A-Infos (en) France, UCL AL #346 - Politics, Interview: "Any revolutionary ideal can be judged terrorist" (ca, de, fr, it, pt, tr)[machine translation]

Families and support committees were involved in the trial, supporting 
the accused. A few weeks after the verdict we were able to speak with 
Yo, brother of one of the defendants, the day after their appearance 
before the sentence enforcement judge. ---- How was the trial 
experienced by the accused and their loved ones? ---- Yo: The trial was 
shocking for everyone. At several points, we asked ourselves "what the 
hell are we doing here?"» in front of the contrast between the severity 
of the court and the weakness of the case, with several lunar moments. 
The lawyers and journalists present on site told us the same feeling.

What was your reaction during the deliberation?

The deliberations were a general shock at the heaviness of the 
sentences. Some sentences handed down are heavier than those required, 
it is difficult to see anything other than a political statement, 
especially since the judge refused to detail the motivations for the 
judgment, and rejected outright all the requests from the court. 
defense. Many points in the case were called into question or questioned 
by the lawyers during the hearings, who requested access to certain 
documents such as police custody videos. The rejection of all these 
requests shows a clear desire to cover the practices of the DGSI.

Security laws and jurisprudence originally adopted in the context of the 
2015 attacks were applied here as is, despite the absence of an attack 
or even a plan. The logic of the judgment in fact implies that any 
revolutionary political ideal can be judged terrorist. During the 
deliberations, the judge declared, speaking of Libre Flot, that she 
considered that "its terrorist intentions materialized in the more or 
less long term". The other defendants are judged guilty of having 
participated in the intentions of Libre Flot, even without being aware 
of it.

This logic is based on case law dating from the attacks committed by 
Mohamed Merah: a person who sold him weapons without knowing his 
intentions was found guilty of criminal conspiracy of a terrorist 
nature. The court then considered that knowledge of Merah's terrorist 
project was not necessary to characterize the offense. In the case of 
those accused of December 8, in the end the simple fact of having 
frequented Libre Flot therefore becomes sufficient to justify the 
convictions, whereas in this case it was not even possible to 
demonstrate the existence of a concrete project.

Access to the investigation appears to have been locked down by the 
court. How did the defense go in these conditions?

The lawyers had requested access to certain seals such as hard drives 
seized from the defendants. The lawyers wanted to contextualize certain 
points: the prosecution, for example, returned a lot to the pdf of a 
fire cell brochure found on a hard drive, but it would have been 
important to be able to show that it was only a document in the middle 
of hundreds of gigabytes of other brochures and documents, and to know 
the file's viewing history. The seized phones could not be consulted 
either, even though their content could have shed light on the reality 
of the relationships between the accused. The judge will end up 
declaring that she considers that "the quality of the debate does not 
make it necessary to access the scripts".

The lawyers also requested access to all of the sound recordings, less 
than 1% of which was used and placed in the file by the DGSI. The 
request was also refused with the pretext of "preserving privacy"...

To each request from the lawyers, the court responded by postponing its 
response to the deliberations, concretely preventing these elements from 
having an influence on the trial. Ultimately all requests will be 
rejected as a whole. We really see an intention to obstruct the defense. 
The president has still not sent the copy of the judgment to the lawyers 
to this day, preventing the appeal from being prepared in good 
conditions; we expect her to communicate it as late as possible.

What is the news after going before the sentence enforcement judge 
(JAP)? What is the current situation of the accused?

The JAP decided that the appeal was suspensive, against the court's 
request, for all the accused. Consequently, there is currently no 
detention or electronic bracelet.

On the other hand, this is accompanied by a probationary suspension 
which induces several control measures: obligation to work, obligation 
of care for certain supposed addictions, and regular appointments with 
the prison integration and probation services. They are also banned from 
communicating with each other for three years.

Finally, registration with FIJAIT is not lifted, with the obligations it 
entails. This registration lasts 10 years, renewable once. Above all, we 
do not know how new security laws could change this status in the coming 
years under the argument of anti-terrorism.

What are the prospects now?

Things are still emerging, but 6 out of 7 defendants are appealing. For 
the moment things are being done on a daily basis, the lawyers 
themselves are caught off guard by certain points such as the 
non-transmission of the copy of the judgment. For those under 
investigation, we will have to put into practice the various obligations 
induced by the judgment, and rebuild ourselves in terms of health, 
stability, housing and income.

The various support committees still need to debrief and evaluate the 
perspectives, but new campaigns for evenings of discussion, information 
and support should be organized. This is very important to financially 
support families, made precarious by these procedures, between legal 
costs, and the various costs linked to incarceration and the trial. 
After having carried this a lot in recent years, loved ones need relays 
to be able to free up time and be present for the accused. More broadly, 
we would also like these events to be an opportunity to share our 
experiences of repression so that activist circles can take up the 
subject more widely. We are open to all support initiatives, do not 
hesitate to contact us.

Comments collected by N. Bartosek (UCL Alsace)

https://www.unioncommunistelibertaire.org/?Interview-N-importe-quel-ideal-revolutionnaire-peut-etre-juge-terroriste
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S  N E W S  S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Subscribe/Unsubscribe https://ainfos.ca/mailman/listinfo/a-infos-en
Archive: http://ainfos.ca/en