For a moment, Audrey Mondjehi undoubtedly hoped that he would escape the heavy sentence required two days earlier by the public prosecutor: thirty years of criminal imprisonment. Before pronouncing the quantum of his sentence, Thursday April 4, the president of the special assize court of Paris, Corinne Goetzmann, declared ” not guilty “ of the most serious crime required by the prosecution: complicity in terrorist assassinations.
Read also | Article reserved for our subscribers At the trial of the Strasbourg attack, a damning indictment against the main accused
Add to your selections
But the court ruled that the main accused in the Strasbourg Christmas market attack trial was guilty of the second crime charged by the National Anti-Terrorism Prosecutor’s Office (PNAT): terrorist criminal association. And, apart from this difference in analysis, she handed down the same sentence as that which had been requested: thirty years of imprisonment, accompanied by a two-thirds security period and a definitive ban on French territory.
Audrey Mondjehi, a 42-year-old colossus, born in Ivory Coast and arrived in France at the age of 9, a small ephemeral star of the Alsatian rap scene and seasoned delinquent, had been on trial for five weeks for having supplied several weapons to a neighborhood friend, Cherif Chekatt, whose pistol he used to murder five passers-by on December 11, 2018.
A “lack of questioning”
In front of the accused, without any visible reaction in his box, the magistrate briefly gave reasons for her judgment: “The court considered that complicity in terrorist assassinations was not established, since you were not aware, when handing over the pistol to Cherif Chekatt, that this weapon would be used that same evening for the commission of ‘an attack. »
The crime of terrorist criminal association is much broader. For it to be established, it is enough for the accused to have been aware that the author of the attack was radicalized when he provided him with his help, without having been aware of his plans. Due to its ” proximity “ with Cherif Chekatt, the court considered that the accused was necessarily aware of the latter’s radicalization.
So much for the legal framework. To justify the severity of the sentence, the president noted two elements. First of all, his heavy legal past: twenty-four convictions “which had no deterrent effect on his criminal career”. Then, his attitude during this trial, during which he seemed to demonstrate “absence of any questioning of his actions and their scope”.
Inconsistency
You have 59.03% of this article left to read. The rest is reserved for subscribers.
2024-04-05 06:25:26
#Strasbourg #attack #trial #heavy #verdict #elusive #motive
