from taking up cases against any other party, e. the Constructor of the ship, classiñcation-societies, authorities who have issued passenger certificates for M/S Estonia etc.
The terms of agreement however were not satisfactory for all, particularly not for parents who have lost their children, category and for persons with special relations to the deceased, category 9. true that the compensation high compared to what has been granted under Swedish case law. Parents receive 50.000 SEK each, a single parent 75.000 SEK. Some could not relate the compensation offered to prevailing legal practise Sweden. They saw as absolutely inadequate relation to their loss. Truly the loss of a child among the heaviest that can befall anyone.
Before Skulds dead—line on the 20th March 1995, was feared that the demanded 90 percent acceptance would not be met with. I also received alarming reports about activities of some practising lawyers trying to undermine the agreement. They spread the opinion that Skulds offer was insufficient from various points of view and that would be in the interest of some categories to litigate against Estline and Skuld or at least to reject the offer and get into prolonged negotiations. In my opinion such proposals were founded neither on a correct analysis of the legal situation nor in the true interest of the claimants. In an article Swedens leading daily, Dagens Nyheter, on the 18th January 1995 I warned against such proposals and gave the general advice to accept Skulds offer. A short public debate ensued in the press and on the television.
Skuld found after having gone through all the replies that were sent them on March 20th that 98 percent accepted the offer, including groups whose accession was not required. Even claimants whose lawyers criticized the agreement had decided to accept.
The next step was to establish the correct amount of compensation in every single case and to effectuate the payments. Reports from claimants and lawyers indicated that difficulties had and
been overcome
that the situation was under control.
The compensation to the families of deceased crew-members and to those of the who survived time-consuming but this has
crew was as not been part of mandate not accounted for here.
my
The main report contains chapters and findings which
are not summarized here. They have however influenced the Conclusions and Suggestions below.
7 of the and
Summary Conclusions
Suggestions
Conclusions
Generally speaking those suffering loss and damage have been well compensated by the insurance companies. This evaluation
based on a comparison with what usually granted Sweden after accidental death or personal injuries. The Swedish insurance companies acted promptly and they refrained from claiming repayment of
cases compensation for the damage from than insurer.
same more one
The negotiated settlement with Skuld will probably model
serve as for future settlements related to accidents with great number of
a victims.
The positive opinion of how the financial claims shall
were met not overshadow the fact that like parents who lost their children,
groups found the offered compensation by proportion to the loss
no means suffered.
The first hours and days after the disaster, chaos ruled the
over information system. The shipping had neither complete
company nor correct passenger-lists. Estline personel Talinn and Stockholm had problems communicating with each other. The police long hesitated to release information about the dead, the rescued and the missing since they could not guarantee the correctness thereof. Relevant telephonelines were blocked.
People turned to the media and particularly to television for information about the disaster. Some journalists, eager to serve their readers with direct information and testimony from survivors and relatives, unfortunately violated ethical norms. On the day after the disaster evening—newspaper published passport photographs of all
an known to have been on board M/S Estonia but without being able to indicate who had survived, who had been found dead and who was missing. Other jounalists lacked consideration by intrusive and indiscrete approaches of mourners and survivers.
Eventually information through the media, the members and spokesmen of the Government and through other channels all all functioned well. However some of the information consisted of conflicting arguments and statements which later had to be corrected. The seemingly never-ending flow of headlines, news and articles related to the disaster have been part of the picture engulfing the lives of the relatives and the survivers after the disaster. Many a time news and articles have been upsetting.
Many of the relatives of the M/S Estonia victims are disappointed at the Governments decision not to salvage the ship or the victims. This disappointment has been reiterated in the agitation of one of the National Support-Groups. What impact all this had on those in mourning question yet to be answered.
a
The initial statements of both Prime Ministers were interpreted by most promise to salvage the ship and the deceased. The
as a Government decided not to spite of reports that salvaging was technically feasible and that there would be no legal obstacles. Looking back the Government should have restricted themselves and only promised that the possibilities of salvaging and the causes behind the disaster would be quickly and carefully investigated.
The pledges legal and technical protection of the ships
to arrange wreck; international and domestic legislation guarding the peace; and to
the sunken hull order to prevent intrusion, could have waited cover until the possibilities had been carefully examined and better information gained about the preferences of the relatives.
In conclusion, of the promises and pledges made, afterwards
many stand out as superfluous. The unfulfilled promises have fueled the disappointment of relatives, who have felt that their opinions and
many wishes have not been taken into consideration. This has been a recurrent theme the agitation of the National Support-Groups.
In retrospect ask whether was necessary to make all these
one can
promises.
All those who wanted had access to legal counsel. The analysis of
the legal situation and the negotiations with Skuld led to positive results.
to the credit of one of the National Support-Groups, DIS, that contact with Norwegian lawyers, who from previous accidents had
mass experience of class-action, established at early stage. After initial
was an difficulties the two National Support-Groups co-operated well with the
lawyers. Municipalities, hospitals, employers, authorities and organizations
assisted well giving support and information. Most important
were the Local Support-Groups and of their families, relatives and
course friends of the affected themselves.
The relatives affected by the M/S Estonia-disaster
many ways have been given more support and attention compared to those who fall victims to everyday disasters, traffic-accidents and crimes.
e.g.
People victimized by tragic incidents not related to the M/S Estoniadisaster got touch with to present their grievances knowing the
us limitations of my mandate.
This indicates the need of generally improved alertness in the
a Swedish society for handling crisis and disasters. We know by experience that traumas best handled there already
are were an existing and functioning organization for the assistance of such victims.
The Government did well when they commissioned to give
someone general guidance to the relatives and the survivers in safeguarding their interests.
Many of them declared that they felt secure thanks to such guidance. The lawyers have testified the importance of interventions to
my establish a functioning negotiation model and to reach quick result.
a
Support-Groups have expressed the wish that I should remain
my position until all payments had been received from Skuld. But I have also been subject to some criticism, part of which has been addressed to the Government and other central authorities.
Had I been appointed earlier, I would have been allowed to play
a more co-ordinating role vis á vis the Support-Groups and clear-up
a number of initial misunderstandings. My role should also have been more clearly defined order to underline independent task to
my serve no other interest than that of those affected by the disaster.
Suggestions to the Government:
That everyone who transports passengers goods by air by - or or sea
should as far as possible and reasonable be obliged to keep complete
and correct lists over passengers, crew and other personel board
on
with names and other information needed to identify them and their
relatives. The lists should be available to those who would be engaged supporting the directly indirectly affected.
or
That the Government commission a workinggroup to review the routines of their offices case of major disasters, whereby special attention should be given to the need of prompt and correct information to the concerned and to the public; the importance of consistent and co-ordinated behaviour on the side of the Government and central authorities; analysis of the humanitarian, financial, psychological and political consequences of alternative decisions under consideration. The aim should be to establish a decisionmaking routine which speedy but not overhasty.
That the Government initiate a review of some of the legislation concerning death-declarations and related issues.
That the Government investigate how the affected after everyday accidents and crisises are treated and assisted by insurancecompanies, public insurance, medical social welfare services,
care, churches and voluntary organizations.
Suggestions to central authorities:
That the National Board of Social Welfare consider measures to promote the capacity of local social welfare authorities to assist in crisis and disasters.
That the National Board of the Police consider how information in
of crisis and disasters should given faster without hazarding case ge reliability.
Suggestions to local actors:
To investigate there the alertness called for and those affected by crisis and disaster are really receiving needed support and assistance. The investigation should bear mind that accidents, catastrophes and crimes take place everyday.