In its judgment, judge Laurence Massart estimated that the facilities reserved for defendants, violate in “the current configuration, article 6 of the European Convention for Human Rights”.
by
The trial of the attacks committed in 2016 in Brussels and at Zaventem airport has not yet really started but the president of the Assize Court, Laurence Massart, struck hard on the second day of the preliminary hearings, Friday September 16. True to her reputation as a scrupulous magistrate and, above all concerned about respecting the principles, she made a highly anticipated judgment on the boxes – or “cages”, according to lawyers of the accused – installed at the request of the federal prosecution to ensure a maximum security at this trial which should last ten months.
By detailing his judgment at length, M Massart judged that “the box in its current configuration violates article 6 of the European Convention for Human Rights”. She therefore ordered that the facilities – which cost 250,000 euros – be dismantled and replaced by October 10, the date where 36 jurors (12 workforce and 24 alternates) will be chosen to judge Salah Abdeslam, Mohamed Abrini, Osama Krayem and nine other accused still alive and suspected of having fomented the attacks which caused the death of 34 people.
“difficult balance” between the different principles
According to the injunctions of the federal prosecutor’s office, the accused had to be installed separately in individual and glazed spaces, which, according to their defenders, violated the rules of an equitable trial, notably preventing direct contact between accused and lawyers. Also considering that the boxes were contraveking the presumption of innocence, the defense had mentioned the risk that the trial could not go to its end in such conditions, the majority of the accused who announced, from the start, their refusal to appear.
A keen debate had therefore opposed the first day of the hearing on Monday, September 12, lawyers at the federal prosecutor’s office, the two prosecutors arguing that the measures put in place, “justified and proportionate”, were dictated by security imperatives linked to the magnitude of the trial and to the fact that it took place in an unusual place, the former NATO premises in Haren, in the large suburbs of the city.
The discussion, enamelled with allusion to the “disgusting” or “inhuman” side of the device, also described as “worthy of a zoo” by one of the lawyers, had indisposed the public and the families of the victims. Their defenders cautiously evoking the need to ensure a “difficult balance” between the different principles in question.
Friday, the lawyer for Salah Abdeslam – who had refused to participate in the first audience – spoke of a “historic” judgment to qualify the decision of M me Massart. According to M e Michel Bouchat, it will now allow serene debates.
You have 16.22% of this article to read. The continuation is reserved for subscribers.