Tras la colisión de Adamuz en enero (46 muertos) y la de Urda en octubre (69), la sensación de que las tragedias se encadenan sin consecuencias ha crecido.
La gente siente asco ante la impunidad de los que gobiernan y tiene miedo también de subirse a un tren.
Las investigaciones técnicas y judiciales avanzan con lentitud: nueve meses después de Adamuz no hay informe final ni investigados formales, y la de Urda acaba de arrancar. El contraste entre el luto oficial inmediato y la ausencia de responsabilidades visibles alimenta la percepción de que el sistema se protege a sí mismo.
La demanda de “años de cárcel” no es un eslogan vacío. El Código Penal español castiga el homicidio y las lesiones por imprudencia grave, y permite agravar la pena cuando hay varias víctimas. Si se demuestra que alguien en la cadena de mando (control de tráfico, mantenimiento, supervisión de la infraestructura) incumplió de forma grave sus deberes y eso contribuyó causalmente a las muertes, puede haber responsabilidad penal.
Sin embargo, la experiencia demuestra que estos procesos son largos, técnicos y que la cadena de responsabilidad suele cortarse antes de llegar a los niveles políticos más altos.
El problema de fondo es la percepción de impunidad. Cuando un segundo accidente grave ocurre en la misma línea mientras el primero sigue sin esclarecerse del todo, la confianza se resquebraja.
Las víctimas y sus familias no piden solo indemnizaciones —que las operadoras y el Estado deberán afrontar—, sino que se identifiquen las omisiones o errores que pudieron haberse evitado y que quienes tenían el deber de prevenirlas asuman consecuencias reales.
Los minutos de silencio son necesarios para el duelo colectivo, pero no sustituyen la investigación rigurosa ni la rendición de cuentas. Si las pesquisas se dilatan sin resultados o se limitan a fallos técnicos aislados sin examinar la gestión, el mantenimiento y la supervisión, el mensaje de que “nadie paga” se refuerza.
Hay mucho que investigar y muchos abusos y errores graves por los que pagar en esta España opaca. Las investigaciones sobre los accidentes están descubriendo que el dinero destinado a mantener las vías se empleó en otros asuntos y en ese tema el único culpable es Sánchez.
La sociedad tiene derecho a que las investigaciones sean transparentes, completas y concluyan con consecuencias proporcionales cuando se acrediten negligencias. De lo contrario, el riesgo de que se repitan tragedias similares no desaparece con el luto oficial, sino que se mantiene mientras la impunidad percibida siga siendo la norma.
El artículo 30 de la Constitución habla del deber de defender a España. Ese deber Ese deber incluye que los servicios esenciales no se conviertan en tumbas y en impunidad de los poderosos.
Francisco Rubiales
English version:
Fewer Minutes of Silence and Harsher Punishment for Those Responsible
In Spain, those responsible rarely pay for their mistakes, negligence, abuses and crimes. That impunity is the dominant feature and the hallmark of the Sánchez era: those in power are shielded.
A large part of Spanish public opinion feels deep exhaustion and anger following the two high-speed train accidents, which have claimed more than a hundred lives.
Messages such as the following are circulating on social media: “This accident happened because nobody paid for the previous one… And it will happen again unless all those responsible pay for this one. We do not want just minutes of silence and days of official mourning; we want years in prison.”
Óscar Puente's resignation does not seem sufficient for two reasons: his party continues to treat him as a hero and a martyr; and the person who appointed him, Pedro Sánchez, who is just as responsible as he is for the deaths and the disaster affecting Spain's railways, has still not paid any price.
After the Adamuz collision in January (46 deaths) and the Urda collision in October (69), the feeling that tragedies are piling up without consequences has grown.
People feel disgust at the impunity of those who govern, and they are also afraid to get on a train.
Technical and judicial investigations are moving slowly: nine months after Adamuz, there is no final report or formally identified suspects, while the investigation into Urda has only just begun. The contrast between immediate official mourning and the absence of visible accountability feeds the perception that the system protects itself.
The demand for “years in prison” is not an empty slogan. Spain's Criminal Code punishes homicide and injuries caused by gross negligence, and allows for harsher penalties when there are multiple victims. If it is established that someone in the chain of command —traffic control, maintenance or infrastructure supervision— seriously failed to fulfil their duties and that this contributed causally to the deaths, criminal liability may arise.
However, experience shows that these proceedings are lengthy and technical, and that the chain of responsibility is often cut off before it reaches the highest political levels.
The underlying problem is the perception of impunity. When a second serious accident occurs on the same line while the first has not yet been fully clarified, public trust is shattered.
The victims and their families are not asking only for compensation —which the operators and the State will have to provide— but also for the omissions or errors that could have been prevented to be identified, and for those who had a duty to prevent them to face real consequences.
Minutes of silence are necessary for collective mourning, but they cannot replace a rigorous investigation or accountability. If inquiries drag on without results, or are confined to isolated technical failures without examining management, maintenance and supervision, the message that “nobody pays” becomes even stronger.
There is much to investigate, and many abuses and serious errors for which people must answer in this opaque Spain. Investigations into the accidents are revealing that money earmarked for track maintenance was spent on other matters, and on this issue Sánchez is the only person to blame.
Society has the right to demand that investigations be transparent and comprehensive, and that they lead to proportionate consequences when negligence is established. Otherwise, the risk of similar tragedies recurring will not disappear with official mourning; it will remain as long as perceived impunity continues to be the norm.
Article 30 of the Constitution speaks of the duty to defend Spain. That duty includes ensuring that essential services do not become places of death and impunity for the powerful.
