As she crosses the courtroom, Gisèle Pelicot, who has become an icon in France in the fight against violence against women, is applauded. The lawyers of some of the men who raped this woman drugged by her husband for years were booed, their arguments having shocked, illustrating the difficulty of their mission.
At the trial of this internationally famous case, known as the “Mazan rapes”, should we, as Ms.e Isabelle Crepin-Dehaene and Me Nadia El Bouroumi, attacking Gisèle Pelicot head-on, by attributing to her loose morals to imply that she may have consented?
Is it necessary to affirm, like Me Guillaume De Palma, that there is “rape and rape” in order, it seems, to minimize the real intention of some of the 50 co-accused of Dominique Pelicot, the ex-husband who admits to having drugged his wife to deliver her sexually to strangers recruited on the Internet, many of whom claim to have thought they were participating in the sexual game of a libertine couple?
“Words that should not be uttered,” said another defense lawyer, “there is no nuance in rape.”
Or is it better to rely on a psychiatrist’s report to make your client look like a “fool”?
Gisèle Pelicot responded on the spot during her second interrogation before the Vaucluse criminal court, where the trial opened on September 2.
“Humiliated”
“Since I arrived in this courtroom, I feel humiliated. I am called an alcoholic, that I put myself in such a state of drunkenness that I am an accomplice of Mr. Pelicot.” The “50 [accusés] did not ask themselves the question [du consentement] “What are these men, are they degenerates or what?” she thundered.
Nadia El Bouroumi, who usually posts her comments on Instagram about the trials she follows, sometimes while driving her car and with pop music playing in the background, has denied having “at any time sought to mock Gisèle Pelicot”, following a controversial post.
“Since the beginning of this trial, I have been subjected to threats, harassment, public insults. My children are also victims of harassment. […] “This incessant public and media pressure muzzles me and prevents me from defending my clients impartially,” she denounced on Instagram, where she has more than 50,000 subscribers.
“The victim is her, not you,” replied the comedian and LGBT activist Guillaume Mélanie.
“I have colleagues who are insulted, who are threatened. It’s complicated,” a lawyer at the trial told AFP, who, fearing for her safety, preferred to remain anonymous.
One of Gisèle Pelicot’s tips, Me Stéphane Babonneau told AFP that “under the guise of asking questions, his client was given “opinions and judgments that were intended to destabilize her.”
Not all defense lawyers have adopted this virulent tone, even if they question the facts or intentions, starting with Mr.e Béatrice Zavarro, who calmly defends Dominique Pelicot.
Hearing immunity
“We sense in the courtroom, in the waiting room, a certain form of animosity towards the accused, who are booed, and why not towards their lawyers, all put in the same bag. If one of them slips up, it’s all the lawyers who slip up, some believe. I was careful not to slip up,” says Me Olivier Lantelme, lawyer for an accused person admitting the facts.
Roland Rodriguez, president of the “Rules and Practices” commission at the National Council of Bars, recalls that “there exists the principle of freedom of expression, and that of “audience immunity”, recognized by the European Court of Human Rights.”
“Even outside of a hearing, the lawyer can, with the mandate of his client, use this freedom of expression and set out his defense strategy”, which “is not a problem, as long as it does not undermine the essential principles of the legal profession, which are – among others – tact, dignity, moderation and loyalty”, he insists.
It is then up to the bar association to “ensure that ethics are respected”, with the possible opening of ethics investigations and disciplinary proceedings which could “range from a reprimand to a dismissal”.
In a press release, the president of the Avignon bar, Philippe Cano, “insisted” at the beginning of the week that “serenity in the debates, decency in the words and behavior of each person, during and after the hearing” should reign. While emphasizing that “the criminal court remains the only one able to judge this case after several months of debates.”