French anti-terrorist Policy

Svenska Helsingforskommitten for manskliga rattigheter
Swedish Helsinki Committee for Human Rights

STOCKHOLM SEMINAR

November 16 and 17, 2005

Stock of the situation

French anti-terrorist PolicyIn the light of the case Said ARIF

By Karyn Agostini-Lippi

FRANCE

Since the Act of 9 September 1986 on the centralization of officials and jurisdictions as regards terrorism in Paris[1], the legislative arsenal establishing a statutory regime to which the ordinary law does not apply did not stop developing to the detriment of the civil liberties and personal freedoms. The Act of 22 July 1996 created the broad concept and thus imprecise of "criminal conspiracy in relation with a terrorist network" with an increased time of police custody, specific courts and penalties. The Act of 30 December 1996, for its part, authorized the searches by night. As for the Act of 15 November 2001 on daily security, it made it possible to integrate into the former texts first of all the arms dealing and drug trafficking[2] and then the use of new communication and information technologies[3]. Now, a new reinforcement of the terrorist offences is awaited through a preliminary bill[4] which is centered on the video surveillance, the conservation of Internet data in "cyber cafés"and of telephone data, the increased control of travels in particular to countries called "at risk", the access to the administrative files, the increase and the centralization of the penalties, the forfeiture of nationality and the freezing of the assets.

Although all attempts to define "terrorism" at top-rank level have failed until now, France equipped itself in its article 421-1 of the Penal Code with a suitable definition for it where acts that constitute terrorism are listed[5].

However, even if these accounts unquestionably contribute to show that, there is a more than worrying restriction to fundamental freedoms of the individuals, one can take all measurement of it only in the light of one experienced situation. This is why I chose, today, to present to you the three phases of the application of the anti-terrorist Acts (examination, trial and enforcement of the penalties) by considering it in the light of Saïd ARIF’s case.

Mr ARIF, whose wife is Swedish, is an Algerian citizen currently on remand in France. He is questioned for more than one year by the Examining Magistrate Jean-Louis Bruguière within the framework of a procedure of "criminal conspiracy in relation with a terrorist network". Coming within the provisions of an international warrant of arrest issued by French authorities, he remained imprisoned during almost a year in Syria before being extradited to France.He will now probabely soon be sent before the court of competent juridiction[6].

I - The examining phase

This phase divides into two periods: the arrest and police custody, then the indictment with remand or release under judicial supervision. As regards terrorism, this phase is subject to rules which legally reduce the individual rights.

- Arrest and police custody

According to an official statement[7], on June 17, 2004, Dominique de Villepin, at the time Home Office Minister, confirmed the arrest of Saïd ARIF, alias Slimane CHABANI, alias Abderrahmane.

Thus, as soon as Mr ARIF got the plane, coming straight from Syria, Mr. ARIF saw himself notifying by the agents of the DST which had taken delivery of him in Damas, the international warrant for arrest whose he was the object. He was then immediately led in front of the Examining Magistrate, Jean-Louis Bruguière.

Warrant for arrest

According to the principle of reciprocity, extradition is the process by which one State surrenders an individual found on its territory to another State where he is wanted. However, the existence of a bilateral or multilateral agreement of extradition remains the basis of the system. There is not any agreement of this type binding France and Syria. Therefore the obvious question should be raised:

What was the base of negotiation between Syria and France so that the latter obtains the extradition of Mr. ARIF? This information was not revealed and it seems probable that it never will be. All that filtered on the subject was that "some weeks before judge Bruguière had gone discreetly to Syria for his extradition, closely follow-up by the Home Office Minister, Dominique de Villepin" [8].

Mr. Bruguière would have negotiated this agreement with the General Assef Chaoukat, brother-in-law of the President Bachar el-Assad and current head of the Syrian military information[9].
But it is not the only shadow which exists concerning this extradition which took place almost a year after the arrest of Mr. ARIF in Syria, on July 12, 2003. Indeed, whereas the French authorities declare that "the identification of Saïd ARIF was made difficult by the fact that he was in possession of Moroccan forged identity papers", Mr. ARIF as for him affirms in a private correspondence that "a file was ready with information coming from France and even a photograph of him in a photo album of the DST. [That] regularly, he saw pages of information in French language accompanied by translations in Arabic and entering the seal of the Syrian Embassy in Paris. [That as from] January 2004 they had by twice offered to send him to Morocco then to Malaysia but always while forwarding by Paris. [That] in May 2004, France sent a letter of request accompanied by additional information. [That] he was brought in front of a prosecutor where, to his great surprise, he was shown incredible things (diversion of plane, murder, transport of explosives, poisons... even the attack on the train in Madrid while at the time he was already imprisoned). [That] having protested his innocence and asked to see a lawyer before the lawsuit, he had been brought back to the secret service headquarters and not to prison. [That] while he awaited a trial, in order to defend himself, he was taken along to the airport where the French DST waited for him with a special flight. [That] the extradition had been done even before he saw the prosecutor."

