Court Rejects Request to Investigate National Security Council's Role in Valencia Landslide Tragedy
The head of Court Number 3 in Catarroja, Valencia, has dismissed a petition from the popular prosecution led by the association Liberum, which sought to determine whether the National Security Council was convened in connection with the tragic landslide that resulted in multiple fatalities. This decision, made public through a ruling from the Superior Court of Justice of the Valencian Community (TSJCV), emphasized that no causal relationship exists between the convening of the council and the deaths and injuries reported.
In her ruling on Wednesday, the presiding judge asserted that the inquiry into the National Security Council’s discussions falls outside the jurisdiction of the current criminal investigation, which focuses specifically on the tragic events of October 29, 2022, when 227 people lost their lives, including an expectant mother, and many were injured or left missing. The judge noted that the core of this investigation relates to the responsibilities and actions—or lack thereof—of local authorities to protect the populace during the disaster, rather than exploring potential failings at the national government level.
Importantly, the judge remarked that her court lacks the authority to scrutinize whether the President of the Government convened the National Security Council and reiterated that the primary focus should remain on accountability for the fatalities linked to the natural disaster.
The ruling acknowledged that civil protection is chiefly a matter of regional jurisdiction. Citing the Statute of Autonomy, which grants the Generalitat exclusive control over civil protection initiatives, the judge clarified that the Consell serves as the principal body overseeing civil safety in Valencia according to Law 13/2010 concerning Civil Protection and Emergency Management. She stressed that the relevant civil protection entities should have enacted proper emergency response plans under their existing legal mandates.
Evidence in the ongoing investigation must establish a direct connection between the alleged inaction of those designated as responsible for public safety and the resulting deaths. The judge expressed that deviating from this specific legal focus could lead to a 'generic analysis' that strays from necessary legal standards. Furthermore, she stated that linking the events to the National Security Council would dilute the pressing need to examine local authority conduct.
The ruling also addressed discussions surrounding whether a national emergency should have been declared, as posited by some parties involved in the case. The judge clarified that such a declaration falls under the regulations defined in Article 29 of Law 17/2015, which outlines the National Civil Protection System, and must align with guidance from relevant Constitutional Court rulings. Both the central government and the Valencian Autonomous Administration had reached a consensus that a national emergency declaration was inappropriate on October 29 or in the days that followed.
Nonetheless, issues that persisted during the aftermath of the calamity were referenced, illustrating how the situation quickly deteriorated with widespread destruction, lack of essential utilities, impassable transport routes, significant looting incidents, and reliance on volunteers to fill gaps in emergency response. The judge criticized arguments suggesting a lack of experience or knowledge on the part of the officials as an excuse for their failure to act decisively in alerting the public in a timely manner. These justifications were characterized as unacceptable, as they overlook crucial procedural guarantees and undermine the integrity of the criminal process.
In her conclusion, the judge reiterated that shifting accountability to the Central Government for the failure to declare a national emergency could be interpreted as recognition of a significant shortfall in the Autonomous Administration's responsibility to its citizens.
In a related development, the court has rescheduled the testimonies of two technicians responsible for disseminating the ESAlert message, which were originally slated for late April, now set to occur on May 6 and May 15 respectively.
Related Sources: