In this very report, Delphi/Object Pascal is listed as a representative of the "safe" languages, which is obviously wrong and calls the credibility of this report into question.
> C is superior to Rust in certain scenarios and in the right hands
That's not the point. C is obviously used in safety and security critical applications since decades and there are standards (e.g. MISRA guidelines, RTCA DOs) and tools which support us to do so. Even if languages like Rust avoid some errors which often occur in C (if the mentioned standards and tools are not applied), there are still a lot of things which can go wrong and make systems unsafe or unsecure, even when using Rust instead of C. It is naive (and dangerous) to assume, that by just using a language like Rust the resulting system would be safe. The programming language is just one of many protective measures that are required for critical systems.
Regarding your arguments: you are essentially stating that the risk of a technology depends on the maturity of the people using it. This is self-evident and manifests itself everywhere in daily life; for example, we use kitchen knives even though they are potentially dangerous; we use them anyway (and don't ban them), but don't put them in the hands of children, or only from a certain age with appropriate instruction and control. It's actually that simple and obvious, isn't it?