Salah Abdeslam “resigns” to the incompressible perpetuity sentence pronounced against him on June 29, indicate his lawyers.
by and
There will be no second trial of the attacks of November 13. The convicts had until midnight on Monday, July 11, to call on the verdict, pronounced on June 29, by the Assize Court specially composed of Paris. None did it. The fourteen accused present at the hearing – six others were tried in their absence – all chose to accept their conviction, now final.
At the evening of the verdict, it seemed likely that Salah Abdeslam, at least, would appeal: he had nothing to lose in a second trial, the incompressible perpetuity pronounced against him being the most severe penalty of the penal code. His choice to stay there is all the more so since her lawyers, Olivia Ronen and Martin Vettes, who hoped to tear a perpetuity with a period of safety of thirty years, had pleaded with force against this “slow death penalty” , then criticized a verdict which “does not seem to be in accordance with justice”.
“For their own reasons, Mr. Salah Abdeslam has given up appealing his conviction, said the two lawyers, in a statement published Tuesday, July 12. This does not mean that he adheres to the verdict and The incompressible perpetuity sentence that results from it, but that he resigns himself. His lawyers are linked by his choice. If such a penalty is unacceptable, we respect the decision of the one we are witnessing. “This very brief text s’ Besides the words by which M e Ronen had concluded his argument: “There is no honor to condemn a defeated in despair.”
“satisfaction” of the Parquet
Salah Abdeslam is therefore definitively the fifth man condemned to incompressible life, since the introduction of this sentence in French law, in 1994. His judicial journey is not finished, however: from October 10, he will be tried in Brussels as part of the trial of the attacks that hit the Belgian capital on March 22, 2016-like four other accused tried by his side in Paris.
The question of the appeal was arising for several other accused having, throughout the trial, proclaimed their innocence or their ignorance of the terrorist enterprise to which the facts which were accused of attached them. Yassine Atar or Mohammed Amri, for example, sentenced to eight years for “terrorist criminal association”, did not wish to relaunch the judicial machine, partially dissuaded by the promise of an upcoming liberation – they have already been detained for more Six years.
Identical reasoning for Hamza Attou, Abdellah Chouaa and Ali Oulkadi, against whom five to six years were required, finally sentenced to sentences of one to two years – covering the pre -trial detention already carried out – for “association of terrorist terrorist “or” recovery as a terrorist “. “Their name will bear the seal of this infamous qualification until the end of their days,” deplore their lawyers in a joint statement explaining why their customers do not appeal: “Because seven years to wait, seven years in suspense, seven Years to wonder about their fate and that of their families were right for them. Because the emotional charge of such an audience (…) is so difficult to bear. Because they do not wish, either, either, Revive the victims such a heavy trial. And because, finally, they are above all looking forward to being accused of nothing. Guilt ends up being more bearable than the weight of an accusation which continues for a decade. ”
You have 17.62% of this article to read. The continuation is reserved for subscribers.