Here is some more material from the thesis. Also the bow and stern doors were not watertight. That fact was known and reported but no action taken. They sinned immensely against all laws of ship stability and the lack of knowledge in that field, with all parties, is incomprehensible.
To get the approval for the departure from the Operation Officer at the KSA who just checked the load line for the approval, he had to adjust ballast water, mostly taking out the water to compensate for the overload. He knew that the ferry would be dangerous due to reduction of the restoring force if ballast was less than that required and due to free surface effects when the tanks were not fully filled. However, everybody including the first mate and the Operation Officer at the KSA thought that the load line was the only critical factor to guarantee the ferry’s safe operation as he testified at the court (08/29/2014).
When the bow and stern doors were closed, the ferry was not watertight due to the bad condition of the rubber packing seals. He reported the issue to the company to fix them several weeks earlier, but no repair was done. He testified at the court (10/08/2014) that he had no means to do more than the report to the company. The inadequate maintenance process allowed the ferry (it was an RORO ship too) to travel with the bow and stern doors not watertight.