96h of Police custody

On June 17, 2004 Mr. ARIF thus arrives to France where he is immediately put in police custody and brought for interrogation in front of the Examining Magistrate Bruguière. According to article 706-88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the police custody is of 24h renewable twice, the concerned person benefits from a medical examination before the first extension and is able to meet a lawyer at the end of the 48th hour then again after 72th.

However, as regards drug trafficking and terrorism cases[10], the rules are derogatory and more severe: the police custody can be prolonged for 96 hours instead of 72 and the concerned person will be able to meet a lawyer only at the end of the first 72 hour.

At the end of the police custody, the person will be either released after hearing and his case dropped, or if indicted; he will then be either remanded or released under judicial supervision.

With regard to Mr. ARIF, the police custody apparently did not exceed 24h, since at the end of his first hearing he was remanded for "criminal conspiracy in relation with a terrorist network"[11] and imprisoned.

One can thus conclude from this that he could not profit at this time from a medical examination whereas he was extradited from a country recognized by all the organizations of the Human Rights protection as usually practicing torture[12], and that the reporter of Associated Press having attended his arrival affirmed that he looked "drawn"[13].

In fact, the case of Mr. ARIF is nothing exceptional since Mr. Djamel BEGHAL, extradited from The United Arab Emirates on October 1, 2001 where he testified to be tortured, underwent a interrogation of 14h solid in front of judge Bruguière on his arrival after 18h of flight, carried out standing upright, hands tied above his head, before also being, indicted for "criminal conspiracy in relation with a terrorist network" and imprisoned. He had then lost more than 66 pounds[14].

Indictment.

Since the law of January 15, 2000 on the presumption of innocence, applicable to January 1, 2001, the questions of remand are entrusted to the Judge empowered to grant or refuse bail and not to the Examining Magistrate. An appeal can then be lodged with the Investigative Division of the Court of Appeal.

However, if first of all this law seems to want to protect the person indicted by dividing the examination and affixing committal order powers, it obviously appears, after 5 years of practice, that rare are the occasions where, as regards terrorism, the Judge empowered to grand or refuse bail does not follow the opinion of the Examining Magistrate and that even in these cases, the Investigative Division follows the opinion of the Judge empowered to grant or refuse bail. It is enough to be convinced considering the case of Mr. Ridouane KHALID who, after having spent more than 3 years locked up in Guantanamo, was indicted like his 5 fellow-prisoners for "criminal conspiracy in relation with a terrorist network" and who was the only one to know two weeks of freedom under judicial supervision before the Investigative Division decides his remand for "risks to cause breach of the peace"[15].

With regard to Mr. ARIF, the question of release under judicial supervision never arose since, as a foreigner, he does not answer any of the required basic conditions, namely: residence, incomes, and family, social or professional bonds in France.

1) Remand

Since the law of January 15, 2000, the ordinary rule concerning the provisional time of detention is 4 months maximum, prolonged for a maximum of 1 year per 4 months periods. But as regards terrorism, the rules are reinforced. Thus if the concerned act is an offence likely to involve a penalty equal to 10 years, the period of detention can be 2 years[16]. But, if the concerned act is likely a crime of a penalty higher than 20 years, the period of detention will be able to go up to 3 years and even 4 for the most serious infringements[17].

