Contenu du sommaire : Le procès des attentats des 7, 8 et 9 janvier 2015

The national anti-terrorism prosecutor and his assistant look back at the trial of the January 2015 terrorist attacks, the long process of preparation, the trial itself and its outcome, with which they say they are satisfied. Beyond that, they emphasise the significance of the "specially composed" assize court set up in France in 1986, the reasons behind the creation of the national anti-terrorism prosecution service (Parquet national antiterroriste, PNAT) in 2019, whose collegial operation and specialisation, seen as a guarantee of independence, they explain. Finally, they stress the challenge of analysing attacks in the heat of the moment when it is not easy to determine their terrorist nature and implications.

In this interview, the President of the criminal court talks about the main challenges posed by this trial: the preparation of a trial that was to be exceptional in several respects: the fall-out in the court of public opinion, the number of civil parties, the fact that the hearings were disrupted by three terrorist attacks (including one outside the former premises of Charlie Hebdo), the particular context of the public health crisis caused by the Covid-19 pandemic affecting the accused, etc. The scale of the presiding judge's task in policing the hearings was laid bare in this trial which was filmed for posterity and faced so many obstacles that some doubted it could be carried through to its conclusion.

In this interview, the defence counsel talk about what for them were the stand-out moments in this trial, how they came to be involved in this type of case (a first for some of them), the battle to gain their client's trust, the type of defence chosen, their relations with the civil parties, the emotional effect on them of the long days in court. They emphasise the satisfaction of those they were defending when they learned that the court had dropped the charges of terrorism, to the point that some felt that they had been given back their dignity.

From the victims' point of view, the trial of the January 2015 attacks had to be perceived as exemplary with Justice being seen to be done. Given its exceptional nature, the trial needed more than ever to be a fair one. The fact that responsibility for the awarding of damages to the victims has been handed over to the Guarantee Fund for Victims of Terrorist Acts and Other Offences (FGTI) and the judge responsible for compensation for victims of terrorism (JIVAT) has enabled victims to maintain a certain distance from the criminal trial. The joining of civil parties to the proceedings and the decision on the admissibility of their claims are an essential form of acknowledgment. Although different and diverse, the victims and their families came across as united by terror and suffering, a desire to understand and an immense dignity. The response of the criminal justice system was anticipated as a way to bring closure to the huge upheaval caused by the attacks. The civil judgment, for its part, gives the victims official recognition of their status. A great deal is expected of this judgment and it applies a rigorous methodology to the principle and criteria of the admissibility of the civil parties' claims. It is therefore the assize Court that has absolute authority to recognise the victim's status as a victim in the event of any challenges in the compensation process.

U.S. terrorism trials are very different from French trials. There are multiple jurisdictions for trials and although la partie civile is not involved in criminal trial, it has recourse for compensation in civil cases. Federal criminal proceedings are adversarial, and the prosecution and defense are in constant negotiation as to charges and sentences. Terrorism trials are subject to special laws that criminalize material support for terrorism and carry enhance sentences for convicted terrorists. The guilt phase of the trial takes place in front of a jury, and lawyers from both sides ask questions of witnesses, with the presiding judge only addressing questions of law. Once convicted, a defendant faces a separate sentencing trial, which is often in front of a judge. After sentencing, convicted terrorists are subject to special measures isolating them and limiting their communications with the outside world.

The Badinter Law of 11 July 1985 has led to the deliberate creation of 14 audiovisual archive records of trials designated as "Documents for History". Overriding the ban on filming trials imposed by the law on the freedom of the press, and by way of an exception to the general archive regime, this initiative on recording justice in action has involved selecting a few trials as examples for the annals of Justice. An archivist and a historian discuss 35 years of the rare presence of cameras in the courtroom, to throw some light onto the circumstances of the filming of these trials, covering aspects such as the regulatory framework, the necessary securing of the archives and the presumed needs of the historian.

Paris Aide aux Victimes, a charity approved by the Ministry for Justice, was assigned the task of providing practical and psychological support to the civil parties in the trial of the January 2015 terrorist attacks by the Paris office of the national anti-terrorism prosecution service (PNAT). The team was therefore mobilised to prepare for the trial in advance and to support the civil parties during the hearings and until the verdict. The support given to the victims is the fruit of long experience which began in 2002 with the trial of the July 1995 terrorist attacks and which has been honed over the years and a number of terrorism trials held at the Paris Court of Appeal. The psychological support provided has been developed by working with and listening to victims and taking on board their expectations.

In this article, the author, who devoted a thesis to militant activism among lawyers, questions the use a political rupture defence strategy in contemporary terrorism trials. Although such a defence strategy may appear tempting, it is no longer really opportune. The rupture strategy in fact needs to win over public opinion, and then the judge, bringing them round to the idea that there is another way of conceiving of the facts of the case against the accused, whereas such a recontextualisation is impossible and inaudible in the specific case of highly-politicised Jihadist terrorism. Furthermore, the rupture strategy is part of a struggle against the law seen by a majority as a weapon of domination by the dominant class. The law now though is designed as a weapon that can be used against the State and the cheapening its tends to produce of the rights of the defence.

The Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL) set up in The Hague is the only international criminal court dedicated to terrorism, strongly advocated for by the UN, in agreement with Lebanon, following the killing of Rafic Hariri on 14 February 2005. Initially intended to blend the Common Law and Civil Law systems - existence of a pre-trial judge, the possibility for the judges to intervene in the trial with direct questioning, controlled victim participation in the proceedings - in the end the STL operated almost exclusively under Common Law. This procedural choice led to the holding of an extremely technical and lengthy trial. The verdict (summer 2020, one guilty verdict, three acquittals) was read in the light of the length of the investigation and the trial itself (over 15 years) as well as its high cost - "the billion dollar trial" - and received with a certain amount of lassitude. Nevertheless, the TSL has contributed to the fight against impunity and, above all, indifference to political violence.

This article examines the trial of the January 2015 terror attacks in light of international trials that involved significant number of victims as civil parties. It shows that the gap that exists in terrorism trials between the harm done to victims and the charges brought against the accused risks creating irreconcilable expectations. This discrepancy can also lead the defense to denounce a show trial that undermines equality of arms. Thus, both civil parties and defendants risk falling victim to the excesses of anti-terrorist justice.

In this interview, anti-terrorist investigating judge E. Robinson talks about the hybrid dimension of Islamist terror cases. On the one hand, the interrogations of the people charged in these cases, who are from very diverse backgrounds, allow the judge to measure their evolution over the long period of the investigation; on the other hand, the regular meetings held both individually and with groups of victims to keep them informed, which are numerous in this type of case. This interview also throws some light on a little-known professional practice: the sharing of information within the court through the virtually systematic assigning of cases to two investigating judges and regular exchanges with other services involved.