Another stage of proceedings has concluded in Valencia regarding the natural disaster that claimed 229 lives last year. The court panel decided to reject appeals aimed at holding central authorities and Pedro Sánchez’s government accountable. As a result, the investigation will continue within the framework of the regional administration, as stipulated by local law.
Judges reviewed four complaints filed by two private parties, who insisted on the need to question representatives of state bodies, including former secretary for security Rafael Pérez Ruiz. However, the court found no grounds to expand the circle of witnesses, emphasizing that crisis management was the responsibility of the autonomous government, not Madrid.
Particular attention during the hearings was given to the situation surrounding the Forata dam in Yátova. The prosecution argued that a significant number of victims were located in its impact zone and criticized the testimony of witnesses who did not link the dam to the flooding in Barranco del Poyo. The court, however, noted that Forata is not classified as a critical facility and therefore cannot be considered a key factor in the tragedy.
Another argument from the prosecution was that one of the victims did not receive prompt assistance because the regional coordination center (Cecopi) focused on a potential threat from Forat. According to the court, even if the dam had failed, the consequences would have been far more extensive, but this did not occur.
The request to summon the crew of the Hellimer 203 helicopter, which took part in rescue operations at the end of October, was also rejected. Prosecutors believed that the delay in takeoff could have influenced the outcome, but the court pointed out that one of the pilots himself became trapped in the shopping center, while the rescue team successfully carried out 11 evacuations that day.
Thus, the investigation will continue along its previous trajectory, as attempts to broaden its scope have not yet gained support from the judiciary. The court’s decision may prove decisive for the future course of the case and the focus in identifying those responsible for the tragedy.