During this period, the Examining Magistrate has all the power to lead his investigations[18] in the only objective of the "display of the truth" while examining "to charge and discharge"[19]. However, this is only one lure because the charge is of all its weight whereas defense has only limited means. The most obvious example is that of the course of the interrogations. According to article 114 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the Examining Magistrate must warn lawyer of the pending interrogations at the latest five working days before their date. However, this time is too short so that the defender informs his client. Moreover, the Examining Magistrate has not to make known in advance the contents of the interrogation that either one being the list of the considered questions or owing to the fact that it will be about a confrontation. Lastly, the method of interrogation is directive in the sense that the declarations of the prisoner are only partially taken into account because his answers are dictated to the clerk by the judge. The prisoner has then the option to refuse to sign the official report[20], refusal which will have legal authenticity only if it is mentioned in the official report. But it is not all. Thus, it should be known that the prisoner cannot oblige the judge to take into account an unspecified aspect of the case which he would have decided not to subject to investigation and, still worse, that the defender can be constantly stopped or prevented by the judge[21].

Thus Mr. ARIF, in a private correspondence maintained that when he was brought in front of the Examining Magistrate Jean-Louis Bruguière, he asked him: "can you say what exactly I’m accused of?". Bruguière never wanted to answer him and continued to ask him all kind of questions in connection with anything. It is noteworthy that in the case of Mr. ARIF, as four duty lawyers followed one another next to him, the fact is that his current defender can only with much difficulty get all the parts of the file in the judge’s hands.

In addition to the powers to carry out investigations placed at his disposal, the Examining Magistrate has exorbitant means of pressure on the prisoner whom he can thus maintain under constant observation. Indeed, he can order the putting in individual cell of the indicted person; what is the case of Mr. ARIF. He can prohibit any external communication of the prisoner during the first 10 days of his imprisonment (except with his lawyer) with a single renewal of measure during additional 10 days[22]. Then, all the received and sent mails (excluded those concerning the representative of defense) must forward by the judge’s office.

The Examining Magistrate is also the only one to deliver the permissions of visit[23] and there is no possible resort of the prisoner’s family in front of the Investigative Division except the fact to make periodically renew of the request when the refusal is not justified in writing, like however obliges there art. 145-4 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

Thus, Mr. ARIF’s wife, who resided already in Sweden at the day of his extradition, tried in vain to obtain a permission of visit. Her first request written or oral remained unanswered; this mother of four could obtain assistance from a Swedish lawyer settled in Paris. This lawyer asked the judge about the reasons for his silence. He replied to her that the letter had never arrived to his office but that he would not give Mr. Arif’s wife permission to visit her husband unless she personally visited his office to ask for it, all this having been orally declared. As for Mr. ARIF, informed by his wife of the difficulties encountered in this field, he received the same answer from judge Bruguière when he asked for permission for a visit from his wife.

So Mr. ARIF did not receive any visit since his imprisonment in France on June 18, 2004, except that of some of his lawyers (the second official not having ever made the journey).

2) Maison d’Arrêt (Prison)

The remands are made in Maisons d’Arrêt, French prisons of dreary reputation since the 2000 report of a senatorial commission, report entitled: "Prisons: a humiliation for the Republic"[24], itself reinforced and reaffirmed by the 2003 and 2005 reports of the International Observatory of the Prisons[25].

The main accusation made of these establishments is that of overpopulation, which involves collective activities coming down to the bare minimum, failing hygiene, bad quality of food, violence on the others and oneself.

On the basis of this report, it was recommended, inter alia, the creation of new establishments with well accommodated one-person cells.

Considering this last recommendation, the fact that Mr. ARIF is alone in his cell can seem a measure in his favour taken by the Examining Magistrate.

However, it is not the case because that imposes to Mr. ARIF a quasi total isolation without possibility of creating social bonds because he is completely cut off from his family and his friends.

But it is not the only difficulty which Mr. ARIF encountered. First of all, he had to remain almost a year without receiving money because everything is canteened within the prison. He was destitute. Indeed, the French prisons accept neither cheques nor cash, only Postal Mandat Cash (French Transfert). Thus, each time his wife tried to forward some money to him by international transfer, he received it in the form of a cheque which he could not cash without anybody condescending to explain to him why. It was necessary for his wife to get in touch with a French citizen so that this person could receive an international transfer. This was transferred immediately into Mandat Cash and finally cashed by the post orderly for Mr. ARIF.

Lastly, the problem arises of religious practice[26]. Whereas Islam is the second religion of France and probably the first in prison[27], the chaplains are only 69 (against 513 for the catholics) what renders the Friday service completely uncertain[28]. And in period of Ramadan, the meal hours are not modified[29]. Moreover, the French prisons do not provide halal food, contrary to kosher food. Thus, Mr. ARIF cannot either take refuge in a regular and ordered practice of his religion. As a practising Muslim, he cannot eat meat not prepared according to rites' imposed by his religion and, even if article D. 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure authorizes the prisoners to receive or preserve the objects of religious practice, Mr. ARIF saw himself refusing the possession of his Sebha.

