10 Place Vendôme
E-mail : [email protected]
Contact : Richard C. ABITBOL
Tel: +33. (0) 184.108.40.206.89
Fax: +33. (0)220.127.116.11.55
E-mail : mailto:[email protected]
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
9:00 am, January 30, 2018
Paris on January 30, 2018
The Confederation of the Jews of France and the Friends of Israel is deeply shocked by the decision of the Examining Judge, Anne Ihuellou, not to follow up the suppletory indictment of the Parquet of Paris which was sent to him on September 20 last to recognize the aggravating circumstance of anti-Semitism in the Sarah Halimi case!
The Confederation of Jews in France and Friends of Israel had already indicated its skepticism and concern about the evolution of education despite the positions of both the President of the Republic and the Paris prosecutor.
The judge's legal argument is irrelevant and may appear partial.
Indeed, even if the judge could reject the request of the civil parties, not entitled to request a requalification of the indictment, she could not in any way reject the request of the prosecution without justifying its rejection through a duly motivated order , likely to appeal by the prosecution.
Indeed, Article 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that "In his introductory indictment,t at any time of the information by suppletive indictment, the public prosecutor may request from the investigating magistrate all acts which appear to him to be useful for the manifestation of the truth and any necessary security measures. He may also ask to be present at the completion of the acts he requires.…
If the investigating judge does not follow the requisitions of the public prosecutor, he must, without prejudice to the application of the provisions of Article 137-4, make a reasoned order within five days of these requisitions. "
We can only wonder about the reasons why the judge did not think it necessary to take a follow-up, favorable or not, at the request of the prosecutor and, likewise, at the reasons why the parquet did not seize the room of instruction following this silence which lasted 4 months.
As to the reasons for which the judge did not see fit to grant the request for reconstitution, they are equally obscure to the extent that it is intended to "Simulated repetition of the facts based on the indications of the perpetrators, suspects, witnesses, victims and the investigator's own findings. The essential purpose of the reconstruction is to highlight the contradictions and the material impossibilities in the version of or authors, as well as the gestures that concord or are in opposition to the material, scientific, forensic and ballistic findings. The re-enactment should therefore provide a better overview of the overall course of events."
The judge gave reasons for refusing to reconstitute in the presence of the suspect on the ground that the suspect acknowledged the facts and that any aggravating circumstances "Can not be established by reconstitution" except that we also expect the investigation to shed light on the inaction of police forces present at the scene of the crime, inaction which has received, so far, no plausible explanation, despite a complaint from the civil parties.
A reconstitution of the crime scene would have been likely to shed new light on these dysfunctions.
The difference in treatment between the Halimi and Theo cases by the authorities, civil society and the community sector in our country is unfortunately jumping in the eyes of all.
In the current context of an unprecedented rise of anti-Semitism in our country, the judicial response and the commitment of the State for a fair repression of the anti-Semitic crime that is that of Sarah Halimi will be the test of the true will of our authorities to fight against the antisemitism which reigns in our country.
We have enough words or even prayers for our dead, we want actions that can put an end to this terrible descent into hell that live the Jews of France for a decade.
Comments are closed.