IHF FOCUS: freedom of
expression and the media; judicial system; police powers, detainees’ rights and
the right to privacy; prison conditions; freedom of religion; intolerance and
xenophobia; asylum seekers and immigrants.
The dominant
human rights theme in
Internal
security remained a priority for the government in the context of the fight
against terrorism. The newly adopted law on internal security raised criticism
for expanding the powers of police excessively, relaxing the requirements
necessary for searches, and for allowing retention of information about
suspects.
The “Perben law” was also severely criticized by civil groups for
undermining the fundamental principles of the judicial system. The new law was
also considered a major setback in the rights of the media, particularly as
concerned the confidentiality of journalists’ sources and the right of
journalists not to reveal their sources.
During the
year, the
A disturbing
tendency was the rise of anti-Semitism in schools, described as a “true danger”
by the education minister. The government stepped up its efforts to stem
anti-Semitic violence and an interministerial committee on racism and
anti-Semitism was established by decree.
Political
discourse on the growing phenomenon of Islamophobia was also intense. On a
positive note, the first elections for the French Council of the Muslim Faith
(CFCM) were held on 13 April. About 4,000 appointed electors were authorized to
vote for representatives from 995 of
Freedom of Expression and the Media
A generally
respected 1881 law regulated the freedom of speech and of the press. However,
the ECtHR has held
On 18 July,
Reporters without Borders, called on the French government to repeal sections
of the press laws that contravened the ECHR, namely article 2 of the 1931 law
(publicizing civil parties involved in a court case), article 14 of the 1881
law (foreign publications) and article 36 of the same law (disrespect to
foreign heads of states).
The
“Perben Law” which planned to adapt the justice system to the development of
crime was considered a major step backwards in the right of the press, particularly
as it concerned confidentiality of journalists’ sources and the right of
journalists not to reveal their sources of information. Under the new law, the
submission of information was no longer constrained by an obligation to respect
the notion of “professional secrecy.”
On 20
November, Reporters without Borders called on party leaders in the parliament
to strike down an amendment to the press law, which would extend to a year the
deadline for prosecuting journalists for defamation or insult. Article 16 of
the “Perben II Law” (see Judicial System, below), which would amend article 65
of the 1881 law so that the automatic three-month extension (during which
prosecution must begin) of the initial three-month deadline (during which suits
must be filed) would be extended to a year. The new provisions were considered,
“a frontal attack on the rights of journalists and a threat to investigative
reporting.”[4]
·
On 23
October, a
On 24 July,
senior defense official, Didier Lallemand, signed a decree classifying
information about the nuclear industry as a national defense secret.[5]
Journalists were especially targeted by the decree as they risked criminal
penalties including prison sentences of up to five years if they reported on
matters falling under the terms referenced by the decree. Reporters without
Borders, Writer-Journalists for Nature and the Environment and the Association
of Environmental Journalists (AJE) called on the government to rescind the
decree.
Judicial
System
Double Jeopardy
In 2003, the ECtHR held
On 26 November, the French National Assembly amended the 1945 Act
relating to the conditions of entry and residence of aliens in
The “double jeopardy” provision was a sanction allowing the expulsion of
a delinquent foreigner after he/she had served a term of imprisonment. At the
initiative of Cimade (an NGO providing legal and administrative assistance to
foreigners and asylum seekers), a large number of local and national
organizations launched a national campaign against the “double jeopardy”
provision at the end of 2001. The objective of the campaign was to abolish the
existing discrepancy between punishment given French nationals and foreigners.
Statistics showed that on average, six out of ten persons expelled had lived in
·
On 15
July, the ECtHR found
·
The
catalyst for political change was the case of Cherif Bouchelag, an Algerian
father of six French children, who was arrested one week after his release from
prison and was subjected to an expulsion order. Under pressure from several
MPs, Interior Minister Sarkozy was forced to repeal the order. Then after
announcing the repeal, Sarkozy called once more for deportation. Finally, on 14
September, the regional Commission of Deportation declared itself against the
deportation of Bouchelag, stating that he was no longer regarded dangerous to
French public order.
