Les Corts Commission Criticized Over DANA Probe

Valencia’s political fight over the DANA disaster is now also a fight over who gets to tell the story of what happened. Les Corts — the regional parliament — is wrapping up its investigation into the October 29, 2024 floods, but the commission is ending under a cloud. Opposition parties say it is being shut down before the people with the most direct responsibility for emergency management ever had to answer questions in person. (europapress.es) ### What is this commission, exactly? (infobae.com) It is Les Corts’ parliamentary inquiry into the DANA floods that hit the Valencian Community on October 29, 2024. The idea was simple — reconstruct the chain of decisions, hear from officials, and work out political responsibility for how the emergency was handled. The commission is now moving into its final stretch, with final conclusions and a report expected by the end of May 2026, roughly a year after it began. (elpais.com) ### Why are people saying it is closing too early? Because PP and Vox, who control the commission’s table, argued last week that the inquiry had already done its job and should end on schedule. PSPV and Compromís tried to extend the work, but their request was rejected. For the opposition, that turns the ending into what they call a “false closure” — not a real finish, just a cutoff before the uncomfortable testimony arrived. (europapress.es) ### Who never showed up? That is the core of the backlash. The two biggest missing names are former regional emergency chief Salomé Pradas and former emergency secretary Emilio Argüeso. Both are under judicial investigation in Catarroja over possible negligent homicide and injury offenses tied to the flood response. Other senior emergency figures also did not testify, including Jorge Suárez and provincial fire chief José Miguel Basset. (europapress.es) ### How incomplete was the witness list? Pretty incomplete. The opposition’s count says only 32 of 96 planned witnesses actually appeared. That number gives the criticism real weight, because this is not a case of missing one or two stragglers at the end. It suggests the commission is finishing after hearing barely a third of the people it had originally expected to question. (europapress.es) ### What is PP and Vox’s defense? Their line is basically this: enough people have already testified, there is enough material to write conclusions, and the people from Spain’s central government were the ones who truly refused to explain themselves. PP has also argued that calling Pradas made little sense because she had already appeared elsewhere and, with the case judicialized, likely would not say anything substantive anyway. (elpais.com) ### Why does the court case matter so much here? Because it changes the stakes. The Catarroja court is not doing politics — it is examining possible criminal responsibility in the emergency response. That makes every missing parliamentary appearance look more serious. If the courtroom is still digging into whether top officials acted negligently, a legislature closing its own inquiry early looks less like efficiency and more like avoidance. (infobae.com) That is an inference, but it fits the timing. ### What are victims saying? Victims’ associations are furious. Three major groups said shutting the commission without hearing key emergency managers amounts to political shielding by PP and Vox. They also argued that the only forum working with real rigor now is the Catarroja court, and called the parliamentary process a performance more focused on defending the regional government than clarifying responsibility. (europapress.es) ### So what happens next? The commission still has to debate and approve its final conclusions. But the damage to its credibility may already be done. A report can still be written — but if the public believes the most important witnesses were never forced to answer, the final document will land as a partisan artifact, not a settled account. (europapress.es) (infobae.com) (elpais.com)