The judicial review will focus on clarifying whether the omissions in the official reports and the discrepancy in the portrayal of events during the storm of October 29, 2024 had an impact on the management of the emergency that killed 230 people in the province of Valencia. The communication between Salomé Pradas, then Minister of Justice and Interior, and José Manuel Cuenca, chief of staff of former President Carlos Mazón, is crucial to the investigation led by the judge in Catarroja, as it allows us to decipher the decisions taken in the most critical hours of the event. As Europa Press detailed, Cuenca’s new appearance in court was a response to the need to compare his actions with the messages Pradas had conveyed days before.
As published by Europa Press on June 5, Pradas delivered messages to the inquiry that remain valid for the inquiry as they provide a precise chronology of the flow of information and debate about the measures that need to be implemented as the emergency worsens. On the morning of the statement, Cuenca entered the court at 9:20 a.m., ten minutes before the scheduled date, without commenting to the media while the court gave priority to analyzing the omissions and contradictions in previous versions.
The conversations reviewed by the court show how Pradas Cuenca alerted Cuenca to the storm’s negative development starting in the early afternoon and expressed concern about messages such as “Things are getting more and more complicated” at 2:25 p.m. The focus of the exchange revolved around the convenience of confining the population, a dilemma marked by the severity of the disaster and the inequality of criteria within the leadership. When the first death occurred in Utiel, Pradas reported the incident to Cuenca at 4:28 p.m., a fact he omitted in his first appearance before the judge and which, according to Europa Press, motivated the resumption of his testimony.
Next, Cuenca transmitted an order from Mazón to visit the 112 emergency center at 7:00 p.m., but did not report the reported death. According to Europa Press, the lack of mention of the victim and the decision to report only the operational instruction are key aspects of the investigation, which aims to determine why certain information did not immediately reach other areas of the administration.
As of 7:58 p.m., the discussion about the lockdown intensified when Cuenca rejected Pradas’ suggestion, saying, “Come in. Please don’t lock anything up. Calm down,” while Pradas responded, “The situation is very, very bad.” The tension of the exchange grew as Pradas insisted on the gravity of events and the scale of the disaster, including demonstrations about “flooding across the province.” This led to an intensifying debate about the appropriateness of the restrictions and whether they should be limited to particularly affected regions such as Ribera Alta or La Costera or, on the contrary, extended to the entire territory.
In this context, Pradas pointed out that there are “only a few” areas outside the danger and urged to increase the communication of precautionary messages, while Cuenca insisted on avoiding general restrictions: “But the confinement of a province is barbaric.
The sequence of messages shows that Pradas had proposed the application of the emergency law approved after the activation of the Es Alert system, which would have allowed limiting mobility in the most vulnerable areas. Cuenca again rejected that option with a message in Valencian: “Please take that off your cap – put that out of your head – Don’t worry, dude.” The media company Europa Press stated that the transcription of these dialogues represents a central part of the material analyzed by the judge, as the content allows us to clarify the extent to which efficient coordination was maintained between senior officials and what was the cause of the information gaps reflected in the court reports.
The investigations launched in Catarroja are making progress in several areas: the actual functioning of the emergency protocols, the way in which the internal orders were disseminated, the role of top officials in the operation and the transparency in the transmission of relevant data on the victims and the impact of the storm. The court is examining whether the different versions of the officials and the content of the messages exchanged are due to conscious decisions, human errors or deficiencies in the institutional structure, explained Europa Press.
The instruction developed in the court is aimed at determining the extent to which senior officials fulfilled their duties in relation to the scale of the disaster and the needs of citizens affected by the damage. The meteorological event exceeded standard response measures and highlighted the need for interagency coordination at both regional and state levels. This situation was reflected in notifications discussing possible transfers of authority and the relevance of exceptional measures.
While the legal proceedings remain open, the focus in the collection and analysis of documents and communications remains on the possible existence of individual or collective responsibilities. Europa Press emphasized that the differences between the Pradas and Cuenca criteria, the timeliness of decisions and the flow of information in the organizational structure are crucial for interpreting the effectiveness or inadequacy of disaster management. The aim of these investigations is to clarify the sequence of events and the reasons for every decision made in the hours and days after October 29, 2024.
About The Author
