A judge overseeing the investigation into the Valencia dana, which killed 232 people, has challenged former Generalitat president Carlos Mazón’s defense over the lack of timely warnings. She rejected arguments seeking to distance him from responsibility for alerts that left residents unaware of the danger in their garages.
The basic issue is when and how emergency alerts were sent. The judge stressed that the absence of clear, early warnings about the risks of entering garages during the flooding was a basic factor in the high death toll. She argued that victims’ lack of information, compounded by delayed and incomplete messages, was a common thread in the cases cited by Mazón’s defense.
Mazón’s legal team submitted a 66-page brief denying a direct link between his actions and the deaths. It analyzed 42 cases to support the claim that there was no evidence he ordered or blocked the ES-Alert system. The defense also noted that some victims died after the first alert was sent at 20:11. It suggested that some deaths would have occurred regardless of the warnings, as people sought shelter in garages or had already taken self-protection steps before an alert could reach them.
The judge rejected this argument, saying Mazón confused victims’ desperate last-minute actions with real safety measures. She said the 20:11 alert was late and insufficient, while a more accurate message sent at 20:57 advised residents to stay home and move to higher floors, away from rivers and ravines. That message came too late and did not reach the entire province.
In her order, the judge questioned why Mazón’s defense focused only on the 20:11 alert and ignored the later, more complete warning. She also said the request for a formal declaration of non-responsibility was misplaced: Mazón is an aforado, protected by parliamentary immunity, and is not formally under investigation. Only higher courts have authority over such matters, the judge emphasized. The current proceedings must follow decisions already made by the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunitat Valenciana and the Audiencia Provincial.
The investigation centers on whether an earlier and more explicit ES-Alert could have saved lives. The judge specifically noted that the lack of warnings about the deadly risk of entering garages was a fatal factor. Press reports have described intense political and public pressure on Mazón, with allies and opponents demanding accountability and transparency about his role in managing the disaster.
Responding to the defense’s claim of a “prospective personal investigation,” the judge dismissed it as unfounded, noting that no investigative steps have targeted Mazón directly. She criticized the attempt to use procedural tactics to secure an early dismissal and reiterated that the court must continue its inquiry, as required by higher judicial authorities.
The judge also pointed out that Mazón’s team delayed reviewing the case files, doing so only a month and a half after being granted access. She described the defense’s arguments as a repeat of points already settled by the TSJCV, especially those concerning messages exchanged between Mazón’s former chief of staff and ex-councillor Salomé Pradas. The court remains unconvinced that all relevant communications have been disclosed, raising questions about possible deletions or selective submissions.
The judge noted that Mazón has neither testified nor asked to do so, leaving his explanations unsupported by his own account. She also argued that his position shifts blame onto Pradas, suggesting that the content and timing of the alerts were her sole responsibility. In the judge’s view, that claim ignores how the emergency committee, Cecopi, operated and made decisions.
The order also points to institutional tensions over accountability in disaster management. The case echoes themes in other high-profile judicial disputes, including the previous investigation into the boundaries of judicial and executive authority in Spain.
The judge’s refusal to close the case or accept Mazón’s procedural arguments means the inquiry into the failures that led to the deaths will continue. The case could set a precedent for holding political leaders responsible when public safety is at risk.