Here is, at the present time, the situation of the people held in France under committal order for reason of terrorism.

Although the examination of Mr. ARIF’s file is still in hand, I can briefly present to you, from a legal point of view what could be implemented at his trial and for his penalty.

II - The trial phase

As regards terrorism, the courts of competent jurisdiction, since the Act of 9 September 1986, are centralized in Paris that it is for "délit" or crime.

A - "Délit" or crime

Thus the Criminal Division of the Tribunal de Grande Instance (TGI) of Paris is competent as regards "délit" (serious offence) while the Special Assize Court of Paris is as regards "crime" (most serious offence).

1) TGI of Paris

Currently, the criminal penalties as regards terrorism[30], for participation in a criminal conspiracy in relation with a terrorist network, are 10 years imprisonment and 225 000 euros fine[31].

If the bill which must be presented in first reading in front of the French National Assembly on next 22 November is adopted, this "délit" will be requalified crime for the leaders or organizers of the aforesaid conspiracies so that penalties of 20 years imprisonment can be applied to them[32].

2) Special Assize Court of Paris

Contrary to the ordinary Assize Courts, this one does not include a popular jury; it is only made up of 7 professional magistrates.

Currently, as regards terrorism, the criminal penalties incurred for preparation of crimes of people attack are 20 years imprisonment and 500 000 euros fine. If the bill is adopted, the incurred penalties will be 30 years.

B - The decision

1) Modes of obtaining the proof

At the time of lawsuit for terrorism, it more and more often appears that the material proofs are no longer necessary and that only confessions of intent of commission of infringement are enough, even if those were obtained in countries where torture is proven. Thus, during Mr. BEGHAL’s lawsuit, when he once more disputed the statements made under torture in The United Arab Emirates, the President of the Court, Philippe Vandingenen, replied that at the time of his first interrogation by judge Bruguière, he had disputed only certain declarations and that one would have rather expected that he disputes all of them. The Magistrate also added that even the medical examination did not corroborate his statements[33]. Mr. BEGHAL was condemned to 10 years imprisonment on March 15, 2005[34].

Quite as disconcerting is the confirmation by the Court of Appeal of Paris, in a ruling on October 4, 2005 and which to date is still not available[35], of the procedure in progress against Mr. KHALID and his fellow-prisoners, confirmation being based on the fact that the concerned men are the subject of an investigation former to their detention in Guantanamo, the prosecuting attorney going even so far, according to certain lawyers, as to recognize the "probable hearings" led in Guantanamo by the DST[36].

If one refers to these cases, the examination concerning Mr. ARIF refers to the investigation known as of the "Chechen channels". This reference is rejected by certain European authorities[37] and is only based on "confessions" without obvious material proofs[38] during arrests carried out on December 16 and 24, 2002 in Seine-Saint-Denis and probably on statements obtained by torturing Mr Arif in Syria[39], country which, according to Mr. Lucien Bitterlin, President of Solidarity French-Arabic organization, can "make the difference between the resistant ones and the terrorists"[40]. So the advanced evidence at the time of his lawsuit should be of compared to those which contributed to the sentencing of Mr. BEGHAL.

2) the inflicted penalty

Article 132-23 of the Penal Code fixes periods of safety as regards custodial sentence not combined with suspension. During this period, the convicted man can profit from no adjustment of sentence[41].

In the criminal field, if the sentence is between 5 and 10 years, the period of safety can be half of the pronounced sentence or exceptionally of the 2/3. In the criminal field, the rules are the same. But if it is about a life sentence, the period of safety will be 18 or 22 years.

When it is about terrorism, the period of safety is 22 years. It is only over the years beyond this period that the adjustments of sentence will be exerted and reductions of sentence entered during the period will be taken in to account.

Moreover, the judge can, regarding terrorism, pronounce complementary sentences such as that of the prohibition of the French territory[42]. This sentence would be carried out at the final day of imprisonment.

III - The enforcement phase

This phase is operational only when all recourse (inter alia, appeal and quashing) are extinct. Up to that point, the prisoner is not reputed to be sentenced and remains in Maison d’Arrêt; what means no telephone contact and visits of at least half an hour at least three times per week if possible.

