The store's security verified that there was no fire and therefore did not carry out an evacuation, but rather treated it as a false alarm and called a technician to turn it off.

Eyewitnesses said the roof collapsed over the checkout counters, where many people were waiting to pay, and over the dairy, alcoholic beverage and household chemicals sections.

There were more than 50 employees and an uncertain number of customers in the smaller shops in the retail centre, most of whom were able to escape before rescuers arrived.

[3] Most of the supermarket lost electrical power due to damage caused by the collapse, which resulted in the main door locking and trapping several people inside; they had to break the glass to escape.

Both before and after the second collapse, only firefighters were allowed to enter the building, and anyone inside was pulled out and brought to the ambulances parked just outside the store.

[29] After the disaster, the Mayor of Riga Nils Ušakovs gave an order to inspect all building projects carried out by Re&Re.

[40] The preliminary findings from the controlled collapse, which took place from 14 to 17 April showed prolonged deformation of the metal support structures, which started well before the target weight of the roof was reached and ended with the constructions eventually breaking, suggesting that the roof was built improperly and the actual collapse was not caused by a sudden change, but by overloading structures for a prolonged period of time and possibly metal fatigue.

[43] On 10 June 2014 it was announced that a separate criminal inquiry has been launched to verify findings of State Labour Inspectorate, which reported work safety violations in Maxima.

He said that the way the building was designed meant it was bound to collapse, however, the investigation had uncovered other factors that contributed to the collapse occurring at a particular time and therefore resulting in deaths, as well as numerous unrelated violations, which speak of a general tendency to disregard regulations, therefore everyone who had been neglectful contributed to the accident and should be held responsible.

The trial was held in Ķīpsala International Exposition Centre outside court buildings due to the several hundred people involved, with 263 named as victims and 144 as witnesses.

The building's civil engineer Ivars Sergets was sentenced to six years in prison for making gross errors in the structural calculations, which directly led to the collapse.

[49][50] According to Ivars Sergets, the owner of HND Grupa which was responsible for the construction of the building, the collapse may have been caused by overload, created by materials being loaded onto weaker points of the roof.

[52] Lilita Ozola, an engineer teaching at the Latvian University of Agriculture, suggested that for changing the trusses the entire design plan should have been revised and reapproved by authorities.

She pointed out that there is a video recording of the shopping centre's roof collapsing in which it is obvious that it failed at the exact position of the joints.

[53] Toomas Kaljas, who claims to be a structural engineer working for a Finnish company, has published research based on photographs from the site, suggesting the connections between the horizontal bars that held the roof were inadequately designed.

A better design would have resulted in components bending and cracking over time, instead of the whole building suddenly collapsing like dominoes without warning.

[57] According to a press representative of Kubs, the architect bureau that designed the building, the possibly faulty metal joint components were supplied by Vikom Industry.

[59] The vice director of the Latvian Fire Safety and Civil Defence College, Vilis Students, who participated in the rescue work, said that the concrete components seemed unexpectedly fragile.

He said that the country needed strong government with support in parliament at the moment of crisis and that he was thus taking responsibility for the incident.

This was done as a result of budget cuts during the global economic crisis as it was thought that municipal building authorities perform the same tasks.

Ušakovs has cited this as the reason why the government of Dombrovskis was responsible; however he himself was a member of the Saeima when this decision was made and supported it in parliament.

In particular, the CEO of Maxima Latvija, Gintaras Jasinskas, when asked if he had considered stepping down like Dombrovskis, caused outrage by saying "Why?

[70] On 11 November 2014 members of the 12th convocation of Saeima, at the request of 36 deputies, voted in favour of establishing the Zolitūde tragedy parliamentary investigatory committee.

[73] In the final report the committee named seven persons as morally and politically responsible for the tragedy: A protest movement against the parties involved sprung up after the incident.

Maxima was also criticised for apparently intimidating workers to keep them from reporting discrepancies to authorities, talking to media or joining a trade union.

[15][76] The company was also accused of lying in the wake of the tragedy for initially denying owning the building and for saying that their safety instructions, which required evacuation only when it had been verified there was obvious danger, had been approved by the State Fire and Rescue Service.

[78] The Latvian president stated that the Saturday, Sunday and Monday immediately following the disaster would be days of mourning and sent condolences to Armenia in response to the death of one of its citizens.

[79][80][81] The families of victims requested that all objects at the site of the disaster be dismantled and evacuated, including the 12-story apartment building owned by Homburg Zolitūde.

[82] The Mayor of Riga Nils Ušakovs said that the Maxima building would be demolished and have a temporary memorial built in its place.

The Latvian Lutheran and Russian Orthodox church organisations urged people to pray for the victims of the tragedy.