The Bouchelag case
triggered a political debate leading to the decision by the interior minister
to create an inter-ministerial commission to prepare a report on the issue. In
March, the government presented plans to abolish the “double jeopardy”
provision. Sarkozy stated that the provision was “inhumane” and “detrimental to
the general interest as it leads to the break-up of families.”[9] The
law as amended, protects from expulsion foreigners who have resided in
Justice System Law
Discussions on the
“Perben II Law” were controversial. The draft law was submitted by the justice
minister to the Council of Ministers on 9 April with the stated purpose of
“adapting the law to the development of crime.” The text was adopted on second
reading by the National Assembly on 27 November[10] and
by the Senate on first reading on
The law, which was to
provide the judicial framework for the implementation of the internal security
law, modified as many as 350 articles of the Code of Criminal Procedure and 70
articles of the Penal Code. Its main premise was to empower the justice system
to combat organized crime by reinforcing the powers of police, making it
easier, for example, to infiltrate mafia networks and to intercept telephone
conversations and electronic mail. Civil society groups severely criticized the
new provisions for undermining the fundamental principles of the judicial
system, namely the independence of the judicial system, the presumption of
innocence, and the existence of the right of protection for minors.[12]
The most controversial provisions were those undercutting the principle
of presumption of innocence. The newly installed “pleading guilty” procedure
allowed prosecutors to propose a sentence without a court hearing, on the basis
of a preliminary acknowledgement of guilt. The former president of the
Constitutional Council, Robert Badinter, stated that the procedure was “fraught
with dangers” and “contravenes European principles.”[13] The
chairman of the Texts Committee of the National Bar Council reaffirmed that the
“necessary equilibrium between the power of accusation and the right to defense
is upset.”[14] On 28 November, the
president of the National Federation of Young Lawyers (FNUJA) addressed an open
letter to the justice minister announcing the readiness of young lawyers to
block the “pleading guilty” procedure. FNUJA found the definition of organized
crime to be imprecise and warned against the risks of arbitrariness.[15]
Police Powers, Detainees’ Rights and Right to Privacy
Security Law
After the adoption of a 2000 bill
which set the priorities in the field of internal security,[16] the
government embarked on a fast track to install a new Internal Security Law
(LSI).[17] A
draft was submitted by the interior minister on
The LSI’s legislative
provisions centered on four main premises: upgrading the role of territorial
units in the new institutional structure to ensure security; reinforcing the
role of prefects in crime prevention; extending the list offences to include,
for example, prostitution and the establishment of squatters’ camps; and
reinforcing the powers of and the means available to the police. For example,
it relaxed requirements for searches and for keeping information about
suspects, eliminated the obligation to notify suspects to remain silent, and
allowed for DNA fingerprinting for anyone on suspicion of committing an
offense. The law targeted prostitution, making it a crime punishable by two
months imprisonment and a 3,750-euro fine. Squatters were also threatened with
six months in jail and a fine of €3,750.
Despite 400 amendments before it was adopted, the LSI was still
considered a “threat to the republic” and an “attack on people’s liberties” by
several MPs and senators of the opposition.[19]
The months
preceding adoption of the LSI saw a mobilization of civil society groups
against it. There were numerous demonstrations against it while it underwent
examination in the parliaments. On 8 January, about thirty civil groups and
opposition parties called for manifestations in all towns of the country to
protest against the law. On 11 January, a big demonstration was convened in
In an appeal
issued in January, civil society groups stated that the protection of security
should “not subject citizens to the state’s discretionary powers.”[20] The
National Confederation of Lawyers rendered its opinion on the law stating that
the protection of security does not justify the use of the adopted proposed
measures.[21]
Prisons
The debate on prison
conditions continued to be relevant throughout the year. The publication of the
testimony Chief Doctor at the Santé Prison by Veronique Vasseur in 2000
had triggered a heated public debate on the deterioration of prison conditions.
