State of the burning building in Valencia, the morning after the incident. Mònica Torres
The Provincial Prosecutor's Office of Valencia is in favor of reopening the judicial investigation into the fire recorded on February 22 in a building in the Campanar area (Valencia) that left 10 fatalities, including two minors, aged three and a baby days old, and 138 homes destroyed.
Specifically, the prosecutor in charge of this procedure has asked the Investigative Court number 9 of Valencia, the body that on March 8 agreed to dismiss the investigation after the Provincial Judicial Police Brigade of Valencia of the National Police Corps reported that The first investigations made it possible to rule out the criminal origin of the fire, which upheld the appeal filed by the father of the man who died along with his wife and two children in the fire.
The relatives of five other people who died in the Campanar fire are considering appearing in the case, according to
Las Provincias.
The prosecutor asks the judge to consider the appeal for reform, filed by criminal lawyer Ignacio Grau, “given the arguments presented” in his text.
Among them, he referred to the fact that the file represented a “double victimization” for his client and requested a reopening of the investigation.
Thus, the prosecutor, in addition to asking the judge to consider the appeal of this party appearing in the procedure, requires the carrying out of different procedures related to the origin and causes of the fire.
The father of the person who died in the fire stated in his appeal that the dismissal was “clearly premature” and stated that it drew “powerful attention” that a file order had been issued without a single report from the Scientific Police, Homicides, Firefighters, Local Police or insurance companies and without a report with a story about what happened explaining how the fire had spread “so quickly and brutally.”
What's more, he added that a case with 10 deceased in "dramatic circumstances" and experienced live by their loved ones was dismissed, "and while they are at funerals and in deep mourning, a dismissal is proceeded without counting on anyone and with the secret cause, on the basis of a letter received of half a page and with only four lines related to the event, which neither tells what happened, nor attaches any report, nor gives a causal explanation for anything," it was indicated.
This part considered that “what is a mere provisional statement, the progress of an investigation absolutely in the initial phase and, furthermore, removing the phrase 'criminal or delinquent etiology can be ruled out' from its context had been elevated to the category of definitive. , so the result could not be more heartbreaking.”
In this regard, the lawyer recalled in the appeal that article 641 of the Criminal Procedure Law allows for provisional dismissal to be issued only when, after the pertinent investigation, the perpetration of the crime is not justified.
In this case, the lawyer pointed out that a fire of this nature “requires a deep and calm purification of what happened” and added that it is up to the criminal jurisdiction to carry out an ex officio investigation that allows the archive or opens the prosecution, “so that The families, in both cases, can consider that they have obtained from their public authorities the necessary shelter to help them process their mourning.”
Double victimization
“Closing a case falsely, early, prematurely, represents a double victimization for my clients, who clearly see, added to their unspeakable pain, the closure of the ex officio jurisdiction, which in this case is called upon naturally and legally to give an explanation about what happened, the criminal jurisdiction,” was added in the appeal.
On the other hand, the lawyer alleged a lack of motivation in the resolution by estimating that the judge accepted, "uncritically", a police report "that does not attach any report or give a technical explanation to anything."
On the other hand, the community of neighbors of the burning building in Valencia in which 10 people died have filed a complaint with the court for an alleged crime of damage due to serious recklessness.
The complaint calls for an investigation into the installation of the façade cladding, from where the fire spread most virulently, and the plates that covered that exterior.