France has reopened its investigation into the disappearance of Malaysian flight MH370, accusing the country of covering up the truth in its final report.
French investigators from Gendarmerie of Air Transport (GAT) announced its probe into the missing plane on Wednesday, after the Malaysian government’s July 30 report came back inconclusive.
The organisation labelled the document as “imprecise and ambiguous”, local newspaper Le Parisien reported.
It said the presence of four French victims allows it to conduct its own investigation.
GAT intends to examine data from the satellite which tracked the plane to “verify the veracity and especially the authenticity of all the technical data transmitted”, Le Parisien added.
The government’s 449-page findings did not provide any conclusive explanation to what happened to the plane and its 239 passengers and crew in March 2014.
The report concluded the plane’s diversion from its original route was likely made “under manual control” but “exclude the intervention of a third party”.
It stated a lack of evidence made it impossible as to why the plane changed paths and why communication with the plane was briefly lost, sparking outrage from relatives.
Voice 370, made up of a number of victims’ families, accused the Malaysian government of withholding flight data and failing to consider all options into the flight’s disappearance – including a murder-suicide by the captain Zaharie Amad Shah.
“The French authority mentions repeatedly in their report that their investigations on the flaperon had been hampered by an absence of data from Boeing,” it said in a statement.
“The report highlights that the military’s primary radar data played a significant role in tracing the aircraft’s flight path. Voice 370 calls upon the Government of Malaysia to share all available data with independent experts for a thorough peer review and analysis.
“We believe that after 4.5 years since MH370 disappeared, there is no reason to continue to withhold data when its probative value far outweighs any prejudicial effect.”