Faced with reasons of state, the last and only bastion is the judge – (French Lawyer)

NCRI – “We have to be very pleased about the decision of the European Court of December 12, 2006 because this decision, though imperfect and replete with ambiguities, reminds that ultimately, faced with reasons of state, the last and only bastion is the judge”, the French lawyer William Bourdon, a member of the Paris Bar, said in his address to the international conference in Paris on February, 5th.

NCRI – “We have to be very pleased about the decision of the European Court of December 12, 2006 because this decision, though imperfect and replete with ambiguities, reminds that ultimately, faced with reasons of state, the last and only bastion is the judge”, the French lawyer William Bourdon, a member of the Paris Bar, said in his address to the international conference in Paris on February, 5th.
 
The conference dealt the verdict of the European Court of Justice which cancelled the decision of the EU Council of Ministers to include the People’s Mojahedin of Iran – the main opposition to the regime – in the EU terrorism list. It also addressed the reaction by the EU in refusing to comply with the Court verdict.

Pre-eminent experts in Community law and human rights advocates from across Europe attended the conference to present their views on this issue. Maryam Rajavi, President-elect of the Iranian Resistance, also spoke to the conference.
 
The following is the transcript of the speech by William Bourdon:
 
It is true, we have to be very pleased about the decision of the European Court of December 12, 2006 because this decision, though imperfect and replete with ambiguities, reminds that ultimately, faced with reasons of state, the last and only bastion is the judge.” The European judges resisted in a certain way against the pressure existing throughout the world today against all democratic judges from democratic countries, and this pressure is very high.
 
We must understand that the invoking the fight against terrorism and the universalization of fear among people also explain the difficulty of the judges’ task. We saw with Guantanamo case that it took two years for the United States Supreme Court, as the guardian of the rule of law, to awaken. Therefore, this decision is undoubtedly inadequate.
 
We see that it has been immediately attacked. Yet, attacks from Brussels won’t annihilate this decision which for us, French lawyers and others, is going to be an essential tool to obtain from French investigating magistrates that the only decision that my clients deserve in one which acknowledges once and for all and unequivocally their complete innocence.
 
As the analysis of the file shows, and it is an important point, this grievous blacklisting as terrorist movement is not only used by investigating magistrates, but it is also the mainstay of the indictment in France. This mainstay can be found in the 2003 reports of the DST which led to the disastrous operation starting on June 17, 2003 in Auvers-sur-Oise. The grievous blacklisting can be found in all detention verdicts given in late June 2003, fortunately and promptly corrected by the Paris Court of Appeal – something unprecedented in the history of French justice.

This grievous blacklisting can be found in all cross-examinations, where there were cross-examinations because they were very few, of the NCRI representatives. This grievous blacklisting can be found in all verdicts returned in 2004 and in 2005 to wrongly deprive my clients from an adjustment of the excessive probation imposed on them.
 
This grievous blacklisting can also be found again and again in all reports presented by public prosecutors and which, as we know it today, were only the Trojan horses of the Iranian secret service; they were finally expelled from the case by a recent decision of the Paris Court of Appeal.
 
Therefore, the judge is the last bastion against the attempt of the reasons of state to exploit the judicial authority. There were not only European judges, but also the French administrative judge, who when dealing with issue of the internal exile and the expulsion of Iranian political refugees, recalled, and I quote,  “Nothing indicates from the evidence of the case that the militant organisation of  the Mojahedin had at the time of the decision a behaviour on the national territory likely to have constituted an offence against national security and public safety, as in this respect, the documents presented by the prefecture do not prove nor put forward any involvement in criminal activities on the French national territory”.
 
So, what remains in the file? What remains in this file is the fantasy of some individuals blinded and exploited by the Iranian secret service; what remains is a logic which is not a judicial logic, but an extrajudicial logic which quite obviously continues to inspire and to guide the acts of French jurists.
 
This must cease.
 
With Henri Leclerc and others, on the basis of the decision of the European Court of December 12, 2006, we are going to take strong initiatives with your support so that the complete and absolute innocence of Maryam Rajavi and all the representatives of the NCRI is permanently and completely acknowledged.

 
Thank you.