When the initial explosion that sparked the inferno took place, it is estimated that 1,000 people were inside the supermarket.

The store is owned by Juan Pío Paiva. His son, Víctor Daniel Paiva, and Humberto Fernando Casaccia, are co-owners.

Ismael Sánchez, a security guard at the store, said that as soon as the owners got wind that something had gone awry they ordered the cashiers to stay put and the security guards to lock all doors and shut down other possible exits to prevent theft.

Such testimony, and the public anger it unleashed among working people, led government prosecutors to file charges of involuntary manslaughter against Pío Paiva and five others, including some security guards. Paraguay’s TV Channel 13 reported that a judge has ordered the storeowner imprisoned while the investigation is taking place.

Angry survivors have already described to government prosecutors what transpired as a result of the criminal action by the bosses. Julio Daniel Silvolierro, for example, is a packer at the supermarket who said he happened to be next to cash register no. 5 when he heard an explosion coming from the store’s food court. Immediately, customers started running toward the doors, he said, only to find they were trapped inside because the exits had been shut.

Néstor González, who was in line to pay for his groceries, said he saw smoke coming out of the ceiling in the northern and southern sections of the store. He said he ran to the door and confronted security guards who were preventing people from exiting.

The bosses had given such strict orders to the guards to keep the doors locked that when Juan Carlos Valiente, a volunteer firefighter who was among the first to arrive on the scene, tried to break down one of the entrances, a security guard attacked him to the point of firing his pistol twice into the air as a warning, the Paraguayan daily ABC Color reported.

The same newspaper reported that the material below the roof of the store was highly flammable, causing the fire to spread rapidly. As this issue goes to press, authorities have not provided an official explanation of the cause of the disaster.

The first reports in the media had floated the unsubstantiated story that a car bomb caused the explosion. The apparent intent was to minimize the culpability of the supermarket owners for the catastrophe. Soon afterwards, however, technicians looking for evidence on the scene dismissed this “theory.” Investigators said that a spark coming into contact with highly flammable material inside the store caused the explosion that started the blaze. Inquiries continue to this day.

According to the Bloomberg News service, Manuel Sarquis, director of the government’s national emergency committee in Asunción, said August 3 that a gas leak in the food court is the most probable cause of the fire.

Most editorials in Paraguay’s press describe this as an “accident” and “the worst disaster in the country’s history.” But all the evidence so far points to criminal negligence, deliberate actions, and contempt for working people whom the owners saw as potential robbers at a time of danger—not human beings whose lives needed to be saved—as many survivors pointed to in their stories. All this to safeguard the profits of the bosses, which seems to be the reason for the extent of the catastrophe.

The shopping center was frequented not only by residents of Trinidad but thousands of working people and others in a number of the neighborhoods of Asunción and its suburbs. As a result, hundreds of families in many areas of the capital are now mourning more than one relative who died in the blaze. I watched testimony on TV by one worker, for example, who lost three sons and a nephew in the disaster.  
 
Wave of public fury
The catastrophe unleashed a wave of public fury, which is what forced the authorities to take action. Prosecutors are now reportedly demanding 25-year-prison sentences if the owners are found guilty, along with freezing all their assets, and have also filed charges against some of the security guards.

The bosses, of course, are denying any responsibility. Javier González, attorney for Ycuá Bolaños president Juan Pío Paiva, said the owner “wasn’t present when the fire started and at no time ordered the doors locked,” according to Bloomberg News.

The owners are also trying to shift blame for orders to guards to lock the exits onto the store’s manager, Víctor Ruíz, who perished in the blaze.

Volunteer rescue workers who rushed to the scene told the press that a great number of the victims were found dead pressed against the store’s exits, which reinforces the explanation now accepted by most people that the doors had been locked. Horrific scenes were televised later, including ones showing entire families found holding loved ones in each other’s arms, but completely incinerated.

Of the 464 dead, reportedly only 325 have been identified. The other 139 deceased are impossible to recognize because of the extent of the burns and decomposition of the bodies. A more lengthy process based on examination of DNA and dental records is now under way to determine the identities of these victims.

Public hospitals, which often lack basic supplies, have been overwhelmed by the disaster and have not been able to offer adequate care to those in need.

The Cuban government was among the first in the world to provide assistance. Fifteen Cuban doctors arrived in Asunción August 5 to help treat the injured, and said they would stay in Paraguay as long as they were needed.

“We have to act with caution to avoid problems in the future,” said Miguel Carrizosa, the president of Paraguay’s Congress, referring to the slowness in the identification process. Carrizosa made no mention of the criminal acts by the owners of the shopping center that caused the disaster in the first place, or the need for the government to act swiftly to ease the pain of hundreds of people still searching for their loved ones among the rubble, and to ensure the best possible care for the injured.

The capitalist politicians of Paraguay always act with “caution” before taking any measure that may even slightly benefit working people. This is another example that makes it clear that the ruling class acts only to defend its property interests.  
 
 
Front page (for this issue) | Home | Text-version home