The man who was sentenced in France to life imprisonment for attempting to attack a Thalys train in 2015 was requested by the federal prosecutor’s office to testify via videoconference in the trial of the March 22, 2016 attacks in Brussels. However, despite the prosecution citing the high cost and security risks of transferring the detainee to Belgium, the court ruled that a physical testimony was preferable and dismissed the prosecution’s request, giving reason to the defense of Ali El Haddad Asufi and Bilal El Makhoukhi. The prosecution also requested testimonies from Bilal Chatra, Muhammad Usman, and Adel Haddadi, but all three refused to testify, and the prosecution renounced their testimonies.
During the trial, Salah Abdeslam claimed that a letter titled “Abou Abderrahman” had been written to give pledges of his loyalty, one or one and a half months following the attacks in Paris. The accused also revealed that he was asked if he was ready to perform an operation on his own, but he refused. He added that he was waiting for a road to open to Syria so he might leave.
The accused Mohamed Abrini returned to the legal battle over the transfer of the accused detained at the trial of the Brussels attacks. He disputed the transfer conditions, which included wearing a mask and a helmet and being exposed to loud music during transfers between cities. Abrini pointed out that these conditions created inconsistencies and contradictions in his hearings and added that the pressure of the police and the stress also affected his responses during the hearings.
The federal prosecutor’s office had requested that the man, sentenced in France to life imprisonment for the failed attack on a Thalys train in 2015, be heard by videoconference in the context of the trial of the attacks of March 22, 2016 in Brussels. .
According to the prosecution, the use of videoconferencing was justified by the high cost and the security risks of transferring the detainee to Belgium. However, the court ruled in its judgment that these difficulties did not create an impossibility and that a testimony on the spot was preferable, de facto dismissing the request of the federal prosecutor’s office and giving reason to the defense of the accused Ali El Haddad Asufi and Bilal El Makhoukhi, who had pleaded for Ayoub El-Khazzani to be physically brought to Justitia.
Trial of the attacks in Brussels: following the attacks in Paris, Salah Abdeslam “was not to return” to Belgium
The initial request from the prosecution also concerned Bilal Chatra, who was to participate in the foiled attack in the Thalys but who had fled a few days earlier, as well as Muhammad Usman and Adel Haddadi. The latter had not been able to join in time the terrorist commandos responsible for the attacks of November 13, 2015 in Paris. The three men, also sentenced to heavy prison terms in France, nevertheless refused to testify and the prosecution therefore renounced their testimonies.
Salah Abdeslam says he had to “give pledges” of his loyalty on his return from Paris
Salah Abdeslam said on Tuesday, during the interrogation of the defendants in the trial of the attacks of March 22, 2016 in Brussels, that the letter entitled “Abou Abderrahman” (nom de guerre of Salah Abdeslam, Editor’s note) and in which the man writes wanting “finishing the job” in Europe had been written a month or a month and a half following the attacks in Paris to “give pledges” of his loyalty. “These are just words. Between the words and the passage to the act, there is a margin”, explained the one who was to blow himself up in Paris on November 13, 2015. “When I came back from Paris and I explained that my belt was defective, they had doubts and asked me for pledges. I will not say who asked me, but they are no longer in this world.”
“I wanted to go back to Syria, but they told me it was too dangerous because I was public enemy number 1 and I risked being arrested,” continued Salah Abdeslam. “They didn’t want to take the risk of me being snitched if I got arrested. They also didn’t want to let me out to see my family.”
“I was asked if I was ready to do an operation on my own if they gave me a Kalashnikov, for example. I categorically refused. There, I was told that they would find me a way to Syria because I had ‘nothing to do here'”, said the accused, adding that he was waiting in the hideout on rue du Dries for such a road to open.
“You know, there’s not much alternative when you’re caught up in this kind of situation. Either you die a martyr, or you go back to Syria. I wanted to go to Syria,” concluded the accused.
Poor transfer terms lead to inconsistencies in auditions, says Abrini
Asked regarding a detail of his hearings which he disputes, the accused Mohamed Abrini returned on Tuesday to the legal battle concerning the conditions for the transfer of the accused detained at the trial of the Brussels attacks. “That’s why I fought. How do you want to answer correctly” following having had a mask on the eyes and music in the ears for hours?, insisted, before the Brussels Assize Court , the one who gave up blowing himself up in Zaventem on March 22, 2016. Returning to a hearing dating back to October 2018, the vice-president of the court, Thibaut de Sauvage, quoted comments by Mohamed Abrini placing Salah Abdeslam in the Schaerbeek apartment on rue Max Roos. What “the man with the hat” disputed: “I don’t know why I said that that day” or “why the investigator noted that”.
“That’s why I fought” once morest the transfer conditions (wearing a mask and a helmet, strip searches, etc.). “How do you expect questions to be answered correctly? I was questioned from Bruges to Brussels, from Brussels to Beveren. It’s hours of travel. You are put on a mask and a sound that just drives you crazy”, he pointed out, in reference to the loud music the defendants were exposed to at the start of the transfers.
“These are not things to do if you want quality hearings, without inconsistency or contradiction. To that, we must add the pressure of the police, the stress, …” After the transfer, he continued , “you are brought before a judge or an investigator and you still have to answer questions all day.”
“I don’t understand how you can do things like that,” he concluded.
The legal battle surrounding the trial of the attacks of March 22, 2016 in Brussels continues, with the court dismissing the federal prosecutor’s office’s request for Ayoub El-Khazzani to testify via videoconference. While the prosecution argued that the high cost and security risks of transporting the detainee to Belgium justified the use of videoconferencing, the court deemed on-site testimony preferable. Other defendants, such as Bilal Chatra, Muhammad Usman, and Adel Haddadi, also refused to testify. The trial continues with Salah Abdeslam making new revelations regarding his loyalty pledges and his desire to go to Syria. However, inconsistencies in auditions due to poor transfer conditions have led to disputes from some of the accused. The quest for justice and closure for the victims and their families remains ongoing.
