What is happening in Crans-Montana is much more than a local tragedy. When a human disaster of this magnitude occurs, it is not only the truth of the facts that is expected, but the absolute clarity of justice. And yet, from the outset, procedural decisions, institutional blunders and lack of action raise questions. Not because of any suspicion of intent, but because of their effects. In this case, every signal counts - because when the procedure itself becomes a source of doubt, collective confidence wavers.
In Crans-Montana, this is not just a news item.
This is a human tragedy on an exceptional scale - dozens of people dead and injured - which, from the very outset, made it imperative to take action, a criminal investigation that is beyond reproach, clear and indisputable.
Over the past few days, however, a succession of procedural decisions, lack of action and institutional blunders objectively undermines confidence in the conduct of the investigation. Not because of any intentions on the part of the authorities, but because of the effects produced.
A cardinal principle: in the event of a major disaster, justice must be immediately accessible
In this type of case, justice is not just done.
It must be understandable, traceable and perceived as strictly impartial, particularly by bereaved families.
However, a number of factors reported by the Swiss and foreign media are now creating a profound malaise - both institutional and human.
1) The initial exclusion of victims: a disastrous procedural signal
According to corroborating information, the victims, their families and their counsel were not admitted to the initial hearings delegated by the Public Prosecutor's Office, although the defendants' lawyers did attend.
Even if some adjustments have been announced, the procedural damage is immediate By excluding the complainants at the start of an investigation of this scale, a lasting suspicion is created.
Criminal justice cannot be seen to be more attentive to defendants than to victims.
Procedural balance is a condition of legitimacy, not a technical detail.
2) No coercive measures: a question of protecting the investigation, not guilt
The Code of Criminal Procedure provides for coercive measures where there is a serious risk of absconding or collusion.
At this stage, no measures of this type have been ordered, even though these risks are being raised publicly by the parties' counsel.
There is no question here of calling for early sanctions.
These are protect the investigation itself These include securing evidence, guaranteeing the sincerity of hearings and preventing any subsequent pressure or coordination.
In such an exposed case, inaction is interpreted, whether we like it or not.
3) Without initial coercive measures, the procedure itself becomes vulnerable
In any disaster involving operators, local authorities and safety standards, one rule applies:
the parts are grabbed, not asked for.
Not out of mistrust, but to protecting the right to education against any future claims: missing documents, modified versions, involuntary losses.
When these acts are not immediately visible, the procedure itself becomes a matter of public doubt - a risk that any modern justice system must anticipate.
4) The “recommended lawyers” episode: a serious breach of the appearance of impartiality
The transmission to victims of a list of lawyers “proposed” by the police, under the direction of the Public Prosecutor's Office, was recognised as a blunder.
But in a case of this sensitivity, it's a big mistake.
It undermines the free choice of counsel and weakens one of the pillars of the rule of law: the perceived independence of the procedure.
Even when corrected, this initiative leaves a lasting impression.
5) Financial flows and controls: when public doubt demands an investigation without blind spots
In an interview with Parisian, the lawyer for several families of the victims, Sébastien Fanti, publicly raised specific questions about the owner of the affected establishment.
These questions relate in particular to :
-
the acquisition of several properties without any apparent bank financing; ;
-
of the amounts mentioned as paid without a conventional mortgage ;
-
very high monthly rents in relation to declared activity.
The aim here is not to assert any irregularity, nor to prejudge the origin of these funds.
But in a case that now has international exposure, These questions were put publicly by one of the victims' lawyers and reported in the foreign press, require a clear institutional response.
Otherwise, it is the control mechanisms themselves - financial, administrative and communal - which have been weakened.
6) A technically and politically explosive issue
The investigation will still have to examine some major issues:
structural work, ceiling materials, compliance of access and emergency exits.
Combined with questions about previous checks and the human scale of the tragedy, these factors make this procedure a credibility test for cantonal sovereign functions.
What needs to be clear - now
-
Full and effective reinstatement of the complainants in the hearings, with reasoned decisions and explicit appeal procedures; ;
-
Clarity of choices regarding coercive measures, based on PPC criteria ;
-
Investigative acts to safeguard evidence ;
-
And, given the climate, a no-holds-barred examination of a change of scenery or an external designation, to immediately restore real and perceived impartiality.
Conclusion
A tragedy of this magnitude does not tolerate hesitation, contradictory signals or avoidable institutional errors.
When the procedure itself becomes an object of doubt, it's not just the judicial truth that's at stake - it's collective confidence in justice.
This case requires one thing and one thing only:
clear, firm and unassailable justice.