how the judges reasoned their sentencing decision

The very detailed motivation of the judgment rendered by the Vaucluse criminal court, Thursday, December 19, in the Mazan rape case, offers an insight into the heart of the three days of deliberation. As such, it constitutes an essential document. It legitimizes more than ever the obligation now placed on assize courts and criminal courts to provide reasons for their decision. Remember that this obligation is of recent history. It was imposed by the law of August 10, 2011, following a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights, according to which the lack of motivation violated the requirements of a fair trial.

The long introductory part entitled “The common basis of the case and the particular case of Dominique Pelicot”, allows us to understand how the judges constructed their convictions against all the accused. It also shows how they were convinced of the central role of Dominique Pelicot, justifying a gap of five years between the maximum sanction pronounced against him – i.e. twenty years of criminal imprisonment with a two-thirds security period – and the sentences, much lower than the requisitions, held against his co-defendants.

You have 90.64% of this article left to read. The rest is reserved for subscribers.