The Court of Instruction no. 3 of Santiago de Compostela has closed this Monday the investigation of the accident of the Alvia that ended the lives of 80 people on 24 July 2013 in the entrance of Santiago de Compostela. After more than five years of investigations, the magistrate judge Andrés Lago Louro directs his accusations against the motorman of the train, Francisco José Garzón Amo, and the former director of Security in the Circulation of Adif, Andrew Cortabitarte, which imputes 80 crimes of murder and 144 of injury through serious negligence professional. The judge has decreed, however, the non-provisional and the file of the case in respect to the other five investigated: the Security director for Renfe, Antonio Lanchares; the manager of the Area of Security in the Circulation of the north-west of Adif, Fernando Rebón; and three technicians from the consulting firm Ineco.
MORE INFORMATION
The european technician who revealed the ‘Alvia’: “[The curve where he crashed the train] was a known risk” Angrois, the scandal rail that uncovered Europe “there Was a witch-hunt by the Government against the machinist to protect commercial interests”
The judge concludes that “the direct cause, immediate, and that definitely triggered the unfortunate accident was excess of speed derived from a driving negligent” on the part of the driver, who picked up the curve of Angrois to 179 kilometres per hour when it should go to 80. The responsibility of this excess of speed, according to the self resides “actively and directly in the recklessness of the driver the result of a driving inattentive to the circumstances of the pathway and its signaling, motivated in turn by a call from the auditor that extends beyond what is strictly necessary”. That telephone conversation, according to the instructor, led the machinist “losing the references of the path that usually indicated to him the need to reduce the speed to the proximity of the station”.
The judge appreciates in addition to “insufficient evidence to estimate that, at least for part of Adif, is not he did everything possible to mitigate the risk that finally resulted in the outcome Jojobet produced.” The system of continuous braking called ERTMS was disconnected “on the 23rd of June 2012 by decision of the director of Security in the Circulation of Adif”. Cortabitarte took the measure, reminded the judge, “at the instance of Renfe, although he has decided to dismiss the case against Antonio Lanchares, the chief of Security of the public company which requested it. The ERTMS was shut down by order of the directors of Adif “without previously conducting an assessment of the risk that such an act could lead to traffic safety,” keeps the instructor.
This is the second closing of statement that lives for the cause. The first decreed Lago Louro in October 2015, by charging the blame solely on the operator. After seven months, the Provincial court reopened the case and called the judge to further investigate and clarify whether the risk posed by the sharp bend where it derailed, the train had been properly evaluated. From there he was when the instructor charged with Cortabitarte and the rest of the charges, and technicians who have now been acquitted.
“we Cannot discuss that the curve posed a risk in and of itself, that such a risk had been detected by the UTE Lavos and by [the consultant] Ineco, which had been communicated to Adif”, wields the judge in the car. “On the part of the Adif, nothing was done to assess and reduce this risk tolerance parameters in line with the requirements of the rules”.
Lake Louro argues that “there is sufficient evidence to conclude” that the head of Security in the Circulation of Adif “created and tolerated a situation of risk that finally crystallized in the accident”. Ensures that Cortabitarte had “knowledge of such a situation of risk” by reports that referred, for example, the consultancy firm Ineco, but did not take “any action aimed to evaluate and manage” the risk. “Adif has not fulfilled its duty having tolerated the export of risk to the operator without carrying out a prior assessment of the whole line to protect users against possible human error, which, in terms of contribution causal to the outcome, equated such failure to the negligence of the driver”, you can read in the car.
The court will now transfer to the Ministry of taxes and charges particular to that in the period of ten days to formulate indictment, requesting the opening of oral proceedings or the dismissal of the case, explains the Superior Court of Xustiza de Galicia. The car is not firm and can be appealed before the court itself and the Provincial court.
