The high-profile events of October 2024 in the Valencian Community continue to spark intense debate among local residents. At the height of the catastrophe, as the death toll had already reached tragic proportions, officials discussed the possibility of imposing an emergency lockdown for the entire population. This measure could have become the strictest in the region’s history, and the debate over its implementation took place amid extreme uncertainty and pressure.
The question of why the decision on possible movement restrictions was discussed at a time when most victims had already been found remains unanswered. According to Ignacio Lleó, a lawyer from the Department of Justice and the Interior, consultations on introducing a lockdown began on the evening of October 29, when the situation was already out of control. At that time, the Emergency Coordination Center had already sent out a mass alert to mobile phones, but for many, it came too late.
Internal disagreements
Disputes erupted within the government over the advisability of such radical measures. Lleo stated that his consultation with the leadership of the justice department took place amidst legal uncertainty that arose after the COVID-19 pandemic. Officials still had vivid memories of large-scale restrictions on citizens’ rights, which prompted additional legal inquiries. According to Lleo, making decisions about quarantine or evacuation did not require a separate opinion from the legal department, yet the issue was nevertheless raised at the highest level.
Particular attention was given to the risk of the Forata dam in Yátova failing—a scenario that, according to experts, could have resulted in thousands of deaths. This factor became a key argument in favor of considering a possible quarantine. However, despite alarming forecasts, a final decision to impose restrictions was never made.
Who made the decisions
The discussion process involved not only representatives from the justice department but also other key regional government figures. Notably, the former chief of staff to President Carlos Mazón, José Manuel Cuenca, sent a message to former adviser Salomé Pradas, categorically rejecting the idea of quarantine. This episode, officially documented by a notary, became one of the pivotal moments in the investigation into how decisions were made during the critical hours of the tragedy.
Testifying in court as a witness, Lleó emphasized that he did not know whether his consultation was connected to Cuenca’s position or to other internal discussions. The question of who exactly initiated the analysis of the legal grounds for quarantine remained unanswered. All that is known is that the request came from the Deputy Minister of Justice and Internal Affairs, Ricardo García, who did not specify the origin of the inquiry.
Legal nuances
Recalling the events of those days, Lleó noted that legal doubts arose against the backdrop of the pandemic experience, when sweeping restrictions on civil liberties had sparked heated debates. This time, he said, the situation called for rapid and decisive action, but fear of potential legal consequences held officials back. As a result, despite having legal grounds to impose quarantine or evacuation, the authorities chose not to take risks and limited themselves to simply notifying the public.
In January 2026, an official report was submitted to the court confirming that the legal department had indeed consulted by phone regarding the possibility of imposing a quarantine on the day of the tragedy. This document became yet another reason to discuss how effectively the authorities acted in a critical moment and why such crucial decisions were delayed.
Consequences for public trust
The disclosure of new details about the internal government discussions has once again raised questions about the transparency and coordination of regional bodies during an emergency. For many Valencia residents, these revelations served as a reminder of how quickly disagreements can arise even among high-ranking officials when the lives and safety of thousands are at stake.
The scandal surrounding the debate over quarantine measures in October 2024 continues to provoke public debate. Questions remain unanswered as to why the decisions were made so late and who is responsible for the delay. At the same time, this episode has become a lesson for all those responsible for citizen safety in a crisis.