Two parliamentary reports, Prisons: Humiliation for the Republic and France
Facing its Prisons, published in June 2000, had further condemned the
malfunctioning of the French prison system.[22]
Overpopulation continued to be the primary factor for the deteriorating
conditions. As of 1 July, there were 60,963 prisoners in the country, the
highest number ever, while the capacity was officially 48,600. The amnesty of
14 July helped reduce the number to 59,169, which still represented an increase
of 5.9% for the year. In an attempt to redress the problem, the government
approved a prison reform bill in 2002. Under the plan, 30 new prisons with
13,200 more places are to be constructed by 2007.
Plans for the construction of new prisons, however, drew some criticism.
The International Observatory of Prisons (OIP) commented that such plans
“create the illusion of prisons as panacea for social problems.”[23] In
its report, Conditions of Detentions in France, the OIP criticized the preference of the judicial
system for imprisonment rather than for alternative punishments.[24] In
April, Jean-Luc Warsman, a parliamentarian, submitted a report on alternatives
to detention, modalities for serving sentences and the preparation of prisoners
for their release as solicited by the interior minister in October 2002.[25] As
alternative punishments, the report proposed the increase of places for
semi-detention from 1,900 to 5,000, more frequent use of electronic
surveillance to cover 3,000 prisoners compared to 200 in 2003, and the increase
of labor options.
The OIP report drew attention to the poor state of affairs of the prison
system by highlighting two issues: bad living conditions and mistreatment and
violence among detainees. These were considered
the root causes of suicides in prison facilities, the number of which has
steadily increased for the last 20 years. The number rose from 39 cases in 1980
to 104 in 2001, to 122 in 2002, and to 73 just during the first six months of
2003. This was seven times higher than
the number of cases outside of the French prison system and was one of the
highest in
On 11-18 June, a delegation from the European Committee for the
Prevention of Torture (CPT) visited the Loos Remand Prison, the Toulon Remand
Prison, the Clairvaux Prison, and the reception and judicial investigation
departments of the 9th and 16th districts of
·
On 27
November, the ECtHR found
Freedom of Religion
State and Religion
The management
of religious issues in
In 2003, the
topic of laicité took on a new life after several Muslim girls were
expelled from schools when they refused to remove their headscarves. The first
such case to make headlines occurred in 1989 in Creil (
On 3 July,
president Chirac established a commission presided over by Bernard Stasi, “to
reflect upon the application of the principle of laicité.” The
commission recommended, among other things, drafting a law on laicism with a
special provision banning the conspicuous wearing of religious symbols such as
crosses, headscarves (hijab) and
skullcaps in public places. President Chirac endorsed the proposals in a speech
on 17 December.
The
recommendation by the commission to ban the wearing of conspicuous religious
symbols in public places triggered prompt opposition from three French
Christian churches: the Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox, as well as from the
Muslim and Jewish communities. The French Council of the Muslim Faith (CFCM)
stated that the Stasi report “stigmatized” Muslims in the country and addressed
an open letter to president Chirac asking him not to endorse the
recommendation. There were protests amongst
On 10
February, the National Assembly passed the bill by a large majority.[28] It
went to the Senate for approval. It is expected to come into effect for the new
school year starting in September 2004 and will apply in
Minority Religions
The About-Picard law, which came into force in May 2001, remained
effective. It placed severe restrictions on the formation of associations,
granting courts the power to dissolve a religious association if it or its
representatives had been convicted of more than one criminal offence. A
resolution 2002 by the PACE criticized the law and noted that it would be up to
the ECtHR alone to determine whether this law was in violation of the ECHR.[29]
·
On 16
December, the ECtHR found
·
In March,
Jean-Pierre Brard, rapporteur of the parliamentary commission on sects, decided
to go to the Court of Cassation after his conviction on grounds of defamation
against Jehovah’s Witnesses at the end of 2002. He wrote a report, which was
published in September 2001 by the monthly magazine 15-25 ans COM, in which he accused the Jehovah’s Witnesses of using
the same methods as international criminals. On
The
Interministerial Mission of Fight against Sects (MILS), which had been
established in 1998 to coordinate the monitoring of sects by the government,
was widely criticized for its activities. In 2002, the government had
acknowledged the criticism and set up a new body, the Interministerial Mission
of Vigilance and Fight against Sectarian Deviation (MIVILUDES). Despite the
change of name, laudable efforts to define the concept of “sectarian
deviances,” less aggressive language and apparently different objectives,
nothing changed in practice. According to the first annual report of the
MIVILUDES, which was published in January 2004, the targets were no longer
sects but sectarian deviation of solely new religious movements (NRM): “healing
movements, pseudo-evangelical groups, and apocalyptic and eastern movements.”
