Summary

Former Swiss Federal Prosecutor Michael Lauber sharply criticizes the Valais criminal investigation into the Crans-Montana fire disaster (December 31, 2024). He identifies three central failures: inadequate communication with victims and the public, too few autopsies (only 2 of 41 deaths), and delayed detention of bar operators to secure evidence. Lauber warns that these errors damage the credibility of the entire Swiss justice system – particularly given the six Italian victims and international observers.

People

Topics

  • Criminal prosecution and victim protection
  • Justice system credibility and communication obligations
  • Evidence preservation and autopsy
  • Federalism and cantonal competencies

Clarus Lead

Lauber's public criticism of Valais justice marks a rare moment of institutional self-reflection: a former top prosecutor in Switzerland points out that a catastrophe with 41 deaths and international dimensions is being handled procedurally poorly by local authorities. His intervention does not aim to assign blame to individuals, but rather addresses systemic failure – and signals that even complex federal structures may require external assistance in extreme cases. This could trigger a debate about escalation mechanisms in Swiss criminal justice.

Detailed Summary

Lauber argues that communication in serious criminal proceedings must be understood not as a breach of official secrecy, but as a civic duty. Although investigations are generally confidential, the Valais prosecution took a high risk: it remained silent, too technical, and emotionally detached for too long, while 41 people died and hundreds of family members – many of them Italian – were left without guidance. Lauber specifically criticizes that only two of the 41 bodies were autopsied. In a fire disaster, it is unclear how each individual died (fire, smoke, crushing); only an autopsy can clarify this. It must be performed immediately after the incident, otherwise traces are lost and cannot be recovered. This is not an optional procedural step, but a legal obligation to the families.

The third failure: bar operators were arrested only after public pressure. Lauber emphasizes that arrest must not be a reaction to media pressure, but an instrument for evidence preservation from the outset – to prevent suspects from destroying documents or influencing witnesses. Late arrest signals subsequent damage control rather than professional investigation strategy.

On the question of whether an external prosecution office from another canton should take over the investigation, Lauber expresses himself cautiously. He does not categorically reject this now, but sees the bigger problem: the credibility of Swiss justice suffers from lack of communication, not primarily from bias. Rumors and hearsay arise in a vacuum. Here, the canton of Valais must communicate proactively earlier – which is legally possible and builds trust rather than destroying it.

Key Statements

  • Justice system credibility is created through proactive, empathetic communication – not through silence.
  • Autopsy is not optional in fire disasters; its omission is a justice error that cannot be repaired.
  • Evidence preservation through early arrest is professional duty, not a reaction to public pressure.
  • Federal cantonal structures can function without external takeover if they engage early with transparent communication.

Critical Questions

  1. Evidence & Source Validity: Lauber criticizes an ongoing investigation without full file access. How reliable are his statements on autopsy numbers and arrest timing? Can these figures be publicly verified, or are they based on press reports?

  2. Conflicts of Interest & Motivation: Lauber himself resigned in 2020 due to the FIFA affair (accusation: undisclosed meetings with Infantino, loss of credibility). Is his current criticism of Valais justice an attempt to restore his own trust through external criticism – or a genuine institutional concern?

  3. Causality & Alternatives: Lauber says lack of communication damaged the credibility of the entire Swiss justice system. Is this empirically demonstrable, or is it a retrospective interpretation of media coverage? Were there other communication strategies that could have helped without jeopardizing procedural security?

  4. Feasibility & Side Effects: Lauber's demand for more communication in ongoing proceedings could also lead to suspects being informed earlier or public discourse hindering investigation work. How would Lauber resolve this tension?

  5. Federal Alternative & Timing: Lauber calls an external prosecution office "too late," but also sees the risk of bias. At what point in an investigation would it not have been too late to involve an external expert – and by what criteria?

  6. Autopsy & Retrospective Action: Lauber says only two of 41 people were autopsied. Is it unclear whether the remaining 39 needed it (e.g., clear cause of death from fire) or whether this was administrative neglect? How is this decision normally made in Valais practice?

Sources

Primary Source: SRF Tagesgespräch – "Michael Lauber: Ex-Federal Prosecutor Criticizes Crans-Montana" (02.06.2026, 26:27 min) https://download-media.srf.ch/world/audio/Tagesgespraech_radio/2026/06/Tagesgespraech_radio_AUDI20260602_NR_0022_eb132788a0b3423d92ff41c0b79c8a46.mp3

Supplementary Sources: – Federal Administrative Court ruling against M. Lauber (2020) – FIFA affair, file refusal – Biography Michael Lauber (Diami Hefliger, 2024): "A Life for Responsibility and Self-Determination" – Swiss Christian Catholic Church – Communications on Lauber as communications spokesperson (since end of 2024)

Verification Status: ✓ 02.06.2026

This text was created with the support of an AI model.
Editorial Responsibility: clarus.news | Fact-Check: 02.06.2026