Former President Nicolas Sarkozy was found guilty of "criminal conspiracy" on Thursday and sentenced to five years' imprisonment suspended in connection with the Sarkozy-Kaddafi affair. Since then, many elected officials and editors from the right and the far right have been outraged by the disproportionate and "political" decision, which is not supported by the law and does not prove the guilt of the former head of state. Judge Aurélien Martini answers our questions. What is your reaction to the attacks on the judicial decision concerning Nicolas Sarkozy? Judges and the whole institution are being targeted by right-wing figures and accused of delivering a "political verdict" driven by "hatred"...
Deputy Secretary-General of the Union of Judges and Magistrates
Unfortunately, this has become common practice whenever a political leader is involved. When people are unhappy with a court decision, they first attack the judges who made it and then they attack the judicial system as a whole. This is extremely dangerous: it weakens the separation of powers, the rule of law and even the authority of the state. This can only lead to imbalances and to the questioning of the pillars of our democracy. If you are not satisfied with the court's decision , there are legal remedies: you can appeal. However, the fact that some people with important responsibilities are making a frontal attack on the seriousness of justice and daring to question the President when the decision has been taken by a collegial body is very worrying and dangerous.
Several editors and elected politicians condemned the conviction of Nicolas Sarkozy on the grounds that it was an "unqualified" crime. What is the situation? I'm happy to have all sorts of legal discussions, but it has to be with people who don't make things up and speak the language of the law. As far as the conviction of Nicolas Sarkozy is concerned, the offence is perfectly qualified and characterised. The crime of "criminal conspiracy", which has been preserved is serious and extremely useful in the fight against crime. If it is to be withdrawn, let us do it, but the criminal justice system would be disarmed. This is a felony conviction of a group set up to commit a crime. The investigation contains evidence of this crime.
And as for the conviction for "corruption" not being upheld, the justice system is not saying there is no evidence, but that there is not enough evidence to convict. Evidence has also been presented that the money left Libya. Finally, we note that the court, as it should, was guided by prudence. It excluded and reversed any convictions that might be in dispute. And it has preserved that which is uncontested, not because it suits its purpose, but because the evidence exists. What do you make of the attack on this conviction on the grounds that the first document published by Mediapart, which helped launch the case, was ultimately rejected by the courts? Once a case is referred to the courts, they investigate it. And that investigation is not just based on information revealed by the press, whistleblowers and judges. Court work does not take everything that is gathered literally.
A variety of data is analyzed and discussed at the hearing. Everything is sifted through the finest possible mesh to arrive at a conclusion based on a number of elements that are ultimately either retained or rejected. Any subsequent conviction is such provided it is based on unquestionable data, allowing for a perfectly articulated, reasoned and constructed decision. If there is the slightest doubt about a document, it is normal for it to be rejected. However, this in no way means that the entire case rested solely on that document. There is other evidence in this case. In the Sarkozy-Kaddafi affair, for example, what can we say about the establishment of a clearing house that would make it impossible to trace the money? It has been demonstrated. It is clearly a criminal conspiracy with a corruption plan at the highest level. Everything is very clear.
The provisional execution of the sentence, although Nicolas Sarkozy has appealed and is therefore presumed innocent, is also being challenged...
This debate is perfectly legitimate, I'm just sorry that it's only being launched on the occasion of the condemnation of Nicolas Sarkozy or Marine Le Pen , with 58 % criminal decisions being accompanied by provisional execution of the sentence. I would also add that 85 % of custodial sentences of 5 years or more are accompanied by provisional execution. We cannot therefore say that the case of Nicolas Sarkozy is exceptional. It is rather the daily reality of criminal executions. I am also surprised that those who question pre-trial executions, to which they have every right, were not moved when Rachida Dati, Nicolas Sarkozy's minister, introduced this reform. Nor were they moved when this reform went through all the legislative stages, including the Constitutional Council stage.
Then, of course, it is possible to open this debate and advocate the abolition of summary executions, but in that case let us have a full debate. Because these executions are very useful for justice, especially in cases domestic violence and sexual assault . Let us bear in mind that the consequences would not only be political and judicial. In addition to the debate on summary execution, let us not forget that Nicolas Sarkozy was sentenced to five years in prison, a sentence that cannot be changed. There is therefore no prosecution against him. Those who claim otherwise are saying something factually untrue. Nicolas Sarkozy's lawyers claim that the court has not provided evidence that Nicolas Sarkozy "knew" and therefore cannot be convicted...
First, I would like to point out that it was the legislature that wanted a lower threshold of proof. Secondly, it is very important to point out that, in judicial language, the phrase 'could not have been unaware that' does not mean that Nicolas Sarkozy did not know: on the contrary, it means that he knew! 'He could not have been unaware that' is not intended to assert, without evidence, that he necessarily knew, but rather to emphasise that he knew and that the evidence is sufficient to support that assertion. And therefore to convict him.
L´Humanité/gnews.cz-jav
English 
Czech 
Spanish 
French 
Italian 
Russian 
Chinese 
German