Then, when the person is definitively sentenced for a "délit", he will be directed towards a Centre de Détention (long-term detention); in the event of criminal judgment towards a Maison Centrale (long-stay prison). In the two cases, the sentenced person will be entitled to a visiting room of at least an hour, once per week at least. However, in Centre de Détention, the telephone access will be possible once per month whereas it remains exceptional in Maison Centrale.[43]

A - Calculation of the penalty

1) Remand

According to article 716-4 of Code of Penal Procedure, the remand time is completely deduced from the sentence imposed.

The same applies, since January 1, 2005, from the times of detention undergone out of France pursuant to a European warrant for arrest or on the request for extradition and for imprisonment undergone in application.

It remains to be seen if this last measure will apply to Mr. ARIF. All will probably depend on the reason for his arrest in Syria on July 12, 2003.

2) the reduction of sentence

The reduction of sentence is a measure taken by the Judge responsible for the terms and conditions of sentences (JAP) which makes it possible to reduce the duration of the prison sentence of a definitively condemned person[44].

There are two categories of reduction of sentence, neither is automatic. The first is the Ordinary Reduction of Sentence (RPO) for "good behaviour", which cannot exceed three months per year of imprisonment.

The second is the Additional Reduction of Sentence (RPS) for "serious efforts of social rehabilitation", which is two months per year maximum and which can be granted only after one year of imprisonment.[45]

These reductions are left to the JAP’s discretion and are thus different depending on the jurisdiction where the decision takes place.

So if the anti-terrorist bill is voted, the enforcement of the sentences (thus reductions) is centralized in its turn next to the jurisdictions of the enforcement of the sentences of Paris[46]. The implication of this is a drastic management of the reductions and adjustments.

B - The double sentence

The Act of 26 November 2003[47] modified the mode of "the double sentence", i.e. the deportation of foreigners sentenced to imprisonment after carrying out their sentence.

However, that it is additional penalty of territory banning or bylaw or ministerial order of deportation[48]; it always applies to foreigners sentenced for terrorism. Thus, deportation automatically applies without taking into account the risks which these people could incur in their country of origin regardless of the fact that they have served their entire sentence.

The anti-terrorist bill, if it is adopted, would reinforce the possibility of enforcement of the "double sentence" to people sentenced for terrorism while allowing the minister in charge of naturalizations to initiate the procedure of forfeiture of French nationality and to pronounce it against people having obtained it in the previous 15 years and no longer in 10 years as it presently is [49].

1) Territory banning

In any case, the judge can pronounce a banning of French territory, against foreigners condemned within the framework of terrorism, on a purely final basis or for a 10 years period. This banning implies an immediate return to the border on the very day of the expiry of the sentence of imprisonment[50]. But this additional penalty is not automatic. The Home Office Ministry reserves the possibility of using deportation orders.

2) Deportation order

As regards terrorism, if the banning from the territory was not retained by the judge, the Minister of Home Office is then competent to take a deportation order. The resort, which is not suspensive against this decision, must take place in first instance in front of the Administrative Court and in last resort in front of the Council of State.

However, on May 19, 2004[51], the Minister of Home Office had announced that he wished "that the judge of the ministerial orders of deportation is the Council of State, in order to better reconcile the defense of the individual rights and the requirements of the republican State....". At once, the Trade Union of the Administrative Jurisdiction, the main representative organization of the administrative judges, had opposed this project which tended to deprive the Administrative Courts to the advantage of the Council of State, which would then have ruled in first instance and last resort. Last June, the Government finally decided to give up removing the Administrative Courts, therefore the examination of these litigations on the other hand will soon be allotted, in first authority, to the only Administrative Court of Paris[52]. Once again, the will of centralization is proven.

Thus, if it occurred that Mr. ARIF is sentenced without the judge applying to him the additional penalty of territory banning, the Minister of Home Office could take against him a deportation order without major risk that it is overruled by the Administrative Court of Paris or in last resort by the Council of State. It is enough, to be convinced, to consider the significant case of Mohamed CHALABI: released from prison in January 2001, this Algerian born in France, father of four French children, was deported on November 6 of the same year. The French authorities affirmed that he did not run any risk in Algeria. However, on his arrival, Mr. CHALABI was imprisoned, the Algerian authorities having revealed a judgment in abstentia for "terrorist crimes and subversion" and an international warrant for arrest unknown to Interpol[53].

