After the discovery by Franceinfo that scientists had been warning about the risks of cancer since the 1980s, before the scandal broke, the lawyer for the victims denounces the search for profit to the detriment of the health of West Indians.
“This discovery [de la cellule investigation de Radio France] exposes that money has always prevailed over health“, reacted on Friday on franceinfo Harry Durimel, environmental mayor of Pointe-à-Pitre, in Guadeloupe and historical lawyer for the victims of chlordecone, after the discovery of new archives on this pesticide. According to this investigation by the Investigation Unit of Radio France, it lacked many records for justice to be able to really understand what scientists knew at the time. Since the 80s, they had been warning about the risks of cancer. According to Harry Durimel, “all this undermines democracy and we will endeavor to make good use of “these new documents”.
>> Chlordecone: scientists have been warning about cancer risks since the 1980s, according to found archives
Franceinfo: Are you surprised by the revelations about these archival documents found thanks to an investigation by Radio France’s investigation unit?
“I am not surprised at all because from the start, we have denounced this collusion between businessmen, business, industrialists, polluters and the State. This discovery [de la cellule investigation de Radio France] exposes that money has always prevailed over health and all this undermines democracy and we will apply ourselves to make good use of it. There was an obstacle because since we filed a complaint in 2006, all the actions to thwart our complaint have come from the public prosecutor who generally defends the good. From the start, it was the prosecutor who always appealed. All the hindrances came from the public prosecutor’s office and I think it is time for the State to redeem itself and be able to restore citizens’ confidence in justice. These revelations that follow one another will make people believe that the state is a bandit, a delinquent, but I believe in the rule of law. It is time that we can reconnect with the rules of the rule of law, with the values of the philosophy of the Enlightenment which are the foundations of the Republic”.
Do these new elements justify the reopening of an investigation or new legal proceedings?
“We have appealed and the Paris Court of Appeal will have to rule shortly on this dismissal of which we dispute all the grounds invoked by the investigating judge and the public prosecutor. Whether it is the prescription or even though the State did not know. Today more than ever, we know that the State knows. It could not ignore that it was poison that was sprinkled on the ground and that we find today in our bodies, in our waters and in all our fauna and flora. I think that this pollution is systemic. I would like to salute the work done by the magistrates because otherwise we would not have known everything we know today ‘today on chlordecone and not ‘chlordecone‘. Since the beginning, we have been fighting against chlordecone. In all the expert reports, we say ‘chlordecone’, this is also the case in the indictments, the orders. It is the state that has set up this semantic strategy to make people believe that we don’t know what we are talking about. It’s since we filed a complaint that we’ve been talking about ‘chlordecone‘ that we are talking about a molecule. It is a pesticide where the hand of man wanted to poison us.”
Do you think the state has a central responsibility?
The State continues in this same logic. Having sinned, the state seeks to conceal its fault. Minister Louis Mermaz, who signed one of the derogation orders for the ban on the use of chlordecone, when he was heard for hours by the investigating judges replied that two years ago [seulement] that he had heard of chlordecone.
In other words, we would have imitated his signature, without his knowledge, which constitutes a forgery in public writing and which would not be prescribed. We have everything to ensure that justice is done to the peoples of Guadeloupe and Martinique. If we do not obtain it, the State will have to take its responsibilities and establish a law, put in place mechanisms for prevention and reparation”.