The public prosecutor of Paris has reiterated this Friday in terrorism cases, he “hardened” penal policy. In an interview with the daily the World one who is responsible for the anti-terrorist division reported that “all those parts of area [Syria-Iraq, ed] since January 2015 have participated in fighting patrols or Islamic police, with the EI or Al-Nosra Front, became Al-Sham Fatah “ would now systematically punishable special sitting. So far, they could be tried in a criminal court.
Why harden criminal policy?
The deputies of the Parliamentary Select Committee on the 2015 attacks in France had already been informed of this development. Interviewed March 30, Molins explained: “When we open an inquiry or investigation against people who joined Daech we [do] for criminal association in relation with a terrorist criminal organization.” This has implications, including hardware.
the terrorist crimes are tried by a special court in which the jury is replaced by professional judges. A particularly heavy device to implement, especially given the number, very high, ongoing procedures and future. No fewer than 577 people are now the subject of a search warrant or an arrest warrant, according to latest figures: almost all currently find in Syria or Iraq. Before MPs, the head of the anti-terrorist section of the Paris prosecutor, Camille Hennetier, had evacuated the practical difficulties: “We must no longer fit our penal policy means we have to adapt but the means themselves. A revolution is to take the side of the Assize Court, who shall judge in the shortest time individuals not appearing on the basis of cases in which there will be little evidence. “
Basically, the new orientation decided by Molins is consolidated by a very recent decision of the Court of Cassation. On August 30, the highest judicial court went in the direction of parquet asking for a criminal requalification two French parties in Syria to join the EI. The judge had opposed, remaining on the qualification far the most common (the criminal conspiracy offense in relations with a terrorist enterprise), as well as the Court of Appeal of Paris. Rather, the Court of Cassation, whose rapporteur was former anti-terrorist judge Jean-François Ricard, said that their rallying to a terrorist group committing terrorist crimes enough, without the need to prove their individual participation.
Who decides penal policy?
“the roles are divided. The Chancery defines the general political and criminal prosecutors the decline locally, “ says Laurence Blisson, the Union of Magistrates (DM). The latest circular from the Ministry of Justice, dated June 2, asked to place the fight against terrorism “at the heart of the action of prosecutors’ . “The circulars are not menacing. Sometimes criminal policy does not go in the direction of Chancery according to local specificities “ says Clarisse Taron, SM.
In this case, the decision to Molins does not conflict with the circular, and even goes in the direction of the highest desired repression by the government. François Molins does not bite on the prerogatives of political power by announcing that now require criminal prosecution.
However, it is up to the legislature to decide, for example, weighing the penalties for terrorist offenses, as parliamentarians have done in the last law extending the state of emergency. Thus, the combination of criminal terrorist conspiracy is now liable to thirty years in prison against twenty before. As for the direction of a terrorist group, it evolves, it thirty years in prison to life imprisonment
Read also:. Behind the state ? emergency, a ultrasécuritaire
the opening of a terrorist crime investigation is not indicative of its outcome: the judge may well request to reclassify the facts if it deems most appropriate. But the criminal qualification has immediate effects, particularly on the length of pretrial detention. It is one year, renewable, against six months, also renewable for terrorist crimes.
“There is a trend to open higher, with the most serious qualification even if DQ after, Clarisse Taron observed. For example for a flight with a water pistol, the survey will be open for robbery with weapons while everyone knows that the case will never go to the foundation. “ The magistrate says a lot more concerned by the case law of the Court of Cassation.