The Covid-19 health crisis is invited to the trial of the November 13 attacks. After a chaotic second day of hearing and a three-hour deliberation, the Paris Special Assize Court decided, Thursday, January 6, to postpone the official resumption of the trial until Tuesday, January 11. The hearings will enter a new phase, devoted to interrogations on the merits of the fourteen defendants present. But by then, the court decided to grant a request for a medical second opinion requested by the lawyers of Salah Abdeslam, positive for Covid-19 but which had been declared “apt” to appear by a first expertise, Monday. His findings were hotly contested by many of the lawyers present at the hearing Thursday.
The main accused of the attacks of November 13, 2015 tested positive on December 27, at the Fleury-Mérogis remand center (Essonne). To establish whether or not he was fit to return to his cubicle, the court based on the results of examinations carried out on Monday, concluding that he could return to trial if his PCR test was negative. On Wednesday, the National Anti-Terrorism Prosecutor’s Office (Pnat) ruled in favor of his return, writing in a statement: “From a health point of view, nothing is against its extraction on Thursday, January 6, 2022 for the resumption of the hearing”.
But the document did not specify whether Salah Abdeslam had tested negative. And that is the crux of the matter. Because it turns out that the new sample taken on Wednesday on the 32-year-old accused – who also coughed many times on Thursday – came out “very weak positive”, according to the second expert report. What arouse the anger of his lawyers. Me Olivia Ronen requested a second opinion, arguing that the infectious disease specialist in charge of assessing the state of health of her client “forfeit”, while the resumption of the trial was conditional on a negative test. Very annoyed, the lawyer claimed “another expert” for more “impartiality”.
“We are told that we want to save time. But what interest has Salah Abdeslam in saving time? What interest do we lawyers have in saving time? Nine months of hearing is already very heavy. he must be allowed to appear with dignity. “
Me Olivia Ronen, lawyer for Salah Abdeslambefore the special assize court of Paris
It was supported by several colleagues from the defense, whose interventions gave rise to more than an hour of debates. “It is safer to waste a few days rather than take the risk of creating a cluster in the box and paralyzing the trial for weeks”, thus abounded Me Edward Huylebrouck, lawyer of Muhammad Usman. Several representatives of the civil parties also joined them in their request. “There is someone in the box who is positive”, pointed out Matthieu Chirez, worrying about “cascading contaminations” of the other accused.
Two lawyers, Me Jean Reinhardt and Me Gérard Chemla, opposed this request for a second opinion. “Mr. Abdeslam’s affection does not seem deadly or difficult to live with “, estimated Jean Reinhardt, comparing the latter’s Covid to cancer from which one of the civil parties he represents before Christmas died. He then recalled that the symptoms for the vaccinated people were anyway much milder and bearable. In the box, the accused Sofien Ayari then cursed him: “Whether we’re vaccinated or not, it’s none of your business!”
The Advocate General also called for the rejection of the request for a second opinion concerning Salah Abdeslam, saying “that there are no risks, because the ten days of solitary confinement have largely expired”. The defendant’s first symptoms appeared on December 23, four days before his first positive PCR test. “To make the resumption of the hearing conditional on a negative PCR from Salah Abdeslam would amount to taking the risk of postponing the trial by several weeks”, she insisted.
The protesting lawyers finally won their case since two new experts were appointed to “examine the accused, determine his state of health and the date on which he will be medically and sanitary fit to attend the hearings”, declared the president of the special assize court. The hearing is therefore postponed until next Tuesday, “subject to a negative result” of the main accused.