Forty dead. Dozens seriously injured. In a tragedy of this magnitude, justice has no right to be approximate. But what is taking shape today in Crans-Montana is deeply troubling: victims excluded from the hearings, procedural choices challenged, an investigation under strain. When families feel that they are being kept at a distance at the very moment when the truth is being established, it is no longer just a matter of justice - it is a question of democratic trust.
Forty dead. Dozens seriously injured. Swiss and international shockwaves.
In a tragedy of this magnitude, there is only one requirement: an irreproachable criminal investigation, The first procedural decisions to emerge today give the opposite impression. However, the first procedural decisions to emerge today give the opposite impression: that of a case being launched on shaky foundations, at the risk of transforming the investigation into a judicial battlefield even before it can calmly establish the facts.
1) The most worrying aspect: victims excluded from criminal proceedings
You have to start with the essentials, because everything flows from them.
Viewpoint of a lawyer (43 years of practice) :
«Civil party victims excluded from criminal proceedings. It's off to a very bad start. Strange... As a lawyer for 43 years, I've never seen anything like this. Fortunately, there are appeal procedures, and the same Code of Criminal Procedure has been applicable throughout Switzerland since 2011. Clearly, we need to move these criminal proceedings out of the canton and entrust them to a prosecutor from outside the canton of Valais.»
This is a decisive factor. Keeping the complainants at a distance from the hearings and the taking of evidence weakens the procedure from the outset. A criminal investigation cannot remain solid if those who have the most to lose - the victims' families - feel marginalised.
When this initial fragility sets in, the consequences are well known: an increase in the number of appeals, challenges to investigative acts, partial reopening of proceedings and, above all, lasting breakdown in trust between the justice system and victims' families.
An institutional malaise now documented
Questions about the place given to victims are no longer mere impressions. They are now documented by several corroborating sources.
According to information revealed by Léman Bleu, the families of the victims and their counsels are excluded from hearings conducted by the police on behalf of the Valais Public Prosecutor's Office, even though the defendants' lawyers are fully present. Several lawyers see this as a infringement of the Code of Criminal Procedure, However, it does guarantee complainants specific procedural rights, particularly with regard to participation in investigative acts.
This asymmetry feeds a deep malaise: victims have the feeling that they are being sidelined at the very moment when the evidence is being built up, The defendants, on the other hand, have full access to the proceedings.
Sensitive hearings without the complainants
This unease crystallises around certain key hearings. The Crans-Montana municipality's security officer must be heard in the exclusive presence of the defendants' lawyers, The victims and their counsel are not allowed to attend this key event.
For Romain Jordan, lawyer for several families, this situation is hard to understand:
«The canton has quite rightly triggered the mechanisms associated with the extraordinary situation. But it is hard to see the same awareness on the part of the Public Prosecutor's Office, which denies complainants the right to take part in hearings, unlike defendants. The respect due to victims cannot be limited to statements in the press. It must be reflected in the proceedings».»
The distinction between public discourse and procedural practice increases the feeling of distance between the judicial institution and bereaved families.
2) A public prosecutor with high media profile but no involvement in the investigation
Another factor undermines confidence: the Attorney General of the canton of Valais, Béatrice Pilloud, is not herself investigating this exceptionally serious case.
Contrary to what his many media appearances might suggest, the investigation was entrusted to a young Valaisan prosecutor, Marie Gretillat. She is recognised for her skills, but she finds herself alone at the head of an issue of unprecedented human, legal and international scope in the canton.
This decision has raised questions right up to in the ranks of the Valaisan judiciary itself, according to several corroborating accounts. As Valais lawyer Nicolas Rivard points out:
«Justice is also about symbols. I can understand that, initially, the Attorney General is delegating to concentrate on communication. But given the extreme seriousness of the case, it would be normal for her to take charge again quickly.»
This is not to question the professional qualities of the prosecutor in charge. It should be emphasised that, in a case of this scope, the direct involvement of the Attorney General is a strong institutional signal., for both victims and the general public.
