Lets review your comments wings...
There is no question that this is a tragedy with a complex and surprisingly murky set of variables. Out of all these factors criminal charges were filed against very specific parties completely in line with the findings of the BEA report. This report is viewed by many as incomplete and possibly self serving. Given that continental is apparently making a proactive defense that other factors are to blame and that the BEA report is wrong we are left with a fundamental question.
Are the defendants on trial or is the BEA report on trial or both? Did Continental or any other party of interest have the ability to challenge the BEA report or it's findings during the investigation? If the report is flawed but serves as the true basis for the criminal charges then was a "proper process of law" actually followed?
As a single point I will illustrate the following. Lets set aside my doubts (and others) regarding the technical accuracy of the findings and accept the report on face value. In this event we have a technical finding specific to the cause of the crash with FOD as the primary factor. While that might be fine from an investigative perspective it's not from a legal one.
Under the law (in France as well as the US and UK) a certain level of professional competence is excepted in the performance of any professional service. Doctor, Lawyer, Dentist, Electrician or Pipe-fitter...so a fundamental standard of "prudent and reasonable" action is implied and enforced. Just of the top of my head...
1) Failure to inspect the runway prior to takeoff
2) Failure to inform the flight engineer of additional luggage weight/location
3) Decision to use a runway already deemed unsuitable for flight operations
4) Decision to take off in a reported tailwind which violated SOP
5) Failure to inspect and fix improperly maintained equipment
6) Failure to properly follow SOP during an in flight emergency
So while we may have a correct "technical cause" a much broader question of responsibility has been excluded from consideration. In effect we have a manslaughter trial for malpractice without the primary party having been charged.
Personally I do not see how any reasonable third party can view the underlying facts and come away feeling that either AF or the airport authority met any legal definition of "reasonable and prudent" specific to the actions above.