In conclusion: why did I choose to speak about anti-terrorist French "Policy" and not about "Legislation"? Because the purpose of the anti-terrorist laws is not primarily to defend its citizens but is a political and economical integrity of the French State.

Thus, the opening to the public in last May of a data base[54] on Internet concerning terrorism was presented by the Home Office as follows: "acts of terrorism aiming at France or French interests in the world"[55]. Although this site is public, it is to be notable that it is obligatory, to reach the data base, to provide one’s identity through an email address.

One can then wonder whether the recognition and the place granted to the organization "SOS Attentats"[56] by the authorities does not have like prime objective to contain and control the anger and the frustration of the victims and families and friends of victims and, for some time, to also be able to manipulate the justifided and understandable pain of these people for electoral ends. Indeed, how could one reproach a mother destroyed by the loss of her daughter in the attacks of 1995 to declare about Rachid Ramda: "He is directly responsible as the financier. He must be judged. It is necessary that he answers for his acts"[57]. So the populist statement of Nicolas Sarkozy on his return from London[58] does not shock anybody anymore in spite of the refusal of the presumption of innocence: "I hope from all my heart that he (Rachid Ramda) will be able to return (to France), to be accountable of what he did, to be punished and condemned". I cannot prevent myself from bringing this formula closer to the statement of the same one who, although he was a lawyer, had already declared at a public meeting of the UMP, on July 4, 2003, without that shocks whoever: "I have something very significant to say to you: twenty minutes ago, the French police force seized Yvan Colonna, the murderer of the prefect Erignac."[59]

Whereas the current trend is a decentralization of great scale, concerning all the significant domains of the society (health, environment, employment), the treatment of terrorism is centred on Paris while referring to specialized courts and personnel which depend more and more on the only Home Office which becomes, little by little, more powerful than all other Ministries[60].

This neo-centralization, based on the consecutive reforms of the Penal Code and the Code of Penal Procedure now affects the administrative domain and judicial power. This phenomenon is proof that the system is failing and therefore only interested in continuing by denying, with a back-handed blow, the great underlying principles of our Law. We have entered the era of the "whole law-and-order" with the help of lots of presumption of culpability and lawsuit for intention, the stigmatization of Islam while only being the immediately visible part because this is most likely to strike popular imagination.

Notes

[1] Act n° 86-1020: specialization of the magistrates, Parisian centralization of the investigations, prosecutions and judgements, bringing together the activities of PJ (Criminal Investigation Department) and DST (Secret Service).

[2] With reinforcement of the identity checks, the visits of vehicles, the house searches, the luggage searches and safety palpations.

[3] With obligation for the suppliers of Internet access to preserve and put at disposal the personal data of their customers.

[4] http://www.libertysecurity.org/article436.html

[5]"Constitute acts of terrorism, [... ] the voluntary violations of life, the voluntary violations of integrity of the person, abduction and sequestration as well as hijacking, ship or any other means of transport, [... ]; robberies, extortions, destructions, degradations and deteriorations, as well as the data-processing matter infringements [... ]; infringements as regards fighting groups and dissolved movements [... ]; the manufacture or the detention of machines, fatal machines or explosives [... ]; production, sale, import or export of explosive substances [...]; acquisition, detention, transport or illegitimate carrying of manufactured machines with assistance of the aforesaid substances [... ]; detention, carrying and transport of firearms and of munitions [... ]; the receiving of such goods [... ]; infringements of laundering [... ]; offences of initiate [... ]." http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/

[6] http://www.lemonde.fr/web/imprimer_element/0,40-0@2-3226,50-704343,0.html

[7] http://www.interieur.gouv.fr/rubriques/a/a5_communiques/2004_06_17_arif

[8] http://archquo.nouvelobs.com/cgi/articles?ad=societe/20040618.OBS1274.html&host=http://permanent.nouvelobs.com/

[9] http://www.lepoint.fr/dossiers_monde/document.html?did=159292

[10] Art. 706-73, 3 and 11 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

[11] http://www.rfi.fr/actufr/articles/054/impr/article_26774.asp

[12] http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/FRAMDE240142001?open&of=FRA-384

