Highlights of the fact-finding report are provided in a news article published in The Wall Street Journal, based on the news organization having reviewed the report. Insofar as can be found, the report isn't yet publicly available; presumably all ICAO Member States which currently hold seats on the Council have received it.
WSJ news article keys in on factual items pertinent to the bona fides of the "bomb threat" reported by Belarus ATCOs to the flight, or lack of such bona fides. Evidently the report does not draw conclusions; just the facts, ma'am. Yet the facts reported about details of emailed communications do, without elaboration, lead quite readily to reasonable inferences. The WSJ says the ICAO report, in addition to a timeline, sets out the most detailed and complete information on the incident to date. The report, it also is noted, identifies several items of information not provided by Belarus. And while justifications or excuses, or purported justifications and/or excuses, for declining to provide information or about its unavailability also are noted, again without elaboration, inferences seem readily to be drawn.
ICAO Council, 31 January in Montreal, could be other than a dry dull and boring, bland diplomatic affair. Perhaps the star power of the new United States Permanent Representative will liven the proceedings up?