Defence Seeks Acquittals in Bondo Landslide Case

Nearly nine years after one of Switzerland’s deadliest modern alpine disasters, defence lawyers have urged a court to clear five defendants accused of criminal negligence in connection with the 2017 Bondo landslide that claimed the lives of eight hikers.

The case, being heard by the Maloja Regional Court in Pontresina, has become a closely watched test of where responsibility lies when public authorities and scientific experts are confronted with natural hazards that are difficult to predict with certainty. Prosecutors allege that the accused failed to take sufficient precautions before the disaster, while defence attorneys argue that local officials and specialists acted according to the best information available at the time.

At the center of the proceedings is the catastrophic rockfall that struck the Piz Cengalo mountain above the Bregaglia Valley in canton Graubünden on August 23, 2017. Roughly three million cubic meters of rock broke away from the mountain, triggering a massive debris flow that swept through the Bondasca Valley. Eight hikers from Switzerland, Germany and Austria were caught in the disaster and never returned. The event also caused extensive damage to infrastructure and parts of the nearby village of Bondo.

The defendants include former Bregaglia mayor Anna Giacometti, several cantonal officials and an external geologist who had roles related to hazard monitoring and risk management before the disaster. All face allegations linked to multiple counts of negligent homicide. Prosecutors have requested suspended financial penalties rather than prison sentences.

During the latest court session, defence lawyers argued that the prosecution has failed to demonstrate that the tragedy could have been reasonably prevented. Attorneys maintained that the accused relied on expert assessments, monitoring systems and established procedures in place before the collapse. According to the defence, decisions made by municipal and cantonal authorities reflected the scientific understanding available at the time and should not be judged using information that emerged only after the disaster occurred.

The legal dispute stems from a long-running debate over whether warning signs observed on Piz Cengalo should have prompted the closure of hiking routes in the area. Prosecutors rely heavily on later expert analysis suggesting that the mountain displayed indications of instability and that precautionary trail closures may have reduced the risk to visitors. Defence teams counter that experts monitoring the mountain did not have sufficient evidence to predict the exact timing, scale or consequences of the collapse.

The question has divided specialists for years. Initial investigations concluded that the landslide could not have been foreseen in a way that would justify criminal liability. Authorities originally closed the criminal inquiry, but relatives of the victims challenged that decision through the courts. Their appeal ultimately led to renewed investigations and eventually criminal charges against the five defendants.

Court documents and previous investigations have shown that authorities had already been monitoring geological activity in the region for years before the disaster. Earlier rockfalls and debris flows had occurred in the area, prompting the installation of warning systems and protective infrastructure around Bondo. However, the unprecedented scale of the 2017 collapse raised questions about whether existing safety measures were adequate for the risks present at the time.

For the families of those who died, the proceedings represent a search for answers as much as a legal battle. Some relatives have publicly stated that their primary objective is to understand whether additional precautions could have prevented the tragedy rather than to secure criminal convictions. The case has therefore become an important examination of accountability in the management of natural hazards.

The trial is unfolding against a broader backdrop of increasing concern about mountain instability in the Alps. Scientists have linked growing rockfall risks in some high-altitude regions to changing environmental conditions, including thawing permafrost and glacier retreat. While the court is focused on the specific circumstances of the Bondo disaster, the outcome may influence how authorities assess and manage risks in other vulnerable alpine areas.

Legal experts note that proving negligent homicide in cases involving natural disasters can be particularly challenging. Prosecutors must demonstrate not only that warning signs existed but also that the defendants had a duty to act and that reasonable actions would likely have prevented the deaths. Defence lawyers argue that such standards have not been met in the Bondo case because the disaster resulted from a complex geological event that experts could not accurately predict.

The proceedings also highlight the difficult relationship between scientific uncertainty and public safety decisions. Authorities responsible for mountain regions often must decide whether to restrict access, evacuate communities or close infrastructure based on incomplete information. Those choices can carry significant social and economic consequences, especially in regions dependent on tourism and outdoor recreation.

After years of investigations, appeals and expert reviews, the court must now determine whether the defendants’ actions fell below the standard expected of public officials and specialists responsible for managing known risks. The verdict is expected at a later date following the conclusion of hearings.

Whatever the outcome, the trial marks a significant chapter in Switzerland’s effort to understand one of its most devastating recent mountain disasters. Beyond the legal questions, the case continues to raise broader issues about risk assessment, public safety and responsibility in an era when natural hazards remain a persistent challenge across the Alpine region.