I'll come back to tell you about Sarah. More than 7 months that this doctor was assassinated in full Paris. Because she was Jewish. Only because she was Jewish. The judicial time, will you retort ...
I'll come back to tell you about Sarah. More than 7 months that this doctor was assassinated in full Paris. Because she was Jewish. Only because she was Jewish.
Judicial time, you will retort. It is true that this notion should be the answer to everything, which gave rise to debates both inside and outside the institution. These debates were part of a broader reflection on the quality and effectiveness of justice. Who therefore approached the slowness of justice, this recurring theme which the magistrates seized at the beginning of the XIXe century, a public prosecutor then speaking of contain the time of the criminal justice in the respect of the reasonable time, and this notion of reasonable delay referring now to Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the right to speed is now clearly recognized as a human right.
I will spare you the average length of the investigation, all cases completed, before the courts of first instance, this average time between the offense and the judgment being more than 50 months: I know your arguments, you jurists, who will talk to me duration of the police investigation phase, complexity of the case, need for sufficient time between the summons and the hearing for the assigned party to prepare his defense, all these parameters that make the measurement of the reasonable is ultimately very relative.
I still know that I will be opposed to the fact that, in criminal matters, it may be fair to wait for the passions to fall after a dramatic event. And often we add the need for the media pressures to subside.
But what ? Did you hear them, you say the media pressure, did you hear in the case the street pressure that would have shouted that it was a normal that a woman in 2017 could have been killed in full Paris because she was Jewish, and only because she was Jewish.
I want to question here the investigating judge in charge of the Sarah Halimi case. Ask her what she does about the distinction drawn by the European Court of Human Rights reasonable delay depending on the type of case.
Is it illegitimate to question him: does the judge treat the files according to their order of arrival or according to their degree of urgency. I refer to the formula of Mireille Delmas-Marty, the Rhythm criminal procedure. I am told that your office, Madam Justice, is to ensure respect for the reasonable time. But it is explained to me that the powers conferred on you give you control over the course of the proceedings and therefore over their duration, that you, Madam, influence the pace of the trial with the sole power to impose deadlines for production of documents or filing of submissions.
Is it permissible to ask what use you make of these powers in the Sarah Halimi case? To wonder if this extra-ordinary time is due to your strategy, your temperament, your convictions. If it would be related to the reports that you would have with the other actors of the process. Lawyers for example. Is it forbidden to question the relationship between the Public Ministry and the police? On what the heck could demand more the lawyer of Traore like act or research that would be necessary to the manifestation of the truth.
Madam Justice, what about the obligation already mentioned in 1823 by Advocate General Lébé to outsource good and prompt justice. In the list drawn up by the CEPEJincluded, among other criteria, in addition to measures against delaying tactics, motivation of magistrates. What? Is it conceivable that your motivation is involved? You to whom the Public Prosecutor's office asked since Wednesday, September 20, in view of the psychiatric expertise rendered in early September and the first elements of the commission rogatory issued by investigators, to retain the anti-Semitic nature of the assassination.
It is November 11 and this aggravating circumstance is still not official. Sarah's apartment is under seal. One of the lawyers tells me that no more Sarah's family member lives in France. From his brother to his 3 children: France let the Halimi family go. And we should find normal that a Jewish family has left his country.
All the lawyers in charge here have mentioned, from the beginning, special relationships between them and you. All without exception have described a magistrate uncomfortable. Who would drag their feet. That seemed to put a lot of bad will in all this. All spoke of this feeling of disturbing her when they wanted to meet her. That one saying that she did not greet them. That she blamed them to open it too much in the media. This other denouncing behavior a minimum character.
The one explaining, as an example, that she had summoned the 3 children to November 30 and decided on a second date for them to attend the reconstruction of the facts. Two round trips? Lod-Paris-Lod? Pleasure trip. These arbitrary decisions lead the lawyer to insist that the two convocations take place concomitantly and that his clients are avoided two trips, a tussle being engaged with this judge who says loud and clear thatshe will not return.
Besides those who to this day still do not know what will be called forever the Sarah Halimi case, this woman, doctor, out of bed, lynched and defenestrated, all this to the rhythm of the suras recited by the assassin and almost live, in the presence of residents of the residence and especially the 28 policemen rushed to the scene, he There are still those who do not believe in the affair. She was the subject of a smashing silence. As for an extra-ordinary affair the media reserved a definitively guilty treatment. The silence. And for some of them, providing the minimum service. Speaking and then moving on to something else. And then quit talking about it, passing quickly on the facts and putting in contention the indecent debate: had he killed her because she was Jewish. We wanted proof. We wanted to check. It may have been an unbalanced one more. Who under the influence of drugs will defeat you a woman. And it was a shambles that fell on Sarah Halimi. And to make matters worse, he was a Muslim and frequented here and there the Jean-Pierre Timbaud mosque.
Never forget :
April 4: arrest of the murderer, interned in view of his psychiatric condition deemed incompatible with police custody. Request for psychiatric assessment from Daniel Zaguri.
May 22: a civil party demands that the aggravating circumstance of anti-Semitism, but also the kidnapping, the acts of torture and barbarism be recognized.
July 10: hearing of the suspect by the investigating judge.
July 12: indictment of the individual for willful homicide and kidnapping. Investment under money order. The lawyers learn this by chance.
July 16: ceremony commemorating the roundup of Vel d'Hiv: a President who asks the justice to make all the clarity on this crime despite denials of the alleged murderer.
August 29: an expert who requests a postponement to render his expertise.
September 4th: report of the expert report: In spite of the indisputable reality of the alienating mental disorder, the abolition of discernment can not be retained because of the regular conscious and voluntary taking of cannabis in very large quantities. The fact that she is a Jewish victim immediately demonized her and amplified the delusional experience, focused on her person the diabolical principle that had to be fought and provoked the barbaric surge of which she was the unfortunate victim. In other words, the crime of Kobili Traore is a delusional and anti-Semitic act.
September 20: in view of the said expert opinion, a prosecution office that asks the judge in charge of the investigation that the anti-Semitic character is retained in this case.
It is November 11th. The national press, this morning again, raises the question of the resurgence of anti-Semitism in France. But it remains unanswered, the open letter that Alexandra Laignel-Lavastine sent May 25 to Gerard Collomb, denouncing this unworthy France where it was again possible to murder Jews without our compatriots being moved too much and lambasting the deliquescent atmosphere that reigned in the land of Dieudonné. It remains a dead letter, the denunciation by Gilles-William Goldnadel, public indifference. We quickly forgot them, the question asked by the Times London, which claimed that the affair was stifled because of the upcoming parliamentary elections, and that of Frédérique Ries, the Belgian MEP in the European Parliament, who questioned the 1st June the chilling silence French authorities. Left unanswered, the platform of Arnaud Benedetti, who, analyzing the silence media, denounced as suspect all that could come to disrupt the story of an enchanted world, notwithstanding sometimes its monstrous evidence, and that of the columnist Gerard Leclerc on Catholic radio Our Lady.
So do you decide how to choose, like former high magistrate Philippe Bilger, abstain, as horrible as murder or even murder, abstain in case the suspect involved could be declared criminally irresponsible, or will you also speak, as a Claude Askolovitch, from this murdered old lady who panicked the Jewish community. Will you agree to still know nothing, 7 months later, of the dysfunction that operated that night within our police. Do you all find it normal that no debate should take over the subject? That this press capable of the worst and who did not hesitate to compromise by stealing two photos within the Tribunal, this press so prompt to break it, silence put, is silent, considering that no doubt she had done , the job, and now is shamefully satisfied, too, with reasonable delay.