Jehovah’s Witnesses, the
Many
congregations of Jehovah’s Witnesses won important cases in administrative
courts and on those grounds, the Interior Ministry could grant them the status
of association cultuelle, which is the most favourable status enjoyed by
associations linked to historical religions. However, the MIVILUDES report did
not mention those developments.
The NRM system
of surveillance and denunciation put into place by the MILS was used by the
MIVILUDES. Vigilance committees in 56 departements, under the authority
of the prefect (Ministry of the Interior), various services of the Health
Ministry, the Ministry of Justice, directors and teachers of public schools,
the Ministries of Economy and Finances (tax department and customs department),
the medical and pharmaceutical association, and others were charged with the
task of tracking “sectarian deviances” in NRM.
Intolerance and Xenophobia
An important
development in the combat against racism and xenophobia was the introduction of
the Lellouche bill on 3 February. It made it possible to impose harsher
penalties on racist, anti-Semitic and xenophobic acts. Acts of violence on the
basis of race, religion or ethnic background became “aggravated acts.”[31]
Anti-Semitism
The discourse
on anti-Semitism was intense throughout the year. One of the most disturbing
tendencies was the rise of anti-Semitism in schools, described as a “true
danger” by the education minister. Some 455 racist and anti-Semitic incidents
were recorded in French schools in the autumn term of the 2002-2003 academic
year alone. Most of the incidents involved verbal attacks and offensive
graffiti.
·
On 15
November, a fire broke out in the brand new building of the Merkaz Hatorah
school in the
·
On 17
December, two high-school students were expelled from a prestigious school in
The situation
was thoroughly analyzed by the sociologist, Emmanuel Brenner, who assembled a
200-page book, The Lost Territories of
the Republic, recounting dozens of
incidents in which students directed ethnic slurs at Jews and ridiculed
lectures on the Holocaust.[32]
On 27
February, the education minister presented a ten-point program of action to
combat anti-Semitism and racism in schools. It included special teams to
identify and track incidents with the aid of mediators, tougher penalties and
handbooks for teachers. On 19 December, an inter-ministerial meeting to find
ways to combat acts of anti-Semitism in schools took place at the interior
ministry. The objective of the meeting was to identify practical and efficient
measures to better prevent and inhibit such acts and to alert people about
them.
In the wake of
the firebombing of the Jewish school in Gagny, the government stepped up its
efforts to stem anti-Semitic violence. On 8 December, an inter-ministerial
committee on racism and anti-Semitism was established by decree. The committee,
chaired by the prime minister, is made up of the Ministries of Interior,
Justice, Foreign Affairs, Social Affairs, Youth, Education, and Urban Affairs.
It is to draw up an inter-ministerial plan of action and monitor its
implementation.
In a
memorandum of 21 March, the minister of justice asked public prosecutors to be
vigilant regarding possible racist, anti-Semitic or xenophobic offences and requested
such offences be prosecuted in the highest possible category of offence. In
another memorandum, of 18 November, the minister of justice asked each
Prosecutor’s Office to appoint a special magistrate to handle relations with
associations involved in combating anti-Semitic or racist acts and to ensure
that the response was coherent in the jurisdiction.
The Ministry of Justice
registered 37 judicial proceedings against anti-Semitic offences committed from
January to November as compared with about 120 in 2002. According to
information forwarded to the Department of Criminal Affairs, 19 individuals
were detained for questioning regarding anti-Semitic offences during this
period. Throughout the year, judicial investigations were undertaken in six cases
against unknown persons, including four for offences which were aggravated by
the introduction of anti-Semitic acts. Proceedings were discontinued in five
cases because of the perpetrators could not be identified.
