Muhammad Usman could not reach the commandos in time. One of his lawyers tried to demonstrate that this accused was no longer part of the terrorist project when the date and targets of the attacks have been defined.
by
Muhammad Usman will have crossed this trial as a shadow. Un unferior block of granite, as taciturn as silent, the head eternally posed against a glass of the accused box, a helmet on the ears to listen to the translation of the debates in Ourdou, this Pakistanis at the uncertain age will have had little opportunity to speak out. It was not until the 140
On the third day of the Defense pleadings, it was the turn, Wednesday, June 15, of lawyers for the two “latecomers” of the attacks of November 13, as nicknamed the accusation, to take turns to the closed off. For the public prosecutor, Muhammad Usman forms, with the Algerian Adel Haddadi, a duo of “prevented” suicide bomber, who “should have died on November 13” if they had not been retained during their journey through the ‘Europe.
Both admitted that they were commissioned in Syria, at the same time as the two Iraqi suicide bomber at the Stade de France, to “commit a violent action in France”. The four men had then crossed an anchor of the Aegean Sea on a migrant boat. But Usman and Haddadi had been arrested and detained on a Greek island for almost a month, which prevented them, according to the accusation, to join the commandos in time. The public prosecutor required against them the maximum sentence provided for at the time of the facts for association of terrorist criminals (AMT): twenty years of criminal imprisonment.
“This is the mode of doubt”
M e Edward Huylebrouck, one of the three Usman lawyers, does not dispute the qualification chosen, his client having admitted having agreed to participate in a terrorist project in France. He still wants to recall all the evil he thinks of the AMT: “We no longer repress only those who take action. We repress those who prepare to act. We condemn actions without victim by betting On a trajectory towards the worst: he could have, he should have … the conditional is customary. It is the mode of doubt. The one who normally acquired. And who is consubstantial here. “
What M e Huylebrouck will endeavor to demonstrate is that the terrorist project of November 13 was not yet defined when Muhammad Usman agreed to take it leaves and that the latter “therefore has no place” to this trial. The demonstration is perilous, as the links between his client and the development of these attacks seem established, but it has the merit of raising, with a certain brilliance, dizzying legal questions.
You have 48.41% of this article to read. The continuation is reserved for subscribers.