Antonio Benítez: "The people investigating the Adamuz accident are people who have worked for 20 years at Renfe or have held positions of authority."

BarcelonaFive days after the train accident in Adamuz (Córdoba), a court ruling has rewritten the responsibilities for the worst accident on Spanish high-speed rail: the crash of an Alvia train on July 24, 2013, in Santiago de Compostela, in which 80 people died and 144 were injured. This Friday, the Provincial Court of A Coruña overturned the conviction of the then-head of safety at Adif (Spain's railway infrastructure manager) and placed all responsibility on the train driver. Lawyer Antonio Benítez Ostos, managing partner of Administrativando Abogados, has been assisting the victims of the Angrois train accident throughout the independent technical investigation process and is demanding that the Railway Accident Investigation Commission (CIAF) be composed solely of technicians who have not been affiliated with Renfe (Spain's national railway company).

What is most needed in the first few days after the accident?

— The important thing is to try to remain calm, be with the victims, give them the necessary support, and have some patience with the investigation, because it will be lengthy and will almost certainly be influenced by politics. The main thing is to determine the cause of the accident. There will be political intervention, because if Adif is found responsible, the State is directly implicated. The problem that arose in the Alvia case, and that could arise here, is the political contamination of the technical causes.

What will the investigation reveal?

— At the moment, the indications are extremely premature, and the audio recordings of the calls with the control center seem to reveal nothing. I have noticed a great deal of calm coming from headquarters in Madrid. The important thing is that an independent investigation is carried out, that the investigative committee is truly independent, and that the judicial process is also courageous.

The CIAF has been under scrutiny from the European Union for its lack of independence, and yet some of its current members have ties to Renfe and Adif. Haven't there been enough changes?

— When a person has worked for organizations involved in the incident, the true independence required by Europe is not met. We can have serious doubts about the existence of a conflict of interest, precisely because the members of the CIAF have a prior track record in the organizations and companies directly involved in the incident.

How did they get to the proceedings for infringement of the European standard?

— It was driven by the victims' platform itself, in response to the inaction of politicians in Spain. The European Railway Agency issued an opinion stating that there was a complete lack of independence because the members of the CIAF (Inter-American Commission on Railway Accidents) who investigated the Angrois train crash had been linked to the organizations involved: Renfe, Adif (Spain's railway infrastructure manager), and the Ministry of Public Works. The report also revealed that the victims had not been given the opportunity to provide evidence. The main problem is that Europe issued this report pointing out the lack of independence, but lacked the coercive means to compel Spain to conduct a new, independent investigation.

And what have they done?

— That's when my firm got involved. We requested that the CIAF (Commission for the Investigation of Forensic Anthropology and Crimes), whose members had been replaced due to retirement, conduct a new investigation with independent members. They didn't respond, but we obtained an unprecedented ruling from the High Court of Justice of Madrid, ordering the current members of the commission to meet and consider the victims' request to repeat the investigation with independent experts. They met, but determined that the previous investigation was already entirely independent and impartial. We have appealed this ruling and are awaiting a decision.

Could this ruling lead to a repeat investigation?

— Yes. We expect to receive it in the next few months at the latest.

What are the main points I should review?

— The CIAF (Spanish Railway Accident Investigation Commission) placed 100% blame on the train driver, and the legal proceedings ultimately convicted not only the driver but also the then-head of safety at Adif (Spain's railway infrastructure manager). Although the Provincial Court of A Coruña has now acquitted the safety director, I strongly disagree with the ruling. There was negligence regarding safety, and there is also a dissenting opinion from the judge who disagreed with the acquittal. The Angrois curve, where the speed should have been drastically reduced, lacked any signage. The head of train drivers had indicated that it was dangerous, and these warnings were ignored. A beacon would have prevented the accident. Furthermore, the ERTMS (European Rail Traffic Management System), which activates automatic braking in case of excessive speed, was deactivated on this section of track. It is important that the investigation identify those responsible, because all the politicians involved have gotten away scot-free, and these decisions are not solely the responsibility of the head of safety at Adif.

In 2024, a law created an independent authority to investigate railway accidents.

— This project was undertaken to guarantee the independence of accident investigations, but it has not been implemented. The CIAF (Railway Accident Investigation Commission) remains independent according to the standards set by European directives. Evidence of this is that among its current members is one person who worked for 20 years at Renfe (the Spanish national railway company), and another who was head of coordination. They should be technical experts who have not participated in or provided services to any company in the Spanish railway sector.

The victims of the Alvia train crash in Santiago had to wait more than 10 years for a verdict. Could the same thing happen to the victims of Adamuz?

— If the case involves both criminal and civil matters, as it did, it can take a very long time, roughly the same amount of time. If we focus solely on the State's liability for damages, the timeframes could be shorter.

What would it mean if the criminal route were left out?

— There may be no crime committed, yet compensation may still be awarded. If liability exists, a crime would be the most serious consequence, but it's possible the negligence isn't serious enough to constitute a crime, and Adif and Renfe may simply be liable for damages. In any case, I predict it will follow roughly the same process as the Alvia case.

This week there has also been a fatal accident on the Rodalies commuter rail network, and the accidents of recent days have fueled doubts about the state of the infrastructure.

— That should be said by a technician. As a user, I can simply say that the AVE high-speed train used to be never delayed by even a minute and was one of the most punctual public services, if not the most punctual. And lately, there has been a substantial slowdown in journeys. We are seeing delays and accidents that are completely anomalous and that call into question, at the very least, the stability and whether the facilities are up to date and the infrastructure that the country needs.

Given these doubts, is there anything that can be done from a legal standpoint without there having to be an accident beforehand?

— The railway infrastructure manager, Adif, has the obligation to maintain the tracks and guarantee the safety of all citizens. And now more than ever, it must review all critical points, all facilities, or sections where there is any danger or where the tracks may be obsolete.