It is an exceptional text, which appeared in the pages of the British fortnightly “London Review of Books”, which we have chosen to translate before the verdict of the trial of the November 2015 attacks, which saw Salah Abdeslam be sentenced on June 29 to the irreducible life imprisonment and eighteen other defendants be found guilty on all counts. For ten months, the American journalist Madeleine Schwartz attended the hearings, in the presence of 330 lawyers representing nearly 2,000 victims and survivors. A look back at an extraordinary legal event that shocked France.
In France, there are no transcripts of hearings, and it is forbidden to record or film the proceedings*. What happens in the courtroom stays between those present. The trial of the men accused of the terrorist attacks of November 13, 2015 in Paris is the thirteenth in the history of French justice for which an exception will be made. That evening, terrorists attacked the Stade de France, in Saint-Denis, several cafe terraces in the Xe et XIe districts of the capital and the Bataclan performance hall, killing 130 people. These were the deadliest attacks on French soil since World War II. Footage of the trial, however, will not be available to the public until 2072.
Since September 2021, I have been going to the specially built courtroom in the old courthouse [de l’île de la Cité] or in another, smaller one, at the other end of the marble hall [la salle des pas perdus], from where journalists follow the hearings, tweet in real time and write their daily reports. The main room, known as the “Grand Trial room”, with a capacity of 550 people, is often full: it mainly accommodates survivors of the attacks. It is built of wood and is equipped with two glazed niches behind which the statues representing Justice and Eloquence are visible.
At the back of the room is the platform where the magistrates making up the court sit. On their left, three general attorneys represent the prosecution. Facing the courtyard, below, the courtroom lines up long rows of desks for the many lawyers. Eleven men are seated in a large glass box, and three others have taken their places in front of them, on chairs. These are the defendants. Outside the door, a cluster of TV reporters waits to gather feedback from people leaving the room.
The debates taking place within the Assize Court are the result of five years of investigation – meticulous and painstaking work. But the trial is being held in a France transfigured by the attacks, where questions of terrorism, religion and social cohesion are often confused and addressed to the detriment of the facts. In this room, on the days when we went from descriptions of extreme violence to the effects of sleeve, I sometimes wondered if the court could ignore what happens outside its walls. Can France judge terrorism, even though terrorism is transforming its political system?
New cameras and green and red cords
September 8, 2021. On this first day of the trial, the excitement is palpable. This is already a historic trial. It will certainly prove that French democracy has not yielded in the face of violence. Its very scale testifies to its importance: more than 330 lawyers represent some 2,000 survivors and relatives of victims who have filed civil suits.
Police officers remove plastic covers from security cameras in the long hallway leading to the courtroom. Journalists line up outside the door, each with their accreditation badge. Civil parties who agree to speak to the press are identified by a green cord around the neck, those who do not wish to by a red cord. Lawyers wear a black choker; journalists’ badges are bright orange and their badges show the name of their newspaper.
The lawyers will plead before five magistrates, including Judge Jean-Louis Périès, a round-faced man who presides over the courtroom like a grandfather over the family table. He spent more than a year soaking up the 542 volumes of the investigation file.
Among the suicide bombers who went to Paris on the day of the attacks, only one, Salah Abdeslam, is still alive. He took part in the attacks with his brother Brahim, but his explosive belt did not go off. Did he choose not to blow himself up, or was there a technical failure? Abdeslam, now 32, has been held in solitary confinement for five years. He fell into almost total silence. Some defendants, such as Osama Krayem, a Swedish national, have been identified in Islamic State (IS) propaganda videos and are suspected of having prepared the attacks. The involvement of the other defendants is more uncertain. One is accused of having provided false papers, another weapons.
Seven members of the commandos blew themselves up during the attack, or were killed by another terrorist who blew himself up. Another assailant killed a second by blowing himself up during a law enforcement assault [à Saint-Denis]. Five others are presumed dead in coalition strikes in Syria and are on trial in absentia.
“We left, we begin”
September 16, 2021. The investigators who arrived at the crime scenes were among the first witnesses called to the bar, starting with a police officer from the anti-terrorist section of the criminal brigade dispatched to the Stade de France. The terrorists were wearing Bayern Munich football club tracksuits. But none managed to enter the stadium. They were late and didn’t have a ticket. They detonated their explosive belt outside the stadium, killing themselves and a bystander. Why hadn’t they bought tickets in advance? During this trial, it is not the last time that I will wonder if the proceedings will provide answers to all the questions they raise.
September 17, 2021. Patrick Bourbotte, a bald policeman who investigated the Bataclan attack, apologizes in advance if, during his testimony, his emotion sometimes came to light.
“When we enter the room, the atmosphere is gloomy, cold. The white light makes the place pale. The bodies are tangled on top of each other. We had never seen that… We walk in clotted blood, in the middle of pieces of teeth, broken bones, vibrating telephones – families are calling –, backpacks, handbags . And bodies, and bodies and bodies… We headed to the scene, where we were told that the suicide bomber’s body had exploded. There was blood and shreds of flesh all over the walls and on the ceiling.”
He describes a telephone belonging to one of the assailants, found in a garbage can on Boulevard Voltaire. A few minutes before the start of the killing, he had sent a final text message:
“We left, we begin.”
He continues, explaining that a dictaphone had been abandoned under a seat in the theater. A spectator had recorded the concert. He broadcasts a short extract. At the time of the attack, the band performing that night, the Eagles of Death Metal, were playing a song titled Kiss the Devil [“Embrasse le diable”]. Then, the terrorists opened fire and, between two bursts, harangued the audience:
“Why are we doing this? You are bombing our brothers in Syria, in Iraq. Why are we here? We came to do the same to you. […] French and American soldiers bombard us in the air. We, we are men, us. You are being bombarded here on earth. We don’t need airplanes. So. Your president, François Hollande, thank him.”
“The Next Silhouette”
September 20, 2021. The first policeman to arrive at La Belle Équipe bar warns that he risks speaking in his police jargon. In this context, he apologizes, “professional language can seem out of place, cold, dehumanized”.
He presents the court with a slide showing the location of the bodies found in the street, and he lists the names of the victims and the place where they were hit by the bullets:
“Figure A, the one near the tree, is the body of Romain Feuillade, who was injured in the neck, abdomen and chest.
“Silhouette B is that of Marie-Aimée Dalloz. She was injured in the neck.
“The next figure is that of Thierry Hardouin, found on his back.”
Lawyers for the families of the victims question him. Some want to know how their loved ones died. Where exactly were they hit?
While the public can only follow the proceedings from the small broadcast room reserved for them or on the journalists’ Twitter feed, civil parties, victims and their relatives have access from their homes to a web radio station which broadcasts the hearings. Lawyers sometimes approach them directly.
In these moments, the trial seems to deviate from its object. Sometimes, justice boils down to a technical question: finding the appropriate sanction for such and such an action. But this quickly drifts into more complex questions about terrorism, radicalism and France itself. Can we really speak of a phenomenon of radicalization? What drives someone to attack civilians sitting at a sidewalk cafe? Or, as judges and lawyers often ask, why France?
September 28