Ten years after the 2015 attacks which struck Charlie Hebdo and Hyper Cacher, François Molins, Paris prosecutor from 2011 to 2018, looks back on these few days which deeply marked France. Beyond the challenges encountered and the lessons learned, today he shares his thoughts on the impact of these dramatic events, not only on the judiciary, but also on French society.
L’Express: What do you have left ten years after the attack on Charlie Hebdo and Hyper Cacher?
François Molins: The attack, first of all, are images that we do not forget. The memory is so strong that I find it hard to believe it was ten years ago. It is also the memory of a time which was really very anxiety-provoking. We had the impression of being locked in a spiral of terror which resulted in a regular repetition of attacks and which ultimately returned us to a form of helplessness, of incapacity. It’s a period that lasted three years, from 2015 to 2017, very hard to live through because you realize that, regardless of the scale and value of your work, the improvement you make to it or the quality of collaboration with the intelligence services, you are unable to stem the terrorist phenomenon.
What do the 2015 attacks represent for the judiciary in particular?
Charlie Hebdo, it is the shift in the export of what we could call global jihad in Europe at its highest level. This is the first stage of the major attacks which will shake up the whole of 2015. For us, magistrates, this pivotal date will lead us to another way of working in the face of the considerable increase in the threat. We are reviewing our judicial response. We get into the habit of operating with feedback to try to correct what is going wrong. Charlie Hebdo, for example, allows us to realize that the judicial police, unlike the public prosecutor’s office, do not have referents solely dedicated to victims and that the support is not optimal. The evening of November 13 also revealed dysfunctions in the reception of families. We are learning from this to prevent this from happening again during the Nice attack. We are also getting very close to the intelligence services, we are working much better than before with them.
And in terms of penal policy?
With the attacks of 2015, we are becoming aware of a phenomenon that we had not at all anticipated: the alliance between people on the ground, who belong to al-Qaeda and Daesh. In Syria, they fight each other but here, they are without an objective agreement to distribute objectives and train to prepare attacks against French people, wherever they are. From 2015, we are conducting a reflection which will lead us to modify our penal policy and to consider that all those who go to Syria are joining an association of terrorist criminals whose aim is to commit attacks against people. Overnight, all these people are indicted on criminal and no longer correctional grounds. They are no longer liable to the Paris Criminal Court with maximum sentences of ten years in prison, but to the Special Assize Court where they face sentences of thirty years. Overnight, we have a little more than 80 files in this case.
How do we preserve the principles of law in a climate of anxiety as intense as that of 2015?
It is difficult to say that we are completely insensitive to pressure, not to popular pressure, but to the pressure of the event. There are then major issues in terms of security. Syria is not far away, we are faced with the challenge of “hindering” the action of all these people who have shifted and are likely to commit attacks. But, and this is why we are in a state of law, it is to the justice system that we entrust this task following the work of the intelligence services. And this, from 1986 with the abolition of exceptional justice – state security court and military courts – and with the creation of a team of magistrates specialized in terrorism acting in compliance with the major conventional principles of the criminal procedure.
During 2015, you spoke a lot. Why is this important?
The attacks cause a lot of fear among the population. They generate situations of chaos. And in the chaos, we have to put things back in order. Already with Mohammed Merah’s attacks, we became aware of the necessity and usefulness of naming things, of speaking out and giving people information. However, the only one who can do this is the prosecutor, since the law gives him a monopoly on communication on judicial investigations.
In mass shooting trials, there are many victims and a small number of defendants. How do we manage this digital imbalance?
November 13 is a very good example showing that justice knows how to adapt. The primary purpose of the trial will always be to rule on charges brought against people. But indeed, there are hundreds of victims who have rights because they are civil parties and who expect a lot from the trial. This is an opportunity for them to start rebuilding themselves. This must be taken into account. The justice system adapted, it ensured that the victims could all express themselves and reserved sufficient time for them. This is an example which shows that French justice works well when we give it the means. And the fact that it is a special assize court – and not popular justice – changes nothing. The main thing is that we apply the law. We saw this recently with the lesson given on the definition of the association of terrorist criminals in the latest judgment of the Assize Court regarding the Carcassonne and Trèbes affair.
Does the current situation in Syria raise your concerns?
We must be careful with Abu Mohammed al-Joulani who was a jihadist but who seems to have become very pragmatic. We will know quite quickly what to expect based on one element: its tolerance towards other religions in Syria, of which there are many – Sunnis, Christians of various obediences, Alawites… This will be a signal. But it is also hope for the big legal cases that we have with Syria. When I was stationed in Paris, I opened an investigation based on the César file (tens of thousands of photographs documenting the practice of torture by the Syrian Assad regime). At the time, there was no international cooperation. It would be good to have elements that would allow these files to move forward on facts that are particularly serious.
Do you have the feeling that the attacks of Charlie have changed French society?
Charlie, for me, through the country’s reactions to the attacks of January 7, 8 and 9, is the last moment of national harmony, with the monster demonstration of Sunday January 11, even if there were questions and controversies. But has there been a demonstration of harmony like this in our country since then? Clearly, the answer is no. I don’t feel like the country is any more united today than it was ten years ago.
Where will you be from January 7 to 9?
I will be at the memorial ceremonies. Except for rare absences for professional reasons abroad, I have always been present.
.