While the broadcast of this video surveillance during the trial is debated, the president of the court proposed to the lawyers to carry out a preview of the images of the attack of July 14, 2016 in Nice for the lawyers of the civil parties and of defense. He is expected to give his decision today regarding the release of this video as part of the trial.
This is “absolute horror” for Maître Méhana Mouhou, civil party lawyer. The 4 minutes 30 of video surveillance which show the terrorist attack of July 14, 2016 on the Promenade des Anglais in Nice, which caused the death of 86 people, are “unsustainable”confirms Maître Sophie Hebert-Marchal, also a lawyer for civil parties.
This Tuesday, September 13, after having suspended the hearing at the end of the day, the president of the special assize court Laurent Raviot, invited the lawyers for the civil parties and the defense to remain in the courtroom.
As he announced at the end of last week, he wished to carry out a “preview” with the various parties of the CCTV of the attack before decidingr whether this video would be shown during the trial or not.
A few days earlier, Friday September 9, a witness from the anti-terrorist sub-directorate (SDAT) had come to give a detailed description of this video. His testimony was supported by some screenshots from the video.
However, it would seem that nothing can really prepare for this viewing, if we consider the reaction of the lawyers of the civil parties questioned by France 3 Côte d’Azur at the exit of the room.
For Maître Méhana Mouhou, who defends a certain number of civil parties, “it’s indescribable”, “it has no name”. Still shaken, he says he regrets having seen this video before recovering : “I did my professional duty, I had to see her for all the victims I represent.”
Despite the horror of the video, the lawyer still observed the securing of the Promenade des Anglais that evening:
We do not see protection, we do not see the police, the police were absent subscribers. We see that the truck has a free field in front of it: it can do what it wants.
Maître Méhana Mouhou, civil party lawyer
When the president explained why he was hesitant to release this video during the trial, he wanted the lawyers requesting this release to ask themselves the following questions:
Is there any interest in understanding how the attack unfolded?
Is there an interest in fixing the possible responsibilities of the defendants?
For Maître Mouhou, the answers are not so clear. At the exit of the room, he announces: “Is it useful for the manifestation of the truth? No. Is it necessary to understand what happened? No. It adds suffering to suffering.”
However, he says he understands why victims say they need it. During the debate relaunched this Wednesday, September 14 during the hearing, Maître Mouhou returned to his first words by saying: “I stand up and tell the court that it is necessary for the manifestation of the truth regarding the victims”. He particularly mentions the victims who do not remember what happened to them and need to see it.
On the side of Maître Olivia Chalus-Pénochet, the video had a radically opposite effect. According to this civil party lawyer, “it is imperative to see this video”. “The terrorist’s determination is clear and clear, it jumps to the eyes,” she says.
It is very difficult but it is a manifestation of the truth. It will shed light on many points that the court will need to decide in this case.
Maître Olivia Chalus-Pénochet, civil party lawyer
She regrets that the neutralization of the truck and the terrorist does not appear in this video surveillance.
According to the civil party lawyers we interviewed, broadcasting this video would make it possible to cling more firmly to the facts. “It’s important to get out of the imagination and realize what really happened”, underlines Maître Yves Hartemann, lawyer for civil parties and in particular for Anne Murris.
“Victims need a trial that is not watered down,” adds Sophie Hebert-Marchal, also a civil party lawyer.
Master Philippe Soussi does not hesitate to admit that he comes out of this viewing upset. “In this 4-minute video, we are confronted with the night of humanity”, he declares.
Even if he thinks it’s not a “good solution”broadcasting the video at the trial is, according to him, “the only solution”.
The debate on the dissemination of images of an attack comes up at each terrorist trial. In 2017, during the Merah trial, no video was released because the terrorist had voluntarily filmed his actions to be watched later.
During the first trial of the January 2015 attacks on Charlie Hebdo and Hyper Cacher, the president of the court had vetoed the dissemination of the images “propaganda”, filmed by Amedy Coulibaly, of his murders in the Jewish convenience store. Without there being any discussion, the court had on the other hand projected the images of the video surveillance in the premises of Charlie Hebdo, as well as those of the murder of the police officer Ahmed Merabet by the brothers Saïd and Chérif Kouachi during their flight.
This broadcast, without clear warning about the content of the images, had created a certain stir.
This could explain the precautions taken over the past two years during the terrorist trials.
At the trial of the November 13 attacks, which ended at the end of June after ten months of hearings, it took several debates for the court – which did not want “unnecessarily shocking images” – to decide to broadcast a selection images and sound recording of the Bataclan massacre.
For the trial of the Nice attack, the president of the court had mentioned the date of this Thursday, September 15 for the broadcast of this video during the trial. He has not yet confirmed that this will take place.
with AFP
