The liberties judge has conformed to the decision of the investigating judges and refused the release request for Professor Tariq Ramadan.
Maitre Marsigny, Tariq Ramadan’s lawyer has stated he will appeal this decision.
We are at a crucial stage in this case where exculpatory evidence proves the fabrications of the civil party and innocence of Tariq Ramadan.
It also highlights numerous inconsistencies in how the investigating judges have examined the case.
The exculpatory evidence has been constantly obscured from the beginning of the investigation as well as the withholding of key information to prove the unfounded nature of the accusations.
For example, the investigating judges filed a request at the Institute of Marseille in April for a photo expert opinion to testify that Paule Emma Aline was indeed at Tariq Ramadan’s conference at the exact same time she claims to have been forcibly confined.
The institute immediately replied to the judges on the April 18 that this expertise was outside their field of competence.
The judges did not submit this information into the official file until July 2018, three months after they knew this expert opinion was not obtainable.
To this day, this expert opinion has not been secured even-though it is central to the investigation.
Regarding the plaintiffs’ computers and mobile phone examination, as well as those of Tariq Ramadan, the experts’ report is dated from July 3, 2018.
The results however appear in the file only on September 24, two and a half months later and six days after the confrontation between Paule Emma Aline and Tariq Ramadan, despite a release request filed by lawyer Marsigny following the confrontation.
What could be the reason behind this delay and what could explain that such important elements took more than two months to be added to the record?!
On the other hand, the plaintiffs’ psychiatric examination does not appear in the file. This could help to explain their lies, reversals and changes in versions between different hearings.
It is surprising that, after more than one year of investigations, the two examinations related to the plaintiffs are not yet accessible, unlike that of Professor Tariq Ramadan, which has been on file for months. Again, this is extremely important in an investigation especially since the plaintiffs’ words and their psychological profiles were not questioned.
Finally, the evidence of collusion between the plaintiffs and some of Professor Tariq Ramadan’s notorious opponents, revealed by a number of witness statements and examinations carried out by the Criminal Brigade are simply being ignored by the investigating judges.
Me Marsigny, Tariq Ramadan’s lawyer, asked that the “fadettes” – monthly detailed telephone call invoices provided by the operator – proving that the two complainants were in contact with Caroline Fourest, be added to the file. These have not been delivered to date.
The same regarding the hearing requests of some protagonists whose involvement has been highlighted by the experts since the beginning of the investigation. Me Marsigny requested Caroline Fourest, Jean-Claude Elfassi and Alain Soral to be heard. These hearings have not been undertaken so far.
That would go a long way in dealing with a case where essential steps for the manifestation of the truth have not been made, either because they would further prove Tariq Ramadan’s innocence and put into question a preventive detention that has lasted for more than 9 months.
We hope that the Court of Appeal will review all these elements with more objectivity, and treat this case properly in the strict rules of the law.
Our confidence in the justice system, recourse after recourse, is hopeful this will be the case.
If it were not so, it would prove once more that the judicial machine is not neutral and our battle goes beyond the Tariq Ramadan case, that something else is at play.
This concerns both the independence of the judiciary and the inequality of litigants before the law according to their ideology and their social function.