3) Pre-trial detention: an issue that had to be examined and justified with absolute rigour
Given the exceptional seriousness of the facts, the question of pre-trial detention - or, failing that, strict alternative measures - had to be examined and substantiated in depth, In accordance with classic legal criteria: risk of leakage and risk of collusion.
In this case, the risk of leakage cannot be described as theoretical. The operators are French nationals. France does not extradite its nationals, which would make a flight particularly fraught with consequences for the proceedings and deeply unbearable for the families. There is also an objective factor: Jacques Moretti has a criminal record and has already served a custodial sentence. In a case where the potential liabilities appear high, this profile automatically reinforces the assessment of the procedural risk.
It is worth pointing out the obvious: pre-trial detention is not a penalty, It is a precautionary measure designed to protect the investigation, prevent collusion and guarantee the integrity of the case.
In other criminal jurisdictions faced with a similar set of risks and international consequences, stricter restraint measures are, at the very least, systematically envisaged.
4) Searches and seizures: protecting evidence, not just a detail
The same rigour is required when it comes to searches and the immediate securing of documents, particularly with local authorities and control bodies.
In a case of this nature, the challenge is not just to obtain documents. The key issue is to preserve the evidence. Authorisations issued, controls carried out or omitted, internal correspondence, reports, exchanges, decision-making chronologies: all these elements must be quickly and formally secured.
In the absence of clear, documented and rapid seizures, a structural weakness sets in. Tomorrow, any defence will be able to argue that the documents have been circulated, sorted, reconstituted or added to. Once this doubt has been introduced, it never completely disappears, regardless of the legal outcome.
Procedural choices already publicly contested
These questions come on top of the procedural criticisms expressed publicly by several lawyers, notably on RTS radio. Why, despite the seriousness of the facts, were the defendants released?, What about the risk of absconding to a non-extraditing country and the risk of collusion?
Why also no formal search has been carried out at the commune of Crans-Montana, This is despite the fact that the company has lodged a complaint and claims to have voluntarily handed over the entire file to the public prosecutor's office.
These choices, whether legally founded or not, would have required particularly well-reasoned and explained decisions, precisely to avoid the idea of an unbalanced procedure.
5) An already potentially explosive background
The substance of the case cannot be ignored. If the elements reported were to be confirmed - emergency exit to the basement closed or neutralised, laxity in controlling age and alcohol consumption, presence of soundproofing foam on the ceiling raising questions with regard to fire behaviour - then the case could be dismissed. we would no longer be dealing with a simple accident.
We would be facing a chain of negligence, This potentially entails heavy criminal liability, both for the operators and for the control and monitoring mechanisms. These elements will obviously have to be established in adversarial proceedings, but their plausibility alone justifies an absolutely rigorous investigation.
Crisis communication: yet another symbol
Finally, there is a striking contrast between the situation of families and certain institutional decisions. The commune of Crans-Montana has hired a firm specialising in crisis communication, Many families have to travel across Europe to accompany relatives who have suffered serious burns.
This symbolic discrepancy fuels a feeling of incomprehension, even unease, in a context where the primary expectation remains truth, responsibility and the respect due to victims.
Conclusion: protect the truth before it's too late
The risk is now clear. This procedure is generating waves, In the legal arena, among the families of the victims, and even among international opinion.
It would be dangerous for the judicial institution itself if the idea were to take root that the procedure protects the comfort of defendants more than the rights of victims.
If the investigation is to retain its credibility, simple and strong measures are required: fully guaranteeing the rights of civil parties, securing evidence by formal acts of seizure and search where necessary, examining and giving reasons for coercive measures that are proportionate to the seriousness and concrete risks, and, if confidence is objectively weakened, consider relocating the proceedings and appointing a prosecutor from outside the canton of Valais.
At the end of the day, the question is not who is protecting whom.
The question is that protects the truth - and the dignity of victims.