Part 2 – Contravention of Discharge Provisions

  1 Experience has shown that information furnished to the flag State as envisaged in appendix 5 of these Procedures is often inadequate to enable the flag State to cause proceedings to be brought in respect of the alleged violation of the discharge requirements. This appendix is intended to identify information which is often needed by a flag State for the prosecution of such possible violations.

  2 It is recommended that, in preparing a port State report on deficiencies, where contravention of the discharge requirements is involved, the authorities of the coastal or port State be guided by the itemized list of possible evidence as shown in part 3 of this appendix. It should be borne in mind in this connection that:

• .1 the report aims to provide the optimal collation of obtainable data; however, even if all the information cannot be provided, as much information as possible should be submitted;

• .2 it is important for all the information included in the report to be supported by facts which, when considered as a whole, would lead the port or coastal State to believe a contravention had occurred.

  3 In addition to the port State report on deficiencies, a report should be completed by a port or coastal State, on the basis of the itemized list of possible evidence. It is important that these reports are supplemented by documents such as:

• .1 a statement by the observer of the pollution. In addition to the information required under section 1 of part 3 of this appendix the statement should include considerations which lead the observer to conclude that none of any other possible pollution sources is in fact the source;

• .2 statements concerning the sampling procedures both of the slick and on board. These should include location of and time when samples were taken, identity of person(s) taking the samples and receipts identifying the persons having custody and receiving transfer of the samples;

• .3 reports of analyses of samples taken of the slick and on board; the reports should include the results of the analyses, a description of the method employed, reference to or copies of scientific documentation attesting to the accuracy and validity of the method employed and names of persons performing the analyses and their experience;

• .4 a statement by the PSCO on board together with the PSCO's rank and organization;

• .5 statements by persons being questioned;

• .6 statements by witnesses. All observations, photographs and documentation should be supported by a signed verification of their authenticity. All certifications, authentications or verifications shall be executed in accordance with the laws of the State which prepares them. All statements should be signed and dated by the person making the statement and, if possible, by a witness to the signing. The names of the persons signing statements should be printed in legible script above or below the signature;

• .7 photographs of the oil slick; and

• .8 copies of relevant recordings, etc., pages of Oil Record Books, logbooks, discharge.

  4 The report referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3 should be sent to the flag State. If the coastal State observing the pollution and the port State carrying out the investigation on board are not the same, the State carrying out the latter investigation should also send a copy of its findings to the State observing the pollution and requesting the investigation.