Islamabad Telegraph Exclusive
On 13 November 2015, Paris was riddled with bullets. The Stade de France was hit first, followed by café terraces and the Bataclan concert hall. The Islamic State (Daesh) claimed responsibility for the attacks, which left 130 people dead and 413 injured. The trial, held before a special criminal court, began on 8 September 2021. It was to last almost ten months and involve five judges, twenty defendants, 1,800 claims from victims and no less than 300 lawyers. We had the opportunity to speak to Grégory Lévy, who acted for certain victims.
Islamabad Telegraph: How are you feeling as the trial draws to a close?
Grégory Lévy: Confident and at peace. Confident that the justice system has done its work, without any doubt. The French government invested more than €7m in this trial, to ensure that the protection of fundamental freedoms was absolute. An ultra-modern courtroom measuring 750 sqm was built and fitted with the very latest communications equipment so that the trial could be relayed in real time, the magistrates knew each and every detail of the files (over one million pages bound in 542 volumes), speaking time was carefully controlled and the defendants were treated with all the decency that any person is entitled to expect. The French legal system can be justly proud. And at peace, because I have had the honour, working alongside my colleagues Johana Gameiro and Claire Combarel of representing two of the families affected, one at the Stade de France and one at the Bataclan, who after the pleadings thanked us for our work. The court heard their voices and felt their pain. I am proud of that, because it entailed months of work, analysis and consideration.
I.T: How do you prepare for a trial like this?
G.L: You have to start several months in advance. When you are dealing with a criminal trial, especially a historic one like this, you have to be very organised. I had already been involved in the trial for the Charlie Hebdo attacks a few months beforehand. So I added some new members to my team, allocated the roles and organised the priorities. Also, the whole of the French court system was absorbed by this trial, and so it rapidly took centre stage.
I.T: What impressions did you get of the defendants?
G.L: A whole range of impressions. Fourteen defendants appeared before the court and their defences could not be described as homogeneous. I will remember in particular catching the eye of Salah Abdeslam when I went to the bar to instigate the proceedings for damages. He was a sink-estate lowlife, but with an angry look about him – more than determined, obsessed in fact. When I heard him questioned, that impression was confirmed. He had a definite arrogance about him, and his account was disorganised and tinged with parroted propaganda and political ideas that he didn’t really understand. Other defendants demonstrated a greater degree of reflection, distanced themselves from the terror and mumbled their remorse.
I.T: Could you have defended Salah Abdeslam if he had asked you to?
G.L: That would have depended on exactly what he wanted me to do. Act on his behalf, take on his pseudo-convictions and the cause he boasts about and deny the court’s authority to judge him? No. Conversely, ensure he got a fair trial and plead to make it so, elicit remorse, understand his background and the path he took, pinpoint where he went wrong and steer him back into society? Yes. This is the only condition under which I could have agreed to defend him, against everyone and everything. Because that is the role of a lawyer – in my mind at least.
I.T: So as a lawyer, you’re happy to act for the defendant in one trial and the victim in the next?
G.L: Absolutely. But that’s the difference between a lawyer and an activist-lawyer. My personal convictions stay hidden under my gown. So it’s my job to act for the accused, even if they are a murderer, rapist or corrupter, as much as for the victim. The two experiences feed into one another and the best way to defend one party is to construct a defence for their opponent, because you are then perfectly placed to pick it to pieces.
I.T: Even in a trial like this one?
G.L: Yes, even more so perhaps in this kind of trial. In France, criminal trials are unusual in that the hearing is spontaneous. When a civil or commercial case is brought before a court, there are no surprises – in fact, adding new information is prohibited by law. But in a criminal case, anything can be revealed and everything can be turned upside down. So it is essential, but practically impossible, to anticipate the defence the opponent will use. Right until this criminal hearing began, no one knew what position Salah Abdeslam would take. He had rejected one lawyer after another, and nothing had leaked out about how he intended to defend himself. There was a whole range of possibilities. I had to consider them all so I could help the victims to prepare and be ready to face whatever avenue he took. It could have been arrogance, a claim of responsibility or a denial, a proclamation or perhaps repentance, remorse or even regret, either sincere or scripted. I had to prepare for everything to be ready to respond. In a trial like this one, over and above the result, the most important thing was to hear the victims’ voices.
I.T: And what about the result, what are you expecting?
G.L: I’m expecting a result on various levels. Firstly, a result that will give the victims that I have defended a new start and an opportunity to rebuild and begin living again, with more peace of mind. The trial has been a release for them, and in that I believe that it has achieved this first result. The second result is punishment. Even though it is not up to the victims to decide, they expect to see a sanction, a fair verdict. The public prosecutor recommended a sentence of life imprisonment with no possibility of parole for Salah Abdeslam, which means that he may never leave prison. So the second result is close to being achieved. And thirdly, redress. Damages to put a price on sorrow. The law can do nothing more than allocate a sum of money, even though that can never compensate for the loss of a loved one or life-changing trauma. As France has a compensation fund for victims of terrorism, this third result has also been achieved. So we can say that justice has been done.