·
On 26
November, six youths were sentenced to immediate prison terms ranging from 18
months to three years by the Criminal Court in
·
On 6
November, the interior minister announced his plans to bring legal action
against singers and rappers, and in particular, against the Sniper group, for
using racist and anti-Semitic lyrics. Questioned in the National Assembly, he
said that in future he would take legal action against lyrics that are racist
or anti-Semitic.
Islamophobia
The Muslim
community in
Political
discourse on the growing phenomenon of Islamophobia was intense. The National
Consultative Commission on Human Rights (CNCDH), a body instituted by the prime
minister and composed of governmental and non-governmental representatives,
closely studied acts of anti-Muslim racism. In its initial conclusions, the
report qualified the trends as “intolerance towards Islam” rather than as
Islamophobia.[33] The Movement against
Racism and for Friendship between People (MRAP) and the League for Human Rights
criticized an earlier version of the report and its tendency to deny the
phenomenon of Islamophobia. The report, though subsequently amended,
recommended careful use of the term. For the first time in its work, the CNCDH brought
to the forefront the issue of anti-Muslim racism and sought to define this
disturbing development. It also sought
to define the negative impact and the confusion over the meaning of terms such
as Muslim, Islamic, fundamentalist, Islamist, and terrorist.
The Interior
Ministry did not have a special category for incidents against Muslims and it
was difficult to compile a complete list. Three of the events registered in
2003 were the profanation of a cemetery in Haut-Rhin in July, the arson at a
place of worship in
·
In
November, Alexander Attali, the former webmaster of an anti-Muslim Internet
site was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment and to pay a fine of €13,000 for
inciting racism and hatred against Muslims and for issuing an appeal to
denigrate 149 people who allegedly supported Palestine. In August 2002, the
MRAP was alerted about the existence of the site, and initiated court
proceedings against its webmaster. The site was closed down in the meantime.
In October,
MRAP proposed the creation of an observation group to evaluate different
manifestations and acts of Islamophobia, to analyze factors leading to such
acts, to recommend policies, and to inform society.
A positive development
was witnessed when an agreement to create a single representative body for the
country’s estimated five million Muslims was signed in December 2002 between
French officials and Muslim leaders. Similar bodies already existed for
Catholics, Protestants and Jews, enabling the government to address issues like
education, work and administration of places of worship centrally. The first
elections for the French Council of the Muslim Faith (CFCM) were held on 13
April. Some 4,000 appointed electors were authorized to vote for
representatives from 995 of
Racism
In March, CNCDH released its report on racism and anti-Semitism, and
registered an increase in the number of racist attacks. The report admitted
that the statistics for racially-motivated acts of violence were far from
complete, and were based on three main indicators: cases filed with the
Interior Ministry, court cases and public polls. The main obstacle to
collecting information was the fact that many victims refrained from filing
complaints for lack of refined and trustworthy mechanisms to deal with such cases.
·
On 3
April, the Court of Appeal at
·
On 23 May,
the court of Alpes-de-Haute-Provence sentenced Thierry Hameau to 16 years
imprisonment for killing Ghuilhermino Dos Santos for the sole reason that he
was Portuguese.
·
In May,
MRAP initiated legal action against the former actress, Brigitte Bardot,
accusing her of inciting racism in her latest book Un cri dans le Silence (A Scream in the Silence), which takes on
issues such as the mixing of races, immigration, the role of women in politics,
and Islam. Bardot has been previously convicted on charges of racism brought
against her by MRAP.
Refugees and Immigrants
Asylum and immigration were outstanding issues for
In addition to the conventional type of asylum, defined in the 1951
Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, for which the French
authorities use a restrictive interpretation, France offered territorial
asylum. The so-called “RESEDA” law of
The 2003 reform established a single procedure for processing
applications for conventional asylum and for territorial asylum. Territorial
asylum, which had been previously dealt with by the Interior Ministry, came
under the French Office for Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons
(OFPRA). OFPRA became the sole authority responsible for processing and
deciding on asylum applications, while the Refugee Appeals Committee became the
single monitoring jurisdiction.
