backshifting - Optional tense back shifting

While changing direct to indirect speech, we generally back shift the tense.

Example -
"I have finished my work." (Direct speech)
He said that he had finished his work. (Indirect speech)

In this example present perfect tense is back shifted to past perfect tense.

---

NOTE : There is an exception to this rule : At the time of reporting, if the reported words are still true or still relevant then back shifting is optional. For example: "He said that he has lost his keys." Here present perfect tense is not back shifted because at the time of reporting situation is still relevant. By relevant I mean that the consequence of losing his key can still be seen or heard.

---

Now my main question(s) is:

• Context: Recently an earthquake came in India and Nepal. Thousands of people have lost their lives. Rescue operation is on its way.




• Now consider the example which is not an indirect speech: "The President learned that this earthquake has caused destruction all across Nepal and India."

First: tell me, here is it correct to use "has caused" under the context that situation is still relevant, i.e. the aftermath of the earthquake can still be seen?

Second: Here is back shifting optional or obligatory?

---

Another question:

You see, my intention of asking question is -
In sentence structure of indirect speech like - (He said +........... , He informed +....... , He claimed + .......... ), I am aware that if the situation is still relevant then back shifting of present perfect tense is optional.

But what if the sentence structure is something like - ( He learned + ........... , He noticed +.......... , He found +....... ) here also is back shifting of present perfect tense optional if the situation is still relevant ?

P.S. : My question concerns only present perfect tense.