The dismissals issued to three people were also annulled. All were accused of arson under the guilty modality, followed by death.
The ruling did not give an opinion on the responsibilities of the accused but highlighted the deficient investigation carried out over the years by concluding that “There is no correspondence between the proof and the reconstruction of events”, that it was not even determined how the fire originated, and that eventually there could be malicious conduct.
With criticism of the instruction, the Chamber ruling questions that the judge “has disregarded the conclusions of the expert opinions that suggest intentionality in the origin of the incident”, in reference to the ruling of judge Pablo Ormaechea.
“It is inadmissible that almost seven years after this tragic episode, it is still not known how, where and why the igneous focus started. And we must point out this harshly because not only society deserves a response, which demands better models of access to Justice that guarantee effective, fast and transparent processes, but, above all, the families of the victims who lost their lives, “he says the majority vote.
Judges Julio Marcelo Lucini and Magdalena Laíño questioned the first instance ruling because of the way in which responsibilities were established and warned that “the superficiality with which the magistrate has dealt with this point is worrying, taking it almost to a merely anecdotal extreme.”
The judges explained that “the way in which the fire started, undoubtedly, influences the time of analyzing the behaviors; because a possible intentional essential contribution could affect some of the culpable causal courses that the judge a quo considered relevant or make them converge in the result in a correct way, if understood as pertinent ”.
They also objected that “the” contribution “,” conduct “or” activity “in the form of” action “or” omission “that the defendants had carried out is not specifically mentioned, which undoubtedly requires the readjustment of the charges once the charges have been corrected. shortcomings mentioned here ”.
Finally, they intimidated to speed up an investigation that has been pending for more than six years.
The fact: on February 5, 2014 at approximately 8:00 a.m., a fire broke out in warehouse 7 of the firm “Iron Mountain” located at 1245 Azara Street. Its spread to the upper levels and warehouse 8, They caused the metal structure (columns and trusses) that supported the roof to begin to give way to the high temperature and to collapse the wall of Jovellanos street to which it was embedded.
As a result of this, Inspector Commissioner Leonardo Arturo Day, Deputy Inspector Anahí Garnica, Cabos Carlos Damián Veliz, Eduardo Adrián Conesa, Maximiliano Ezequiel Martínez, Agent Juan Matías Monticelli, all of them from the Federal Police Fire Station I, the volunteer firefighters died. Sebastián Ezequiel Campos and Facundo Ricardo Ambrosi (Vuelta de Rocha barracks), civil defense personnel from the GCBA Pedro Esteban Barícola and José Luis Méndez Araujo. In addition, Commissioner Luis Fernando Díaz Gauna and Corporal Juan Manuel López Gaggioti – from Barracks I – suffered serious injuries. All of them were working on the extinction of the igneous focus.
In a split decision, judges Julio Marcelo Lucini and Magdalena Laíño analyzed the prosecutions dictated by the culpable arson followed by death, among them Guillermo Eduardo Lockhart, Eduardo Alfredo Sueyras Parra and Héctor Eduardo García, who held the position of General Manager of Iron Mountain Argentina, Director of Safety and Hygiene at the regional level for Latin America and Head of Safety and Hygiene of Iron Mountain Argentina, respectively, who were aware of the deficiencies of the fire system and did not act diligently.
Oscar Alfredo Godoy, security personnel of the property, had also been prosecuted for not having acted diligently in the face of the signals emitted by the alarms that indicated the existence of the outbreak.
Among the defendants were Vanesa Berkowski, in her capacity as Director of the General Directorate of Inspection and Control, for not noticing that the inspections carried out in 2008, 2009 and 2010 were defective and for not repeating a new visit to the premises.
Also Rafael Roldán and Pedro Chapar, who held that position successively, having failed to control the implementation of the operational plan to be audited in programming from 2011 to 2014 or repeat new inspections given the history of the deposit and its criticality.
On the list of those processed were Félix Lugo, Jorge Papanicolau, Ricardo Grunfeld and Alberto Graziani, DGFyC inspectors who carried out a defective control of the Azara plant in 2009 and 2010. Roberto José Chiesa, in charge of the Directorate of Industries and Other Premises, for not noticing that the inspections carried out in 2008, 2009 and 2010 were faulty, nor for having followed up on the suggestion of inspectors Norberto Hirsfeld and Jorge Barbieri regarding the DGFOC fire intervention to verify water network.
Other people who had been processed: Luis Cogo, head of the Department of General Activities. Criticism, for not noticing that the inspections carried out in 2008, 2009 and 2010 were faulty.
Gastón Luis Lauglé and Patricia Esther Moroni, as Directors of Administration and Operational Management, for having failed to develop a comprehensive control of inspection processes and verify compliance with the annual operational plan and Silvia Hers, Head of the Operational Programming Department, for not having stipulated inspections from 2010 onwards.
Oscar Alfredo Godoy, security personnel of the property for not having acted diligently in the face of the signals emitted by the alarms that indicated the existence of the outbreak.
In dissent, Judge Ricardo Pinto, voted to confirm the prosecutions and embargoes of the accused.
After the annulment of the proceedings, the justice will have to dictate a new ruling.