A year has passed since Valencia faced one of the most devastating disasters in its history—massive floods that claimed hundreds of lives. Despite the time that has passed, the judicial investigation initiated by a judge from Catarroja is not only unfinished but gaining momentum. The focus remains on possible negligence and errors by officials responsible for crisis management.
Instead of relying on official reports from regional authorities, the judge is methodically reconstructing the sequence of events by analyzing the actions of various government agencies. This has sparked a strong reaction in political circles: some officials and media outlets have lashed out at the judge, accusing her of bias and political motives. Meanwhile, those who typically champion judicial independence have remained silent.
Key figures and controversial decisions
Recently, a provincial court allowed the questioning of the person with whom the president of the autonomous region, Carlos Mazón, had lunch at the height of the crisis instead of attending government meetings. It was during these crucial hours that the disaster reached its peak and the number of victims sharply increased. However, from a legal standpoint, proving the guilt of specific individuals is extremely difficult. This is not about some vague “failure” of the state apparatus—such an offense simply does not exist. The investigation must determine whether each individual death resulted from gross negligence on the part of a specific official.
The court proceedings indicate that the main responsibility for decision-making rested with the then justice and home affairs adviser, Salomé Pradas. The regional president could only face criminal charges if it were proven that he personally took over the adviser’s duties and made key decisions.
Gaps in the warning system
Unlike natural disasters, which cannot be prevented, the consequences could have been mitigated if the emergency alert system had worked in time. However, the warning message arrived too late—after many people had already died. Despite a red alert issued by meteorological services in the morning, the public was not told how to act: instead of advising people to seek higher ground, they were simply asked not to leave their homes.
Nevertheless, even if we admit that the alert system was extremely poorly organized, to open a criminal case for each of the 229 deaths, it must be proven that each person could have survived if they had received a timely warning. The law requires proof that the victim had a working phone with them and that they would have followed the instructions had they received them.
Politics versus accountability
Over the past year, none of the high-ranking officials have taken responsibility for the tragedy, except for the resignation of an advisor. Instead, political opponents blame each other, while the real causes and consequences of the disaster remain in the shadows. Examples from other countries show that an alert system can work effectively—if there is political will.
The situation in Valencia clearly illustrates a longstanding issue in Spanish politics: an unwillingness to accept political responsibility unless a clear crime has been committed. Similar incidents have already occurred in the region, where officials continued their careers despite scandals and even criminal cases, as long as the courts did not find them guilty. As a result, without a guilty verdict, no one considers themselves accountable for their decisions.
