“It’s a snub for France”, reacted Maître Marie Dosé, criminal lawyer at the Paris bar after the condemnation of France, Wednesday, September 14, by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). European justice condemns France to reconsider the requests for repatriation of two families of jihadists stranded in Syria. It took three and a half years for the judges of the ECHR to decide. They believe that France’s policy of repatriating the wives and children of jihadists from Syria on a case-by-case basis is arbitrary. “The opposite of arbitrariness is the rule of law. What the European Court says is that for four years, France has not been a rule of law on this file”, she explained. Paris took note of the decision and said it was ready to “consider” further returns.
franceinfo: Is this the decision you were expecting?
Marie Dosé, criminal lawyer at the Paris Bar: It’s a snub for France and it’s a condemnation that will weigh very heavily on the weeks and months to come. France is talking today about a change in doctrine, but what I see is that we are still in the arbitrary. When, this summer, I asked for the repatriation of a child suffering from pleurisy, alone in his tent, who received no treatment, who had had lung operations in absolutely worrying circumstances, I did not still no answer. I wrote three times, four times, five times to the Quai d’Orsay, to the Élysée, asking for the repatriation of this seriously ill child. I still don’t have an answer. So France continues to arbitrarily refuse, without control, without transparency, the repatriation of a child who will end up dying in this camp if he is not repatriated. When I ask 42 times for the medical repatriation of a woman, when each of my requests ends with “If you don’t bring her home, she will die” and that France does not answer me and that the French authorities do not answer me and that this woman dies in December 2021… That is arbitrary. It’s enough on a case-by-case basis. Do you know what it is case by case? It is the doing of the prince. I do what I want, I sort the children, I select them, I repatriate this one, but not that one. This condemnation by the European Court is finally for me the possibility of no longer having this question of the children who ask me “but madam, why didn’t France choose me?” This is the question that these children ask themselves in these camps. That’s the end of this question. This is the end of arbitrariness.
Will France be forced to completely review its policy on a case-by-case basis?
She can’t go on like this anymore. What the European Court is saying is that, first of all, our application was admissible because we are faced with exceptional circumstances. I quote the Court: “There is a risk of harm to the physical integrity and life of the applicants’ relatives, in particular their grandchildren”. I always quote the European Court: “The processing of these repatriation requests, in particular those made to minors, must respect a principle of equality”. There is no principle of equality. Children are sorted, children are selected. The processing of these requests “must take into consideration the best interests of the child, their particular vulnerability, their specific needs”. Obviously, this is not the case. But above all, what the Court is saying is that it is not up to the President of the Republic or a State to decide who will be repatriated. You need either a court or an independent authority, because you simply need guarantees against arbitrariness. And there, the word arbitrary is pronounced. The opposite of arbitrariness is the rule of law. What the European Court says is that for four years, France has not been governed by the rule of law on this file.
Do you understand the reluctance to see the children and wives of jihadists return to France?
A child is a double victim when he is the victim of his parents’ choice, when he is the victim of a country that refuses to repatriate him. A child is always a victim of war. He is nothing else. I remember that all these children entered these camps, they were not six years old. I defend children who were born in these camps who today are four or five years old. The French State has not been able to demonstrate pedagogy and do the work of pedagogy. We were told that a woman had returned on July 5 and that she was very dangerous. What the association Life fore Paris rightly answers to the victims of attacks: “But we want to see them judge”. This woman should have been there, at least as a witness, at the November 13 trial. What do we want? That she escapes from the camps like Hayat Boumeddiene? What do we want? That it is recovered by Daech which calls to release them to better enlist them again? From a security point of view, we must repatriate them.