Judge rejects UCO report and declines to charge CHJ

Judge rejects UCO report and does not charge CHJ over dana

The investigation into the Valencia dana has taken a turn that has left many trinc the case with the same look as someone watching a house of cards collapse. The judge investigating the overflow of the Poyo ravine has rejected the 220-page report prepared by the Guardia Civil's Central Operational Unit (UCO) and, with it, has ruled out charging the president of the Júcar Hydrographic Confederation (CHJ). The ruling argues that the report is "extensive" but insufficient: it cannot address what peine at Cecopi, the testimony of the technicians, the statements of the victims' families, or the experts analysing the forecasts and overflows.

In translation: the judge requests a report from the UCO, receives it, and throws it in the bin arguing that the UCO does not have all the data. The paradox does not escape anyone. Why request an expert report if it is later dismissed for not being all-encompassing? The question has been hanging over the case since the ruling became known, and the answers circulating range from a procedural error to the suspicion that the judge is acting as a firewall so that the case does not splash certain institutions.

What the ruling says exactly and what it finds lacking

The ruling acknowledges that the UCO report is extensive—220 pages—but criticises it for not having incorporated the content of Cecopi, the testimony of the technicians, the statements of the victims' families, or the experts analysing crucial aspects of the forecasts and overflows. It also notes that the report does not address statements of special relevance due to professional qualifications that express conclusions radically different from those set out.

The argument has its formal logic: a police report cannot replace judicial investigation. The problem is that the UCO is not there to replace it, but to provide data. And among that data there is one that the ruling seems to set aside: the CHJ's account. Much of the analysis maintains that the Confederation had to warn and did not warn in time. To a greater or lesser extent, it must bear some blame, it is argued. The judge does not assess why the CHJ did not warn when it should have, and that silence is what makes the most noise.

Some defend that the judge is simply doing her job: filtering a police report that, in her opinion, oversteps the mark. That the Guardia Civil says "this looks like a crime" and the judge replies "I'll say that" is everyday fare. What is anomalous is not the reproach, but that the reproach leads to the complete dismissal of the report, including the key data on the CHJ.

The CHJ, the University and the warning that did reach some

The other front of the matter is warnings. The University of Valencia closed activity and suspended classes due to the weather alert. It is not the first time: there are documented episodes of suspensions due to storms in 2012, 2018 and other dates. That closure has become the most repeated piece of incriminating evidence: if an institution with fewer emergency powers reacted, why did the one with direct responsibility not do so?

The comparison is flawed, and some point it out. Closing a university is cheap; closing a province is not. The University of Valencia would have closed just the same in the face of a storm that did not overflow any torrent, it is argued. The closure does not prove that it knew what was coming, but that it closes more easily than the rest of mortals. Even so, the contrast stings: the academic institution reacted and the Júcar Hydrographic Confederation, according to the conclusions of the dismissed report, did not report until it was too late about the Poyo.

Aemet appears in the conversation as an example of an updated manual, with forecasts up to 72 hours in advance. The question left hanging is uncomfortable: if the warning existed and was public, where was the Guardia Civil and where was the CHJ?

The role of the UCO and suspicions about the investigation

The UCO does not come out well from this episode. Some maintain that these reports have been accumulating blunders and that this time they went too far. Others defend the opposite: that the judge has taken advantage of formal defects to deactivate the content. And a third, more uncomfortable current points to the investigation being directed so that the case does not splash protected officials or central government officials.

The underlying argument is structural: in Spain, complex cases are not really investigated by the judge, but arrive pre-cooked by police work, and the capacity for subsequent critical filtering is limited. Hence the recurring calls for a judicial police and a Tax Agency with greater judicial dependence and less dependence on the Executive. The paradox is that now the police report is dismissed precisely for not being complete, when the function of the report was to provide pieces, not to close the case.

The practical result is that the matter remains where it was: without charges against the CHJ president, without charges against protected officials, and with the feeling that the oral hearing, with three other different magistrates, may end up overturning an already contaminated investigation. Meanwhile, the affected area is still not recovering and the works to divert and improve riverbeds remain up in the air.

---

The case is not closed. The judge has dismissed a report, has not acquitted anyone, and the investigation continues with the usual questions: who warned, who did not, and why the Poyo ravine swept away what it swept away. The answers, for now, still do not appear in any ruling.