Former President Nicolas Sarkozy was found guilty on Thursday of "criminal conspiracy" and sentenced to five years in prison, suspended, in connection with the Sarkozy-Qaddafi affair. Since then, many elected officials and journalists from the right and far-right have been outraged by what they consider an unfair and "political" decision, which is not supported by the law and does not prove the former head of state's guilt. Judge Aurélien Martini responds to our questions. How do you respond to the attacks on the court's decision regarding Nicolas Sarkozy? Judges and the entire institution are being targeted by right-wing figures and accused of issuing a "political" judgment driven by "hatred"...

Deputy Secretary General of the Union of Judges and Magistrates

Unfortunately, this has become a common practice whenever a political leader is involved. When people are unhappy with a court's decision, they first attack the judges who issued 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 imbalance and undermine the pillars of our democracy. If you are not satisfied with a court's decision, there are legal remedies: you can appeal. However, the fact that some people with important responsibilities are engaging in a frontal attack on the justice system and daring to question the president, when the decision was made by a collegial body, is very concerning and dangerous.

Several editors and elected officials condemned the conviction of Nicolas Sarkozy, arguing that it was a "unqualified" criminal offense. What is your position? I am happy to engage in all possible legal discussions, but only with people who do not fabricate things and speak the language of law. Regarding the conviction of Nicolas Sarkozy, the criminal offense is perfectly qualified and characterized. The criminal offense of "criminal conspiracy," which was maintained, is serious and extremely useful in the fight against crime. If we were to abolish it, the criminal justice system would be disarmed. This is a criminal offense that incriminates a group established to commit a crime. The investigation contains evidence of this crime.

And regarding the conviction for "corruption," which was not maintained, the justice system does not say that there is no evidence, but that there is not enough evidence to convict. There was also evidence presented that the money left Libya. Ultimately, we are aware that the court, as it should, acted with caution. It excluded and overturned all convictions that could be disputed. And it maintained the ones that are undeniable, not because it was convenient for it, but because the evidence exists. What do you think about the attack on this conviction because the first document published by Mediapart, which helped initiate the case, was ultimately rejected by the courts? Once a case is brought before the court, it is investigated. And this investigation is not based solely on information revealed by the press, whistleblowers, and judges. The work of the court does not take everything that is gathered literally.

During the hearing, a wide range of data is analyzed and discussed. Everything is scrutinized with the utmost care to reach a conclusion based on a multitude of elements, which are ultimately either retained or dismissed. Any subsequent conviction is therefore based on irrefutable evidence, allowing for a perfectly formulated, reasoned, and constructed judgment. If there is even 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. In the case being discussed, there is also other evidence. For example, what can we say about the establishment of a clearing center in the Sarkozy-Qaddafi affair that would have made it impossible to trace the money? That has been proven. It is clearly a criminal conspiracy with a corruption plan at the highest level. Everything is absolutely clear.

The provisional execution of the sentence, even though Nicolas Sarkozy has appealed and is therefore considered innocent, is also being challenged...

This debate is perfectly legitimate, but I regret that it is only being initiated in connection with the convictions of Nicolas Sarkozy or Marine Le Pen, when 58% of criminal sentences are accompanied by a provisional execution of the sentence. I would also add that 85% of prison sentences of 5 years or more are accompanied by a provisional execution of the sentence. Therefore, we cannot say that the case of Nicolas Sarkozy is exceptional. It is rather a daily reality of criminal justice. It is also surprising that those who question the provisional executions, which they have every right to do, 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.

Then, of course, it is possible to start and promote the abolition of provisional executions, but in that case, let's have a complete debate. Because these executions are very useful for justice, especially in cases of domestic violence and sexual assault. Let us remember that the consequences would not only be political and judicial. In addition to the debate about provisional executions, let us not forget that Nicolas Sarkozy was sentenced to five years in prison, a sentence that cannot be changed. Therefore, there is no prosecution against him. Those who claim otherwise are saying something factually untrue. Nicolas Sarkozy's lawyers claim that the court did not provide evidence that Nicolas Sarkozy "knew," and therefore he cannot be convicted...

Firstly, I would like to point out that it was the legislator who wanted a lower threshold of proof. Secondly, it is very important to emphasize that in legal language, the phrase "could not have failed to know" does not mean that Nicolas Sarkozy did not know: on the contrary, it means that he knew! "Could not have failed to know" is not intended to claim, without proof, that he necessarily knew, but rather to emphasize that he knew, and that the evidence is sufficient to assert that claim. And therefore, to his conviction.

L'Humanité / gnews.cz-jav