These new testimonies are directly relevant to all residents of the Valencian Community: they raise questions about who made the key decisions during the disaster and how this will impact the accountability of officials. The outcome of the investigation will determine not only the legal fate of those involved, but also future protocols for citizen warning and protection in emergencies. That’s why the military officer’s statements in court are considered an important part of the evidence base.
Unidad Militar de Emergencias (UME) commander Manuel Párraga, testifying as a witness, told a judge in Catarroja that it was the former head of the regional department who effectively took charge during the crisis center meetings. In his view, the then regional government leader did not appear to be issuing orders; decisive actions, he said, came from the former Justice and Interior Policy adviser.
The witness noted that while various courses of action were discussed in the room, there was practically no talk of forced evacuation measures or mandatory travel restrictions. Concurrently, according to his testimony, one of the key officials regularly entered and left the meetings—something the commander said influenced the flow of decisions and who actually led operations at the coordination center.
The commander also recounted that the head of the fire consortium expressed concerns at a meeting in favor of restraint in mass notifications—due to the risk of triggering panic or a mass exodus around the Forata dam. According to the military official, these considerations were discussed amidst anxiety about a possible dam breach and large-scale consequences for downstream areas.
Other testimonies presented in court confirmed that the decision to send out the Es Alert mass notification was not clear-cut: some participants advocated caution, while others pressed for immediate action. The commander emphasized that voices insisting on instant notification played a role in the decision to alert the population.
The legal ramifications of such testimony are obvious: it contradicts the previously stated line of defense, where the former official was portrayed as having little influence on operational decisions. This testimony could shift the weight of evidence in the case and impact further proceedings, as previously reported in judicial practice for the regional case—read more about the trial’s development in our ongoing coverage. on the progress of the case in the Valencia court regarding the aftermath of the flood.
As reported by El País, the military officer described internal discussions within the crisis center and pointed out disagreements over the alert notification tactics. The witness’s sworn testimony is being considered by investigators as decisive in determining who actually led operations at the critical moment.
The testimony of a high-ranking officer takes on particular significance in court: the way the state apparatus responds to emergencies is a systemic issue that affects public trust in institutions. Investigators will now compare the witness’s account with other evidence, technical reports, and records of communications among crisis participants.
In the final stage, experts and process participants will analyze how decisions such as sending mass alerts or recommending against evacuation influenced the course of events and the number of victims. The investigation continues to gather evidence; clearly, determining the distribution of responsibility between political leaders and emergency services remains a central issue.
Previously in Spain, there have been cases when, following natural disasters, lengthy judicial procedures and political investigations were initiated: authorities reviewed alert protocols and decisions made by local officials, with witnesses from emergency services and the military called to testify. In several cases, particular attention was paid to the role of ministers and regional councilors in coordinating rescue operations. These proceedings usually led to revised alert procedures, stricter transparency requirements for emergency headquarters, and changes to regulations governing cooperation between civil and military structures.