[13] http://quibla.net/guantanamo/guanta28.htm

[14] http://www.algeria-watch.de/fr/article/just/beghal/recit_detaille.htm

[15] Incorrect link (ed)

[16] Art. 145-1 and 145-3 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

[17] Art. 145-1 and 145-2 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

[18] Art. 94, 100, 102 and 156 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

[19] Art. 81 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

[20] Art. 106 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

[21] Art. 120 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

[22] Art. 145-4 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

[23] Art. 145-5 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

[24] http://www.senat.fr/rap/l99-449/l99-449.html

[25] OIP, « Les Conditions de détention en France, rapport 2003 », (Conditions of detention in France, 2003 report) éd. La Découverte, Paris, 2003.

http://www.oip.org/actualite/confpresse201005.pdf

[26] Art. D. 432 à D. 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

[27] Khosrokhavar Fahrad, « L’Islam en prison », (Islam in prison), éd. Balland, Paris, 2004.

[28] « Placer un détenu musulman au mitard pour une prière est disproportionné, selon la justice » (to shut up a Muslim detainee in solitary confinement for a prayer is disproportionate, according to justice) http://www.minorites.org/article.php?IDA=7930

[29] http://prison.eu.org/article.php3?id_article=3424&var_recherche=Islam

[30] Art. 421-2-1 of Penal Code.

[31] Art. 421-5 of Penal Code.

[32] http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/html/actualite/actualite_legislative/exp_terrorisme.htm (art. 9)

[33] http://www.algeria-watch.de/fr/article/just/beghal/tortures.htm

[34] http://www.algerie-dz.com/article1692.html

[35] [35] To date, the update of the official website Legifrance, with regard to all the legal matter rulings, is limited to last 21 September. http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/WAspad/RechercheSimpleCass.jsp

[36] http://lemonde.fr/web/depeches/texte/0,14-0,39-25806023,0.html. These two arguments, if they appear exact, first of all pose the problem of the real recognition by the French authorities of the illegality of the arbitrary detention of these men in American zone of non-right, but much more that of the good faith of our own justice which refers to what can be only white notes of the RG (French Intelligence Service) to validate the procedure, since judges Bruguière and Ricard opened examination of the file only at November 6, 2002, date on which 7 French had been already in American hand for several months.

[37] http://www.monde-solidaire.org/spip/article.php3?id_article=1123

[38] http://www.humanite.presse.fr/journal/2002-12-28/2002-12-28-216408

[39] "My client was held during one year in Syria under very hard conditions. The statements which emanate from this year of detention are really of doubtful validity" http://quibla.net/guantanamo/guanta/guanta28/htm

[41] Deferred sentence, split sentence, external placing, permissions to leave, semi-imprisonment and release on parole.

[42] Art. 131-30 of Penal Code.

[43] Art. D. 410, D. 52 and D. 441, D. 417 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

[44] Art. 721 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

[45] Art. 721-1 of Code of Criminal Procedure.[46] http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/html/actualite/actualite_legislative/exp_terrorisme.htm (art. 10)

[47]Act relating to the control of immigration and the stay of foreigners in France.

[48]Bylaw in the event of "serious threat for public order" and ministerial order in case of "absolute emergency" and/or "pressing need for State or public safety", decree of January 13, 1997.

[49] http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/html/actualite/actualite_legislative/exp_terrorisme.htm (art. 11)

[50] Art. 131-30 of Penal Code.

[51] http://www.opuscitatum.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=304

[52] Art. R. 312-1 & R. 312-8 of Administrative Justice Code.

[53] http://www.algeria-watch.org/mrv/mrvref/chalabi_bavure.htm

[54] http://www.frstrategie.org/

[55] http://archquo.nouvelobs.com/cgi/articles?ad=societe/20050307.FAP9207.html&host=http://permanent.nouvelobs.com/

[56] http://www.sos-attentats.org/index.asp?lan_id=fr

[57] BBC 4 Radio, File on 4, Tuesday October 11, 2005.

[58] http://permanent.nouvelobs.com/etranger/20051010.FAP8054.html?1803

[59] http://www.rfi.fr/actufr/articles/043/article_22807.asp

[60] In an interview granted to the AFP on October 26, 2005, Dominique de Talancé, first examining magistrate for financial files, denounced the "seizure of the State Counsel's Office on the penal chain [...] for better controlling the files" and "the designation of the judges on political or docility criteria".