The Valencia Prosecutor’s Office supports that the courts investigate. This is stated by the public ministry in a document presented to the Superior Court of Justice of the Valencian Community, which agreed to accumulate in the same case the seven complaints and complaints filed against Mazón as the person most responsible for the management of the flood that occurred on December 29. October caused 223 deaths and tens of thousands of victims in the province of Valencia.
Of the seven complaints and complaints accumulated in this case, six point to Carlos Mazón or him and the now former Minister of Emergencies and the Interior, Salomé Pradas. Only one asks to also investigate any other authority in which, as a result of the investigations, criminal responsibility is observed. The plaintiffs and complainants attribute to Mazón or Pradas the commission of the crimes of prevarication, injuries and against the rights of workers, “as a consequence of the non-adoption of some decisions that, in their opinion, would have avoided or mitigated the fatal result due to the number of deaths,” says the Prosecutor’s Office. “From this story they derive a generic cause/effect relationship with an attribution of criminal responsibility of an objective nature, which is verified exclusively based on the result, apart from the specific intervention of the accused, which, to this day, is not identified.” , he adds.
In the document, the prosecutor María José Montesinos de Lago also refers to the fact that all the accusations refer to the “” and indicate that, “unrelated to the scenarios of alerts and messages that were being issued by different organizations, they omitted the dictation of resolutions and decisions that were within their competence, and in this way they did not avoid or, at least, did not reduce the magnitude of the catastrophe that occurred.” The public ministry thus declares itself in favor of investigating the criminal responsibilities of the defendants and points out that “it is more than reasonable to carry out a single investigation given the magnitude of the case, the complexity of the facts, the participation as defendants and denounced of multiple political authorities and those responsible for public organizations, the foreseeable difficulty of the investigation and the huge number of injured parties, and of possible witnesses and experts.” “We understand that all complaints are underpinned by the same attribution of facts, regardless of the different legal qualifications made by the complainants and complainants, and, unanimously, based on the omission and infringement of the duties inherent to the function of those reported,” he indicates.
Regarding the body competent to investigate the events, the Prosecutor’s Office considers that it should be an investigative court that carries out “a complete judicial investigation into the events that occurred, specifying the intervention, or, where appropriate, inaction.” This should subsequently, and in the event that there are sufficient indications of criminality against Carlos Mazón, submit a reasoned statement before the Superior Court of Justice given the capacity enjoyed by the president of the Generalitat Valenciana.
In parallel to these complaints against leaders of the Valencian Government, he has registered at least nine complaints against members of the central Executive for crimes such as reckless homicide and omission of the duty to provide assistance, for their management of the damage. These are directed against the President of the Government, Pedro Sánchez; against, for not activating the state of emergency and taking control; and against for his responsibility in the Júcar Hydrographic Confederation, a body to which due to an alleged “information blackout” on the day of the tragedy.
