Criticism of the indictment in the Bondo trial: Defense speaks of an arbitrary charge

The case centers on the events in Val Bondasca, where—following a rockfall at Piz Cengalo—massive debris flows struck the village of Bondo in the municipality of Bregaglia in the Canton of Graubünden. Before the Regional Court of Maloja, the accused must answer for the allegation that, as the person responsible for the local forestry oversight, he recognized or passed on possible warning signs too late. The defense rejects this view outright.

The defense attorney emphasized that his client had been a forester and not a geologist. Expecting a forester to accurately assess the dynamics of a rockslide, he said, was not professionally tenable. This division of responsibilities had been clearly arranged between the municipality of Bregaglia, the canton, and the engaged geologist; the client had only taken on a coordinating role within it.

The prosecution's charge

The indictment accuses the defendant of having failed, in his capacity as head of the municipal forestry office, to recognize indications of the escalating situation at Piz Cengalo in time and to forward them to the responsible offices. From the prosecution's perspective, he held a guarantor position and was therefore partly responsible for the course of the catastrophe. The defense counters this by stating that the technical responsibilities clearly rested with the engaged geologist.

Following the debris flows, the municipality of Bregaglia had its emergency and warning structures reviewed. Subsequently, procedures between the forestry office, cantonal offices, and external geology experts were reorganized to improve the flow of information regarding natural hazards. Whether these reforms have implications for the assessment of the conduct at the time remains open in the ongoing proceedings.

Reform of the warning structures in Bregaglia

Before the Regional Court of Maloja, organizational responsibilities in the environment of Piz Cengalo are also being addressed, alongside the technical questions. These concern the interfaces between municipal forestry oversight, the cantonal Office for Forest and Natural Hazards in Graubünden, and the commissioned geology firm. The defense sees a conflation of these responsibilities in the prosecution's case.

Should the court follow the defense's argument, this could influence the legal assessment of responsibilities in natural disasters in the Alps. The question of what technical qualifications may be expected of municipal forestry officials when assessing rockslide risks is thereby raised beyond the individual case as well. The proceedings in the mountains of Graubünden thus carry a fundamental dimension.

Possible implications beyond the individual case

Anna Giacometti, the municipal president of Bregaglia, had repeatedly spoken out after the events about the collaboration with the canton and the role of forestry oversight. Her earlier statement is not directly at issue in the trial; nevertheless, observers point to the political responsibility of the municipality following the rockslide in Val Bondasca. The evaluation of the proceedings is also regarded as significant for the future organization of natural hazard management in the region.