A graduate in political communication at the University of Paris XII, Thibault Guichard, historian at the Institute of the History of Present Time (IHTP), is also a doctoral candidate at the University of Paris VIII. For RFI, he follows the hearings of the trial of the attacks of November 13, 2015, and gives us every Monday his perspective on the progress of the hearings during the previous week.
RFI: It is a subject that has been discussed for several days, such as “ serpent de mer ”in the words of President Jean-Louis Périès : the request for anonymization of the Belgian investigators and their hearing by videoconference raises disputes. Can we summarize the stages of this debate?
Thibault Guichard : In mid-November, France Info made public a letter from the Belgian federal prosecutor Frédéric van Leeuw, asking for the anonymization of the Belgian anti-terrorist police officers. He affirmed his astonishment at the difference in treatment between the French investigators, who are heard anonymously as provided for in our criminal procedure, and the Belgian police officers.
The question was therefore examined in the council chamber, that is to say without the public, a few days later. A compromise then seemed to have been found: the seven investigators cited to testify would intervene anonymously and remotely, but with their faces uncovered.
Since this ruling, however, several defense lawyers have taken every opportunity to argue their grievances and challenge the court’s ruling. To protest against the refusal to appear of the investigators, or the decision of the Court – it is unclear – four then five defendants also decided not to appear at the hearing, a position defended by their lawyer.
From a defense point of view, why is the Belgian Federal Prosecutor’s request deemed not to be legitimate?
The crux of the matter, for the defense, is respect for the adversarial principle. Because the investigators who testify are not the same who conducted the investigations and who therefore assume responsibility, the defense lawyers consider that it is difficult in these conditions to obtain answers or clarifications on elements. precise instruction.
Also, it is the very arrangement of these hearings that poses a problem for some lawyers. Unlike the DGSI police officers, the Belgian investigators are indeed accompanied by two other magistrates, who do not intervene, but who attend their entire testimony. Some lawyers saw this as a symbol of the control and the censorship effect exerted by the Belgian prosecution.
This is undoubtedly exaggerated, but it does say the essentials about the issue, often invoked, of respect for the rules of procedure, the rights of the defense, in short, the democratic norm.
What could we observe at the hearing, concerning the behavior of the Belgian investigators, the answers which they were able or not to give to the various questions which were submitted to them?
The annoyance aroused for the moment by the intervention of Belgian investigators seems general. With the exception of the prosecution, criticism has come from all sides: defense lawyers, but also the benches of civil parties and some victims who follow the trial.
Whether justified or not, these criticisms testify in any case to a feeling of frustration. Frustration that the counterterrorism services did not intervene in time. The case of the surveillance of Brahim Abdeslam does not fail to ask a few questions, which still remain unanswered: had the federal intelligence service been seized in February 2015 of the radicalization of the one who will be blown up Comptoir Voltaire, or only November 14? And why was nothing done then? There is no point in wanting to rewrite history, of course, but the fact that there is no clear answer adds to the dismay of many parties.
Previous interviews
→ Trial of November 13, week 10: which witness for which truth?
→ Trial of November 13, week 9: the question of “radicalization” in the background
→ Trial of November 13, week 8: forgiveness, a notion that questions victims
→ November 13 trial, week 7: overcoming “survivor’s guilt” to tell
→ Trial of November 13, week 6: the “duty to remember” is for everyone
→ Trial of November 13, week 5: testifying to reaffirm a denied individuality
→ November 13 trial, week 4: respect the balance of speaking, a requirement
→ Trial of November 13, week 3: confronting the accused with their own propaganda
→ Trial of November 13, week 2: describing the horror, the delicate exercise of investigators