European lawyers deny Zaoui 'flaws'

By CATHERINE FIELD

PARIS - France and Belgium, and defence lawyers in those countries, have bluntly rejected allegations made by the Refugee Status Appeals Authority that convictions handed down by their courts against Ahmed Zaoui were flawed.

Those allegations lie at the foundation of the RSAA's decision to classify Zaoui as a man fleeing persecution and thus deserving of refugee status in New Zealand.

The RSAA branded France's convictions against Zaoui "unsafe", determining that insufficient evidence had been presented in court to back the charges against him.

The RSAA came to the same conclusion on the Belgian trial. It questioned the admissibility of some evidence and pointed the finger at what it described as procedural defects that would not have been accepted in a New Zealand court.

Insisting on setting the record straight, the French Foreign Ministry has sent a formal letter to the Minister of Foreign Affairs in Wellington.

The Belgian Foreign Ministry has also sent a similar kind of letter to point out factual inconsistencies and misconceptions in the RSAA ruling.

In September 2001, a Paris court sentenced him in absentia to a three-year suspended jail term for criminal association and handed him an eight-year ban from returning to France.

The note from the French Foreign Ministry followed a request for information regarding Zaoui's trial and conviction in 2001. A French diplomatic source noted that the request for information had come from the New Zealand Government after the RSAA ruling had been handed down - and not while the case unfolded.

In that light, France viewed the Zaoui affair as a turf battle, the source implied.

It is "an internal problem" as to who in New Zealand "holds competence, either the civilian authorities or New Zealand jurisdiction" in the decision on granting Zaoui refugee status, this source said. "This is not a problem that concerns us."

The source said the note was very brief and that it pointed out the independence of France's judicial system.

"France's judicial system is independent and the ruling by the magistrate's court was taken entirely independently in line with the French penal code, was conducted fairly, and the French judicial system is based on respect for human rights."

The Belgium Foreign Ministry has also confirmed the contents of its letter to Foreign Minister Phil Goff. Among its complaints, the RSAA ruled that at his trial in Belgium, Zaoui had had only limited access to a defence lawyer and a translator.

"We sent a note verbale to the [NZ] embassy in Brussels in response to a request from the [NZ] Government for some information," said Rudy Huygelen, Belgian Foreign Ministry spokesman.

"There were certain allegations that the [Zaoui's] defence had apparently used, that he didn't have a lawyer, there was no translator so we replied that this is not correct."

Again, the request for clarification of legal procedures came after the RSAA decision.

As for the trial in Paris, the RSAA criticised the eight-year delay in bringing the case to court and cast doubt as to whether Zaoui had been adequately defended.

It noted that Zaoui's lawyer was also representing five fellow defendants and that he was being tried in absentia.

However, Zaoui's defence lawyer in France has spoken out, dismissing insinuations that the trial was flawed or loaded, or that he had failed to represent his client properly.

"I fail to see by what rights and on what grounds criticism can be made of me now about how I defended Mr Zaoui and Mr Boudjaadar many years ago," Mr Philippe Petillault told the Herald.

Abdelhak Boudjaadar was a co-defendant in the Zaoui trial in France. "I would consider ... Mr Zaoui had a fair trial, and the fact that he was not sentenced to a single day in prison shows the charges against him were not serious [enough] to warrant bigger punishment."

He added: "In France it is considered to be a step forward and a profound respect for human rights for someone to be defended in absentia."

Zaoui's lawyer in Belgium, Gilles Vanderbeck, said: "Monsieur Zaoui had ... every opportunity for presenting his defence and his arguments to defend himself."

Vanderbeck noted, like the RSAA, that the Belgian press had been running negative stories about Zaoui before the trial which alleged he was a leading member of the outlawed terrorist faction the GIA.

Vanderbeck himself had wondered if this sensationalist coverage would prejudice the trial but, he said, these fears proved to be unfounded.

The verdict handed down to Zaoui reflected, he said, "significant doubt" whether the defendant had played any terrorist role.

Zaoui and the law

* Algerian Ahmed Zaoui and 12 others were tried in Brussels in October 1995 charged with planning terrorist acts.

* Zaoui was convicted of having a false passport.

* Evidence to support a charge of criminal association was deemed insufficient by the judge, a ruling overturned in November 1995 by the Belgian Court of Appeal, which handed him a four-year suspended sentence.

* In September 2001, a Paris court sentenced him in absentia to a three-year suspended jail term for criminal association and handed him an eight-year ban from returning to France.

Herald Feature: Ahmed Zaoui, parliamentarian in prison

Related information and links