Francisco Rubiales
La gente siente asco ante la impunidad de los que gobiernan y tiene miedo también de subirse a un tren.
Las investigaciones técnicas y judiciales avanzan con lentitud: nueve meses después de Adamuz no hay informe final ni investigados formales, y la de Urda acaba de arrancar. El contraste entre el luto oficial inmediato y la ausencia de responsabilidades visibles alimenta la percepción de que el sistema se protege a sí mismo.
La demanda de “años de cárcel” no es un eslogan vacío. El Código Penal español castiga el homicidio y las lesiones por imprudencia grave, y permite agravar la pena cuando hay varias víctimas. Si se demuestra que alguien en la cadena de mando (control de tráfico, mantenimiento, supervisión de la infraestructura) incumplió de forma grave sus deberes y eso contribuyó causalmente a las muertes, puede haber responsabilidad penal.
Sin embargo, la experiencia demuestra que estos procesos son largos, técnicos y que la cadena de responsabilidad suele cortarse antes de llegar a los niveles políticos más altos.
El problema de fondo es la percepción de impunidad. Cuando un segundo accidente grave ocurre en la misma línea mientras el primero sigue sin esclarecerse del todo, la confianza se resquebraja.
Las víctimas y sus familias no piden solo indemnizaciones —que las operadoras y el Estado deberán afrontar—, sino que se identifiquen las omisiones o errores que pudieron haberse evitado y que quienes tenían el deber de prevenirlas asuman consecuencias reales.
Los minutos de silencio son necesarios para el duelo colectivo, pero no sustituyen la investigación rigurosa ni la rendición de cuentas. Si las pesquisas se dilatan sin resultados o se limitan a fallos técnicos aislados sin examinar la gestión, el mantenimiento y la supervisión, el mensaje de que “nadie paga” se refuerza.
Hay mucho que investigar y muchos abusos y errores graves por los que pagar en esta España opaca. Las investigaciones sobre los accidentes están descubriendo que el dinero destinado a mantener las vías se empleó en otros asuntos y en ese tema el único culpable es Sánchez.
La sociedad tiene derecho a que las investigaciones sean transparentes, completas y concluyan con consecuencias proporcionales cuando se acrediten negligencias. De lo contrario, el riesgo de que se repitan tragedias similares no desaparece con el luto oficial, sino que se mantiene mientras la impunidad percibida siga siendo la norma.
El artículo 30 de la Constitución habla del deber de defender a España. Ese deber Ese deber incluye que los servicios esenciales no se conviertan en tumbas y en impunidad de los poderosos.
Francisco Rubiales
English version:
Fewer Minutes of Silence and Harsher Punishment for Those Responsible
In Spain, those responsible rarely pay for their mistakes, negligence, abuses and crimes. That impunity is the dominant feature and the hallmark of the Sánchez era: those in power are shielded.
A large part of Spanish public opinion feels deep exhaustion and anger following the two high-speed train accidents, which have claimed more than a hundred lives.
Messages such as the following are circulating on social media: “This accident happened because nobody paid for the previous one… And it will happen again unless all those responsible pay for this one. We do not want just minutes of silence and days of official mourning; we want years in prison.”
Óscar Puente's resignation does not seem sufficient for two reasons: his party continues to treat him as a hero and a martyr; and the person who appointed him, Pedro Sánchez, who is just as responsible as he is for the deaths and the disaster affecting Spain's railways, has still not paid any price.
After the Adamuz collision in January (46 deaths) and the Urda collision in October (69), the feeling that tragedies are piling up without consequences has grown.
People feel disgust at the impunity of those who govern, and they are also afraid to get on a train.
Technical and judicial investigations are moving slowly: nine months after Adamuz, there is no final report or formally identified suspects, while the investigation into Urda has only just begun. The contrast between immediate official mourning and the absence of visible accountability feeds the perception that the system protects itself.
The demand for “years in prison” is not an empty slogan. Spain's Criminal Code punishes homicide and injuries caused by gross negligence, and allows for harsher penalties when there are multiple victims. If it is established that someone in the chain of command —traffic control, maintenance or infrastructure supervision— seriously failed to fulfil their duties and that this contributed causally to the deaths, criminal liability may arise.
However, experience shows that these proceedings are lengthy and technical, and that the chain of responsibility is often cut off before it reaches the highest political levels.
The underlying problem is the perception of impunity. When a second serious accident occurs on the same line while the first has not yet been fully clarified, public trust is shattered.
The victims and their families are not asking only for compensation —which the operators and the State will have to provide— but also for the omissions or errors that could have been prevented to be identified, and for those who had a duty to prevent them to face real consequences.
Minutes of silence are necessary for collective mourning, but they cannot replace a rigorous investigation or accountability. If inquiries drag on without results, or are confined to isolated technical failures without examining management, maintenance and supervision, the message that “nobody pays” becomes even stronger.
There is much to investigate, and many abuses and serious errors for which people must answer in this opaque Spain. Investigations into the accidents are revealing that money earmarked for track maintenance was spent on other matters, and on this issue Sánchez is the only person to blame.
Society has the right to demand that investigations be transparent and comprehensive, and that they lead to proportionate consequences when negligence is established. Otherwise, the risk of similar tragedies recurring will not disappear with official mourning; it will remain as long as perceived impunity continues to be the norm.
Article 30 of the Constitution speaks of the duty to defend Spain. That duty includes ensuring that essential services do not become places of death and impunity for the powerful.
Francisco Rubiales
Inicio
Enviar
Versión para Imprimir
