the law for the defendant, harshness for the plaintiff

On should applaud the motivation of the acquittal verdict rendered in favor of Tariq Ramadan, Wednesday, May 24, by the Geneva Criminal Court before which he appeared for “” and “ coercion”. The invasion of more or less masked, rash and atrabilair vigilantes on social networks, makes indeed all the more valuable, for any citizen and possible litigant, the reminder of the essential rules which are the basis of the criminal trial: need for proof, respect for the presumption of innocence and application of the principle that doubt should benefit the accused.

We can therefore only subscribe to the introductory remarks of the president of the Geneva court, recalling that it is not up to the judges “to pronounce, in general, on practices and morality” of the defendant, “nor on current societal movements”, but that their role consists in determining on the basis of the record of the proceedings and the indictment”. Similarly, we must welcome a decision justified in these terms: “The court was unable to form an intimate conviction beyond insurmountable doubt. »

But respect for the fundamental principles order to adopt the same requirement of rigor and neutrality with regard to both parties during the hearings. It was not the case. Two radically contradictory versions were opposed to these hours spent in room 511 of the Bon Repos hotel in Geneva, from October 28 to 29, 2008. For Tariq Ramadan, mutual caresses which he would have cut short, after having been “inhibited by the smell of his admirer’s headscarf and the sight of bloodstains on his pants. For the plaintiff, RAD, an approach of seduction which suddenly turned into a night of horror, during which she was three times and beaten.

Rolling Fire of the Three Judges

Equally divergent were the explanations given for this complaint, filed ten years after the alleged facts: the culmination of a long process, according to the complainant, having enabled her to overcome her shame and realize that what she had experienced was not a ” accident “ but one “mode of operation” of which she was not the only victim; according to the defendant, the vengeful approach of a woman humiliated at having been dismissed, fed on stories published on social networks by other upset lovers, and consolidated by her ideological enemies.

As much as Tariq Ramadan was able to unfold his brilliant argument without being interrupted or contradicted by the court, the plaintiff suffered the constant and often suspicious fire of the three judges’ questions. When the defendant recounts the sudden rejection he experienced towards his admirer and concedes that he was verbally abusive, the court is not surprised that he nevertheless agrees to share his bed with her for the rest of his the night. From the plaintiff, the judges require on the other hand that she details, where, how, by the fingers or by the sex, and according to which chronology, she was penetrated, if it was dark or semi-dark, if the door was or not locked, whether she screamed or not, and ask her out of the blue if the fear she says she felt is good “rational”. Him, we listen to him. She, we summon her to justify everything.

You have 14.34% of this article left to read. The following is for subscribers only.

Source link

Leave a Reply