The Valencia Hearing supports the decisions of the Judge of the DANA and refuses to impute the Government to the delegate | News from the Valencian Community

The Valencia Hearing supports the thesis of the Judge of the Dana, Nuria Ruiz Tobarra, and rejects the imputation of the Government delegate, the socialist Pilar Bernabéin instruction on The floods that caused 228 dead on October 29 In the province of Valencia. The Second Section of the Hearing has confirmed the decisions of the head of the Court of First Instance and Instruction 3 of Catarroja to inadmit the complaint made by the association of extreme right and ultra -Catholic will be heard against Bernabé, as well as excluding from the investigation the material damage.

Likewise, the Court has ratified other resolutions of the instructor, such as the requirement of a bond of 6,000 euros to the Liberum Association to allow the exercise of popular action and that several citizens could exercise the private accusation without having been injured or have deaths among their relatives, but having suffered material damage.

The Second Section of the Provincial Institution has issued four cars on Monday that dismiss many other appeal resources against the instructions’s decisions.

Regarding the complaint of being heard against the Government delegate, the magistrates point out that the recurring have not justified their position of “guarantor” in the terms indicated in article 11 of the Criminal Code and that the commission for omission of the crimes attributed to it allows. « Nor is the objective imputation of the result sufficiently, » they add, in relation to the non -request of the National Interest Emergency Declaration.

In another order, the Court ratifies the exclusion of the material damage of the judicial investigation by understanding that it is not possible to identify, from the content of the complaint and the appeal analyzed, “that can be attributed to the absence of execution of maintenance or modification of channels the condition of criminally relevant omission, attending to the damages that could have been produced by said omission”.

In this way, in the opinion of the Chamber, the decision adopted by the instruction judge « is correct, since in such omissions the typical criminal elements are not identified essential to be able to admit the complaint in relation to them. »

Likewise, the hearing rules out the concurrence of indications of the crime of omission of the duty of relief or administrative prevarication by omission.