Dominique Pelicot, who is accused of having drugged and raped his wife, Gisèle Pelicot, and having invited over 50 other men to rape her while she was sedated, was absent from his trial most of last week for medical reasons. The main defendant is expected to be back in court on Tuesday, September 17, his lawyer, Beatrice Zavarro, said. "We received a message from the presiding judge saying that Dominique Pelicot would be attending the hearing tomorrow, with specific adjustment conditions, namely the sequencing of testimonies and regular rest intervals," Zavarro said on Monday evening.
Le Monde's Henri Seckel, who is covering the trial in Avignon, southern France, answered readers' questions about the case.
Henri Seckel: No. His lawyer, Béatrice Zavarro, was very annoyed this morning, pointing out that the situation was the result of a "debate between the prison administration and the medical profession, to which [they are] complete strangers," a debate in which "the court, the plaintiffs and the defendants have been taken hostage." On this point, everyone in the courtroom agrees. General counsel Jean-François Mayet, who has kept a low profile since the opening of the proceedings, was equally irritated: "Dominique Pelicot's medical situation has been described and reported for at least a week, which gives the impression that little is being done."
As for Gisèle Pelicot's lawyer, Stéphane Babonneau, he felt that "if Dominique Pelicot's inability to appear was the result of a delay in treatment, we'd be in a situation that I wouldn't hesitate to describe as a scandal." Clearly, this is a point that needs to be clarified.
The presiding judge has no option but to defer to the approved medical experts, and so this morning he ordered a forensic medical examination, which took place under the supervision of two doctors he has appointed. Suspicion of malingering arises every time a defendant claims to be sick and medical expertise is there to dispel this suspicion. I should point out that Dominique Pelicot's lawyer has been repeating tirelessly over the past few days that her client wishes to speak and has no intention of backing out. Having seen him last Monday and Wednesday – for a minute, at the start of the hearing, before he was allowed to leave the room, leaning heavily on his cane – I can tell you that Pelicot did not look his best.
Any accused person, even Dominique Pelicot, is entitled to medical confidentiality. So we don't know exactly what he's suffering from. This morning, the president of the Vaucluse criminal court provided the following information, based on a CT-scan carried out yesterday: The terms used were "kidney stone," "bladder stone," "kidney infection" and "prostate problem."
In the worst-case scenario, if Pelicot were unable to appear for an extended period, the trial would not be canceled but postponed to a later date. When the hearing was suspended (for the first time) last Thursday, the court president announced: "If he's not here for one, two or three days, we'll extend the suspension. But if he's permanently unavailable, the case will be adjourned." A new hearing date would then have to be set and everything would have to be started from scratch, bringing back all the plaintiffs, witnesses, investigators and other experts who have already been heard. A real headache for the Avignon court and an additional difficulty for the plaintiffs (and the defendants and journalists).
Yes, it's impossible to hear the other 50 defendants without first hearing Dominique Pelicot, who is the keystone, the "conductor" – in the words of one investigator – of this dark affair, and without whom the other 50 defendants wouldn't be here. There are actually only 49, as one defendant is on the run.
Moreover, it is impossible to hear the other defendants in the absence of Dominique Pelicot, as their versions sometimes differ from his own. Some claim, for example, that they had not been informed that Gisèle Pelicot would be drugged, whereas Dominique Pelicot has clearly stated that he had warned everyone of this fact. Another example: Many people claim that Dominique Pelicot was very bossy during the encounters in question, to the point where they were petrified and didn't dare disobey him, which Dominique Pelicot will dispute. The interviews must therefore take place in the presence of all those concerned.
First of all, let's remember that no one here is presumed guilty, but rather presumed innocent until the verdict says otherwise. To answer your question, 18 of the 51 defendants are currently in custody, appearing in two boxes – one of which has to be built specifically for this hearing – in the largest room of the Avignon courthouse; 32 other defendants appear free, under judicial supervision; one defendant is absent, on the run. Those appearing in custody are generally imprisoned for other offenses – some have been convicted of rape or domestic violence – those facing the heaviest charges – for example, those who have been to the Pelicot home four, five or six times – and some of those whose homes have been found to contain child pornography images and who will also be tried for this at this hearing.
Gisèle Pelicot spoke briefly this morning outside the courtroom. Here is her statement: "I would like to thank all those who have shown me their support since the beginning of this ordeal, and especially those who took the time to come together last Saturday across France. I was deeply touched by this outpouring of support, which has given me a sense of responsibility. Thanks to all of you, I have the strength to fight this battle to the end. I dedicate this fight to all the men and women around the world who are victims of sexual violence. To all these victims, I want to say today: Look around you, you are not alone."
Gisèle Pelicot has never been a feminist activist, but she is aware that she has become an icon for the cause.
