ARA San Juan tragedy: Trial exposes limits in explaining submarine sinking

The ARA San Juan, the Argentine submarine that imploded underwater in 2017 with 44 crew-members on board, was seaworthy, one of the former officers on trial told the court this week.

There is no certainty answers will be found as prosecutors seek to clarify why one of the Navy’s worst tragedies occurred.

The vessel lost contact after reporting an electrical fault and a small fire as it was sailing back to its base in Mar del Plata, south of Buenos Aires, from Ushuaia at the southern tip of the country.

The wreckage was found a year later at a depth of 900 metres and some 500 kilometres off the coast, following an international search operation that kept the country on edge.

“The submarine complied with the established rules and requirements. It is false that it was not fit to sail,” said Claudio Villamide, a former submarine commander in charge of the ARA San Juan at the time of the tragedy, as he testified before a court in Río Gallegos.

Villamide is one of four former officers standing trial in proceedings that began on Tuesday without any of the victims’ relatives present. The crew was made up of 43 men and one woman.

After the defendants’ questioning concludes, more than 90 witnesses are expected to testify in a process estimated to run until mid-year.

Hypotheses and doubts

At the opening of the trial, prosecutors argued that the sinking “was not the result of a chance event but a foreseeable outcome given the vessel’s condition, which made the shipwreck possible.”

Villamide rejects that theory. “The vessel was fit to sail safely. It had its toolkits and necessary manuals, safety and escape equipment,” insisted the former officer, who was dismissed by a court martial in 2021 over the case.

In a lengthy technical presentation, he acknowledged that the submarine had around 30 defects that had been reported in writing through the chain of command, but said none of them prevented it from sailing safely.

The prosecution’s hypothesis is that a failure in a valve in the cooling system piping allowed water to enter the battery compartment, causing a fire and subsequently an explosion.

The ARA San Juan had a diving restriction of 100 metres because it still had pending tests following repair work.

Villamide stated that “it is proven that the implosion occurred at a depth of 550 metres. That is proof that the vessel had not flooded and that the hull and valves were in good condition,” he concluded.

Key expert evidence

The former officer’s defence lawyer, Juan Pablo Vigliero, said he is “absolutely confident of an acquittal,” stressing that the trial lacks “essential” evidence to secure a conviction.

“Forty-four people died here, a military vessel of the Argentine state sank, and there is no mechanical expert report. It is extraordinary. The problem is that it cannot now be carried out because the submarine lies at a depth of 900 metres – it would be as serious as trying to refloat the Titanic,” he said.

The defence argued that this circumstance strengthens his strategy, and by extension that of the other defendants.

“The reality, in all fairness, is that to this day it is not known what happened, why it sank and went down beyond a situation of collapse,” he said.

Families seek answers

Reasonable doubt could leave relatives empty-handed in their search for justice and answers.

The plaintiffs’ lawyer, Luis Tagliapietra – father of Alejandro, one of the sailors who died – asked the court to order an additional expert examination, seeking international cooperation from specialists capable of gathering new evidence from the ARA San Juan’s remains. The request was rejected.

Villamide, like the other defendants, faces charges of dereliction and omission of duty and negligent destruction, offences carrying prison sentences of between one and five years.

The trial will hold hearings on four consecutive days every two weeks.

Río Gallegos, one of Argentina’s least populated provincial capitals, is hosting the proceedings with relative indifference. 

Outside the courthouse, a small flag bearing the faces of the 44 crew-members who died in the tragedy is the only visible reference to the case.

– TIMES/AFP