Prosecutors probe crucial questions about Mati disaster

Athens prosecutors probing the responsibilities for the 23 July Mati tragedy are confronted with  a series of critical questions.

While some are trying to change the political agenda, the tragedy still hovers over Greece and the dead and their relatives seek vindication.

While the top priority is to help the victims remake their lives and to protect the area from floods, the judiciary is obliged to move swiftly and to soon file criminal charges against “all persons responsible”.

The accounts of a total lack of coordination appear in the lawsuits that one after another the victims’ families are filing. From the first moment, criminal errors and deficiencies in the management of state services were noted, when all forces should have been mobilised.

According to a report in the daily Ethnos, over 30 witnesses have already testified before the prosecutor, and there are thousands of documents in the case file. All the evidence will be examined by a firefighting expert appointed by lower court prosecutor Elias Zagoraios.

There are five major questions, among others, to which prosecutors must seek answers.

1. Why were most of the fire trucks moved to another fire in Kineta and only a few were left in Eastern Attica? Was a proper assessment made? The initial evidence indicates that the fire in Pendeli [which spread to Mati] was not evaluated properly. There was a delay in mobilising fire trucks and airborne forces, and a strong anti-fire zone was not set up on Marathonos Avenue [which the fire crossed and destroyed Mati]. A special firefighting helicopter which flew from Kineta to Pendeli did not have the necessary fuel to drop water on the fire. It has also been ascertained that until it was late Fire Service forces believed the fire would move towards Dioni, the opposite course of the one that it actually took.
2. Were state services suitably prepared, after an announcement the previous day that the danger for fires on the day of the tragedy would be Level 4 (the highest), due to the extremely strong wind gusts? The results demonstrate that they were not prepared. Indeed, the General Secretary for Civil Protection, Yannis Kapakis, was away from Athens on Saturday, 21 August.
3. Had dried grass and plants been removed from the area? Were the hydrants filled in case of emergency? The accounts from both Voutza and Mati are clear. The answer is no in both cases.
4. Why was the Coast Guard not instructed not to let passengers debark in Rafina, so as not to impede traffic towards Mati? It was criminal negligence, resulting from the tragic mistake of cutting off traffic and directing automobiles – both from Nea Makri and Athens – towards Mati. There are accounts indicating that at the traffic light on Marathonos Avenue, leading to Rafina, Traffic Police had an intense disagreement about how they should have coordinated and directed traffic. There are charges that total mayhem prevailed and wrong instructions were issued, because no one had a clear idea of the direction of the fire.
5. What plan was implemented at the camps in the area, resulting in a timely evacuation to save the children? Could one have ordered a regular or even disorderly evacuation of the area? Why was this not done? This raises many questions. At the camps, everything operated impeccably and hundreds of children were saved. In Mati, the church bells did not ring to alert people and no official warned people to run for their lives. With the velocity of the wind gusts, the fire within minutes reached the houses, with tragic results.