At the end of the afternoon on Friday, the Advocate General had requested before the Assize Court for Minors of the Oise 30 years of criminal imprisonment against the ex-boyfriend of Shaïna.
Shaina’s ex-boyfriend, who was 17 at the time of the events, was sentenced on Friday June 9 to 18 years in prison, for the assassination of the teenager, stabbed and burned alive at the age of 15 in 2019 in Creil (Oise), probably pregnant with him.
Earlier in the day, the Advocate General had requested 30 years of criminal imprisonment. He also asked for the defendant’s minority excuse to be lifted, allowing the maximum sentence to be increased from 20 to 30 years, which was not accepted by the court.
Shaïna’s father says he is “disappointed with justice”
To AFP, Shaïna’s father said to himself “disappointed with justice”. “Justice does not care about violence against women”, estimated Negar Haeri, lawyer of the family. Between pre-trial detention and remissions, the accused “coming out in eight years”she said.
This sentence, pronounced in a heavy atmosphere, is lower than the requisitions of the Advocate General, Loïc Abrial, who had claimed 30 years of criminal imprisonment for a crime according to him “premeditated at every step”. He had requested the lifting of the excuse of minority of the accused, aged 17 at the time of the facts, allowing the maximum sentence to be increased from 20 to 30 years. But this was not upheld by the court.
Throughout the closed trial, which opened on Monday, the high school student, without a criminal record before the tragedy, claimed his innocence. “Why why ?”, reacted the accused, pale complexion, emerging beard and dark eyes, to the statement of the verdict, on the night of Friday to Saturday, after four hours of deliberation. Then, inveighing at the jurors: “You are wrong !” Last to speak for the defence, his lawyer, Adel Fares “pleaded acquittal” of his client.
“He was ready to destroy everything”, according to the general counsel
According to the investigation, Shaïna, described by her mother as “funny and smiling”, was probably getting pregnant, which she attributed to the accused. The latter may have been moved, according to the civil parties, by the fear of losing the love of his parents if he broke with their demands for perfection, against a background of religious prohibition around sexuality.
“He was ready to destroy everything to save his image”, ruled the Advocate General. Adel Fares, on the other hand, brushed aside any link between his faith and the case.