It is the controversy that rumbles before the opening of the trial of the attacks of March 22: the glass box created to measure for the defendants of this trial. Imagine individual glass cells, with a small slot through which the accused can talk with their lawyer installed in front of the box. For the defense, this installation undermines the presumption of innocence. And jeopardizes the holding of the trial.
Stanislas Eskenazi, Mohamed Abrini’s lawyer, does not beat around the bush: “JI will refuse to participate in this trial which, in my view, would constitute a sham trial if the defendants are presented in this way”. For the lawyer, this box undermines the presumption of innocence of the accused: “These people must be able to appear in a way that does not presume them guilty from the start and the system as it is today gives the impression that we are dealing with people who are guilty. There is a manifest violation of the presumption of innocence”he concludes.
It makes them look like they’re guilty
Another problem raised by the lawyer: communication. Currently, the boxes are equipped with a slot like a mailbox. Impossible to communicate properly with the defendants. These difficulties are also raised by Jonathan De Taye who represents Ali El Haddad Asuffi. Like his colleague, the Brussels lawyer was present in Paris for the trial of the attacks of November 13. Both recall that the Paris trial took place peacefully. The accused stood square in their large glass box. They appeared seated side by side, almost shoulder to shoulder, surrounded by numerous police officers. For Me De Taye, with these small glazed cells, “Belgian justice takes the risk of a work-to-rule, that the accused refuse to appear at the hearing”.
On the side of the civil parties
The opinions are diverse on the side of the civil parties concerning these individual glazed boxes. For Adrien Masset, who represents the association V-Europe, the right balance must be found between security issues and the correct conditions in which the accused will be heard. In this case, he believes that the glass box respects this happy medium as long as the defendants can discuss with their lawyer. “As for the rest, the defendants do not need to discuss among themselves. As for the presumption of innocence which would be undermined, I do not have the feeling that they are guilty before being judged”.
Another victims’ association, another lawyer. Me Olivia Venet is a member of the collective of lawyers of the association Life 4 Brussels. After having exchanged with several victims, what emerges mainly is the will that this trial takes place calmly in the respect of the rights of the defense and in the respect of the victims. Victims who are waiting for answers and who will only be able to receive them if the accused appear at the hearing. As for the box, “some victims are very afraid of meeting the gaze of the accused, of being face to face with them for the first time. This box will put a little distance, a distance that can reassure”.
Consulted by Life 4 Brussels, several victims also positioned themselves on the glass box. Some believe that this box will give a sense of security to both jurors and victims, victims who say they still live in fear six years after the attacks. Other victims are still driven by a feeling of anger and believe that this box is no less inhuman than the acts committed by the terrorists.
Is this the first trial with a glass box?
The defendants of another major trial in Belgian judicial history were judged in a glass box. In 2004, before the Assize Court of Arlon, Marc Dutroux, Michelle Martin and their accomplices were tried in a box with armored windows.