The trial was sent back to deliberate, because during this first hearing, this is not a “the substance of the matter “which has been discussed, but a” return request ” presented by the defence of Teodorin Obiang.
Several reasons are given, of which the main would be ” a lack of time to prepare the defence “, explain the lawyers. In sum, the conditions would not be met for the president’s son of equatorial guinea has a ” fair trial “.
” Mr. Nguema was not present today, on the one hand because of its official activities and, on the other hand, due to the fact that it has not been validly cited before the tribunal and the time limits that have been prescribed for the preparation of his defense, did not conform to what is usually done and did not permit him to prepare as it must be the case for a case of this nature “, said Me Marsigny, attorney for Teodorin Obiang.
” The defendant is indicted from 2014 ,” retorted the lawyer of the civil parties, Mr. William Bourdon, who remains optimistic.
“ At the outset, there was initially a lot of skepticism. Around this procedure, there has been so much manoeuvring. Therefore, the mere fact that the trial being held here, today, is already an outcome. There is something irreversible now that is launched. Teodoro Obiang and his lawyers know this and it is for this reason that the fights that they lead have a perfume smell and supported the fighting of rear guard, what all the world sees “, he said.
” The appearance is a duty, ” she said, for his part, the prosecutor in referring to the blank in the bar of the accused.
both felt that Teodorin Obiang plays justice by refusing to appear before the court, and his lawyers multiply ” dilatory “.
The decision to refer or not refer the trial will therefore be announced this Wednesday, but we already know that an element “ complicated ” the task of the magistrates. It is a decision made last month by the International Court of justice. The highest international court has recognized “temporarily “the character” diplomatic ” of the particular hotel that was raided in 2014 in Paris.
The court could, therefore, give himself time to analyze the scope of this decision, before addressing the merits of the case. If the court chooses to wait for the verdict of the international Court of justice, the trial could be postponed for two to three years.