Let me refer you to this article we published on the opening day of the trial, about the "other Pelicot cases." He has been indicted for an attempted rape with a weapon in 1999 – which he admits to – he was identified by his DNA, as well as for a murder preceded by a rape in 1991 –which he denies – the modus operandi of which presents similarities with what happened in 1999, but in this case, his DNA has not been found. One or both of these cases could go to trial in 2025 or 2026.
All defendants on trial for rape (49 out of 51 defendants) or attempted rape (1/51) are liable to 20 years' imprisonment. Those accused of sexual assault (1/51) face 10 years' imprisonment. We don't make predictions in judicial matters, but it seems unlikely that Dominique Pelicot will escape the maximum sentence. For the others, sentences may vary according to various criteria: the accused who came six times to rape Gisèle Pelicot will no doubt receive a harsher sentence than the one who left after a few minutes because he found the situation abnormal.
In theory, nothing prevents a journalist or a member of the public from broadcasting the identity of an accused person – except in very rare cases involving certain police officers, for example – whose name is displayed at the entrance to the courtroom. The reason journalists did not give Pelicot's name at the opening of the trial was to protect his family members.
Dominique Pelicot has children and grandchildren who bear his name, and who could suffer the consequences of her disclosure. As soon as Gisèle Pelicot agreed, after discussing the matter with her children, to be named Pelicot – bearing in mind that she has since reverted to her maiden name, which she does not wish to reveal – there was nothing to stop the Pelicot name from being published.
These issues are dealt with by the freedom and detention judge, who relies heavily on medical expertise. Dominique Pelicot is certainly no longer young and his health is sometimes shaky. But up to now, there has been nothing to prevent his continued detention. If, in a few years' time, his condition were to become incompatible with detention, he could, like any prisoner, apply for house arrest under electronic monitoring, for example. This may or may not be granted.
Dominique Pelicot's lawyer is furious at the clearly inadequate care that has been taken of her client, who she says had been alerting the prison administration for days and days of his condition. "I don't want to polemicize, but I think that if we had taken the problem at the source, we wouldn't be where we are today," she said late last week. Other defense lawyers lent her their support, arguing that, in general, their clients received poor medical care in detention.
Since this trial has only just begun – and is not even sure of continuing – it's a little early to answer this question. But it is clear that this case, which remained surprisingly under the media radar during the three years of the investigation, is now arousing considerable interest far beyond the courtroom and the country's borders. This trial could lead to new case law, or even a change in the law on rape, as the Tonglet-Castellano case, in 1978 in Aix-en-Provence, did [this case was about two Belgian tourists who were raped in 1974].
Thirty-six journalists were accredited at the start of the hearing, and this number has at least doubled since the opening of the proceedings. I met colleagues from England (the Daily Mail sent 4 reporters), Germany, Spain, Italy, Chile and the US (a New York Times journalist based in Paris is at the court every day). I know that this case is also being closely followed in India, a country recently rocked by several cases of sexual violence.
In the case of the 35 defendants contesting the charges against them – many of whom claim they simply thought they were taking part in the couple's sex game – the videos recorded by Dominique Pelicot will be shown in the courtroom, as they constitute evidence, according to the prosecution. Only the defendants, the plaintiffs, their lawyers and some 20 journalists are seated in the courtroom, which is guarded by law enforcement. Gisèle Pelicot asked only that her three children, who were often present at her side, leave the room when the videos were shown, but did not ask for the court to be closed, as suggested by the presiding judge. The presiding judge did announce, however, that the videos would not be shown on the screens in the adjoining room, where some 50 members of the public are seated, and additional journalists for lack of space. According to the president, there was too great a risk that the images in this annex room would be recorded by indiscreet telephones and then broadcast.
Two expert psychiatrists, an expert psychologist and a personality investigator took the stand last Tuesday to briefly recount the life – with its chaotic beginnings – of Dominique Pelicot, and try to help us understand his – shall we say, tormented – psyche. It was, as always with this exercise, rather frustrating, even if these depositions did provide a few elements that resemble keys to understanding. I had written a brief account of this hearing, which highlighted the split in Dominique Pelicot's personality, but I must say that I regret having had to make do with writing just 5,000 characters – I could have written three times as much. In addition to his explanations of the acts he committed, Dominique Pelicot's questioning is also eagerly awaited on a more personal level: Can he tell us what in his life could have led him to this point?
Obviously, journalists who take an interest in this case are all affected, to varying degrees. Just reading the indictment order, a sort of summary of the investigation, was hard enough, and my fellow journalists and I are already dreading the days of the hearing when some of the videos recorded by Dominique Pelicot, on which the prosecution will rely, will be broadcast.
Covering a trial like this is undoubtedly an ordeal – incomparable to that experienced by the civil parties and the accused – and we have to be able to absorb all the difficult things we're going to see and hear in order to convey them to our readers in the best way possible while keeping a certain distance so as not to let ourselves be overwhelmed. A little beer and a phone call to my own son after the hearing certainly helps to keep a cool head.