After the adoption of the draft bill on its first reading on 5 June, the
French Coordination Committee for the Right to Asylum (CFDA) voiced its
concerns about the proposed reform. Its main concerns were that it was
restrictive and detrimental to the concept of "protection."[34]
In December,
the CPT released its report on the visit it had carried out at Roissy-Charles
de Gaulle airport on 17-
Deaths during
forced deportations gave rise to serious concerns.
·
On 16
January, after his application for asylum was rejected, 25-year-old Somalian
national, Mariame Getu Hagos, an undocumented migrant, died after being taken
when ill on board an aircraft waiting for departure to
On 6 October,
Red Cross
According to
Interior Ministry statistics, the number of expatriated foreigners who had irregular status upon receiving their court
decision, increased by 16% during the year. In total, 35,000 foreigners were
expatriated in 2003 either because they were refused access at the border or
due to a court decision.
[1] As reported by Human
Rights Without Frontiers (IHF Cooperation Committee), February 2004.
[2] For the most recent court judgment of
[4] See
http://www.rsf.org/print.php3?id_article=8585.
[5] Arrêté
relatif à la protection du secret de la défense nationale dans le domaine de la
protection et du contrôle des matières nucléaires,
[6] See Chamber Judgements on the following cases:
Rachdad v. France (Application No. 71846/01); Coste v. France (Application
No..50632/99); Benmeziane v. France (Application No. 51803/99); Mouesca
v.
[7] Law No. 2003-1119 of
[8] Chamber of Judgement in the case of Mokrani
v.France (Application No. 52206/99),
[9]Presentation of reform plans by Interior
Minister, at http://www.ldh france.org/actu_derniereheure.cfm?idactu=657.
[10] Projet
de loi portant adaptation de la justice aux évolutions de la criminalité, adopted
with modifications No.208, at http://www.assemblee-nat.fr/12/dossiers/criminalite.asp.
[11] Loi portant
adaptation de la justrice aux évolutions de la criminalité, 2004-204 of 9 March
2004, published in Offivical Journal,
No. 59, 10 March, 2004.
[12] See the appeal by the League of Human Rights
at http://www.ldh-france.org/actu_nationale.cfl?idactu=527.
[13] Le Monde, “ Libertés publiques, IVG: polémique après
l’adoption de la loi Perben,” 28 November 2003.
[14] Ibid.
[15] Ibid.
[16] Loi
d’orientation et de programmation pour la sécurité intérieure (LOPSI), Law
No. 2002-1094,
[17] Loi pour
la sécurité intérieure,
[18] Ibid.
[20] Appeal Against the poverty, not against the poor, at
http://ldh.stgermain.free.fr/dossiers/sarko.html.
[23] See interview with Patrick Marest, OIP
director for Radio
[24] See
http://www.oip.org/publications/rapport_presentation.htm.
[25] See
http://www.justice.gouv.fr/publicat/synthese_rapport_warsmann.pdf.
[26] Chamber judgment in the case of Henaf v.
France (Application No. 65436/01),
[27] See IHF statement of
[28] “Projet de loi encadrant, en application du principe de laicité, le port de signes ou de tenues manifestant une appartenance religieuse dans les écoles, colleges et lycées mublics,” http://www.assemblee-nat.fr.
[29] Council of
[30] Chamber judgment in the case of
[31] Law No. 2003-88,
[32] Emmanuel Brenner, Les Territoires perdus de
la République, Fayard-Mille et Une Nuit, 2002.
[33] Annual Report of the National Consultative
Commission on Human Rights (CNCDH) is due to be released in March 2004, see Le
Monde, “L’intolerance à l’égard de l’islam passée au crible par la CNCDH,”
Sylvia Zappi, 9 January 2004.
[34] Projet de réforme de l’asile: commentaires
et recommandations, Coordination française pour le droit d’asile (CFDA),