Determining "deliberate"; compromising reporting system?
But Rushed Approach, a number of well-informed and experienced posters have pointed out, that the law enforcement authorities must, in the appropriate case, take steps to preserve evidence, and in the French system, to open a proceeding in the nature of an enquiry into the circumstances of the fatalities (if I understand what has been said about France's system). But - as I read your objection - this tends to undercut, or even guts, the premise of the reporting system (a system which has served the overall civil aviation enterprise so well for so long, it must be noted). Is there not a hybrid, a combination, an integrative and accommodative principle here, which mitigates to a great extent against the harms to the reporting system you have invoked? I think there is: the vast, vast majority, if not literally all, of licensed Air Transport aviators will understand that in this matter, the Germanwings disaster, the law enforcement authorities had a duty to preserve evidence and open an enquiry - because this is so totally different than the types of mishaps, incidents, and even crashes which the confidentiality system for reporting is designed both to motivate, and protect. I am not arguing here, from the primacy of the criminal or quasi-criminal laws applicable in France (though they do trump even the reporting system, in my understanding). I am, however, arguing that the reporting system remains intact, because aviators with ATP licenses - having completed so much training and having such high standards of professionalism - know intuitively as well as logically that the actions of the law enforcement authorities were triggered by the highly unique situation confronting world civil aviation on the slopes of the Alps, sadly.