Margot Pugliese, lawyer for the accused Brahim Tritrou, believes that the trial will not meet all the expectations of the families of victims.
The defendants have no direct connection with the attack. Isn’t the hearing disproportionate to these charges?
I think there is a complete disproportion. In such a case, it was difficult for the judges to distinguish the situation of the defendants, all referred to a special anti-terrorist assize court.
At the end of this trial, the victims will not have the answers they expect. He will undoubtedly harbor a lot of disappointment, perhaps even resentment. The accused that I am defending has no place before an assize court to rule on terrorism matters. He has no connection with the attack.
Five of the defendants, including your client Brahim Tritrou, are being prosecuted for common law offences. Why not organize a separate trial?
Technically, there should have been a disjunction for all the people prosecuted in this part.
I will not explain this choice too much, except to think that we wanted to organize a hearing with many defendants, perhaps to satisfy the civil parties. But given the general economy of the file, there was no need.
Are you contesting the incrimination of criminal association?
The association of criminals, in matters of terrorism or in matters of common law, was created to encompass a large number of acts. Even if this offense is broadly defined, what Mr. Tritrou is accused of does not make it possible to characterize an association of criminals. He was held in pre-trial detention for an exorbitant period – 25 months. His father died and he couldn’t go to the funeral.
He has already benefited from a dismissal for the terrorist circumstance. He is still accused of having put in contact two people who already knew each other. I hope the trial will lead to his dismissal.