Practically all disasters follow the same pattern: it is the combination of several factors that leads to deaths and rarely an individual fault.

This observation, omnipresent in fires, should be no exception with the catastrophic fire in Crans-Montana, as it is likely that what leads to the catastrophe is human behavior combined with premises whose configuration (in materials and space) potentially allowed the blaze to develop and limited mass exit.

From that moment on, the victims' behavior no longer changed much in the deadly equation.

Several years ago, I took over from a colleague in defending the interests of a family bereaved by an accidental fire. Part of this case was publicized and I will limit myself here to public elements. The criminal proceedings had revealed the countless defects of the building, which had led the previous representative to focus exclusively on it and not to seek out other potentially liable parties, particularly the seller, importer or manufacturer of the product that caused the fire and the occupant of the apartment in which the fire started, who had not followed the most basic fire response rules.

When I took over the case, the statute of limitations had been acquired against many potentially liable parties.

Indeed, criminal proceedings are lengthy. They focus on the sequence of events and human behaviors that caused the disaster or may have aggravated it.

But they do not necessarily result in the implication of all persons who had a share of responsibility in the fire, because not everything is criminal, far from it, and Switzerland is a country that criminalizes little.

Thus, through the passage of time and the fact that energy was focused on criminal proceedings that highlighted the countless defects of the building, these liabilities fell into oblivion and were affected by the statute of limitations. As for the liability of the property owner, the Valais Cantonal Court had conducted an examination detaching each construction defect, rather than analyzing whether the whole was related to the tragedy, excluding any compensation for the victim's loved ones.

In general, "secondary" liabilities (this is not a legal term at all, it is simply there to designate liabilities that are not those immediately triggering the causal chain) encounter considerable human resistance. In short, many people feel that the owner "asked for nothing" and should not bear too heavy a burden. But this conception is legally wrong (the property owner has strict liability) and participates in the climate that I denounce here.

I wish to spare victims and their loved ones the same double penalty. It is absolutely crucial, in such proceedings, to understand clearly that criminal proceedings are one thing, but civil proceedings are another, and that statutes of limitations can be acquired.

I believe that everyone should be informed of their rights and preserve them as much as possible. This is the reason for this website, insofar as this tragedy affects hundreds, if not thousands of people, and all these people must have equal and complete access to information to enable them to participate properly and defend their rights.

It is also a way to bring about change and break out of a rut that is no longer necessarily legal, in my view, but in Valais mentalities: that of acquired rights.

No, having been able to build a non-compliant establishment decades ago is not a reason to continue authorizing it to welcome the public. Even outside of any transformation or change of use, real deadlines for total compliance must be set and respected. The principle of proportionality is a poor excuse when there are over a hundred victims.

No, making light renovations is not enough to avoid asking the real question about the fire safety concept.

No, the fact that it is only a simple change of manager is not enough to avoid the question of fire safety quality assurance.

Yes, there must be regular inspections of all public establishments. By regular, we mean less than a year. And if there is any irregularity, the word "acquired right" should not be allowed and the establishment closed if it does not correct the irregularity immediately.

Yes, it is unimaginable today that municipalities continue to be responsible for fire protection. This is not a wholesale attack on fire rescue services, which work miracles with limited resources, particularly in Valais, a canton in which resources are by definition limited and which does not have a cantonal insurance institution like the neighboring canton. It is simply a reality: municipalities are exposed to limited budgets, to safety officers or CSI delegates who "do everything" and who will not be able to be composed, by definition, of specialists in their field. They are also people who are more likely to be exposed to political pressures of all kinds. So yes, Valais must remove municipal powers and transfer them to the cantonal level. That's it, there is no other way to do it.

The legislature must also show its teeth and make its thinking explicit regarding LRIEN, that is, the law on liability for fires and natural events, which the cantonal court has described as a law that is not primarily there to protect victims - which allows civil liabilities to be built, for example, when behavioral instructions are lacking.

This set of factors means that Valais must change in its mentalities and that this immense and unspeakable tragedy must serve as a catalyst to clearly understand that it will be the very last and that there will simply never be another one.