A couple of days in the past, 11 protection legal professionals, together with Salah Abdeslam’s two, signed a protracted column in Le Monde newspaper through which they estimated, amongst different issues, that “the trial of the assaults on November 13, 2015 was not an exemplary one”. An opinion opposite to that expressed by most observers and which provoked – and continues to impress – positions taken for and in opposition to this “means of the method”.
The signatories of the tribune are of the opinion that «the sentence of June 29 is in contradiction with the founding ideas of our felony laws. Every thing was performed upfront. The ten months of hearings served nothing within the ultimate determination that was first a political determination earlier than being a judicial one».
The arguments listed within the discussion board didn’t persuade all these concerned within the course of, however they allowed the launch of a wider debate concerning the deficiencies of anti-terrorist justice in France. Within the camp of those that denounced, typically in a virulent tone, the tribune of the protection legal professionals consists of, after all, legal professionals of the civil events but additionally the final prosecutor of the Courtroom of Cassation and Arthur Dénouveaux. The latter, president of the Life for Paris sufferer affiliation, laments the truth that “the protection makes the method of the trial to criticize the anti-terrorist justice”.
Within the reverse camp, of those that agree with the stand of the protection legal professionals, we discover a professor of felony legislation who in an interview granted to the newspaper Le Monde states that «legislation was very absent from this course ofextraordinarily regrettable factor». Additionally in Le Monde, a lawyer from the Paris bar, in no way concerned within the trial of the November 13 assaults, notes that the launched debate is indispensable as a result of “The rights of the protection are more and more decreased in such anti-terrorist trials. Additionally it is the rationale why no attraction was filed. Nevertheless, this refusal of a second trial shouldn’t be seen as a unanimous acceptance of the decision given a month in the past.» says the lawyer. In conclusion, he’s of the opinion that “the trial of the assaults of November 13, 2015 is symptomatic of the deficiencies of anti-terrorist justice. The multiplication of Islamist terrorist assaults compelled the judicial system to adapt. Or, the preventive logic that prevails immediately is basically incompatible with the presumption of innocence, the cornerstone of the felony course of. The chance of judicial error is taken into account as intrinsic to the anti-terrorist struggle and thus the reasons of the accused are left on a secondary degree to offer precedence to the suspicions introduced collectively by the accusation. This paradigm shift significantly reduces the rights of protection» lawyer Vincent Brengarth concludes the column in Le Monde.
A ferocious sentence, a sluggish loss of life sentence
Returning to the stand of the protection legal professionals, they increase a number of important points to know the controversy. Initially, the decision given to Salah Abdeslam, life imprisonment with none chance of discount or commutation of the sentence. “A fierce sentence, a sluggish loss of life sentence» denounces the signatories. It should be stated that this extreme verdict, pronounced solely 5 instances to this point in France, stunned many, together with among the many civil events. Thus, Georges Salines, who misplaced his daughter within the bloodbath within the Bataclan corridor, expressed himself “reserves” concerning this punishment which he due to this fact rejects. A girl injured in the identical theater declared herself “perplexed” on the pronouncement of the sentence. Lastly, a widely known lawyer of the civil events estimated for her half that “terrorism, which denies all humanity, should be answered with a punishment that preserves part of humanity. To restrict the hopes of a convict in such a means is one thing horrible in itself. A sentence of 30 years in jail would have been extreme sufficient» Claire Josserand-Schmidt thinks so.
The second difficulty raised by the protection legal professionals’ tribune is the precept of coercion and the one crime scene, on the idea of which Salah Abdeslam might be sentenced to the utmost penalty. Certainly, the primary accused was discovered responsible of “try to kill an individual holding public authority”, on this case the policemen in opposition to whom the terrorists fired within the Bataclan corridor. Or, Abdeslam was by no means there, he simply left two kamizakes on the Stade de France earlier than disappearing into nature. Contemplating, because the Prosecutor’s Workplace had requested in its indictment, that every one the assaults of that horrible night – the Stade de France, the terraces of the cafes and the Bataclan corridor – as a single scene, then every of the terrorists from that point could be thought of as a co-author of all of the assaults . Or, that is an especially broad interpretation of the notion of coercionare the opinion of a number of specialists and legal professionals, together with these of the civil events.
Lastly, the third and final nice reproach that is dropped at the decision given a month in the past is the notion of “terrorist affiliation of criminals” on the idea of which a number of accused have been convicted. Or, this notion is extraordinarily imprecise and due to this fact criticized in each terrorist trial. Within the present one, for instance, the punishments given on the idea of this accusation vary from 1 to 18 years in jail. “A imprecise idea, due to this fact, which could be the supply of authorized uncertainty” is the opinion of a lawyer quoted by Le Monde.