Business of Outreau

The business of Outreau is an legal affair being finished by a lawsuit with the sitted of Saint-Omer (Pas-de-Calais) in France of the 4 May at July 2nd, 2004, then a appeal in Paris in November 2005. It caused an unquestionable emotion in the public opinion and highlighted the dysfunctions of the political world, the legal institution and the social actors, in particular in the fight against the pedophilia announced since 1996 with the more high level of the State, and in the cases of Sexual abuse on minor. A parliamentary board of inquiry was elected in December 2005 to analyze the course of this business and to propose possible reforms on the operation of justice in France. The legislative impact of the work of this commission however proved very limited. In the same way, the responsibilities for the political world in the antecedents and the beginning of the business were hardly evoked.

Antecedents

The business of Outreau does not seem to correspond to a dysfunction isolated from justice, not more than with a problem of the only legal institution.

Political antecedents

September 4th, 1996, the Prime Minister Alain Juppe had declared according to the Express train: sometimes “ It is necessary to put between brackets the human rights to protect those from the child ”. In an article of October 18th, 2006, Isabelle Debergue stresses that the same source gave already a report on a declaration of future expert of the business of Outreau, Marie Christine Gryson, affirming as a " psychologist, person in charge of reception facilities to the victimes" with Hazebrouck (Northern): " we have a reliable methodology to determine if a child says the vérité" .

The minister delegated to secondary education, Ségolène Royal had been already found in first line in 1997 at the time of the Affaire of Montmirail having led to the suicide of Bernard Hanse.

An article of October 2nd, 2006 published by Agoravox also recalls that on May 14th, 1997, in a note entitled '' " Pedophilia: another teacher put in examen" '', the daily newspaper Humanity gave a report on a declaration of the Minister for State education, Francois Bayrou, insistent on the need for " to seize the justice" in the event of suspicions towards a teacher: " So in the investigation somebody is suspected, one suspends his presence near the pupils. And if somebody is condemned, it is radié" . The article of Agoravox also raises that, according to the site of the family of Bernard Hanse, the suicide of this teacher had taken place on June 10th, 1997 during the evening and that, according to information of the newspaper Le Monde dated June 13rd, Ségolène Royal stated to have carried out on June 10th a " turn by telephone of the inspections académiques" in order to undertake a census of the cases of pedophilia announced to justice.

In a maintenance of February 2006, Alain Hanse, brother of Bernard Hanse, recall that the published Circular Royal in September 1997 provides that " as soon as a pupil entrusted to a member of State education facts of which he affirms to have been victim, it is up to this civil servant to directly warn immediately and the public prosecutor, in the written and transmitted form, if need be, by télécopie" .

In May 2002, Florence Rault, lawyer at the bar of Paris defending of the teachers blamed in businesses of allegations of sexual abuses, had declared on this subject with the daily newspaper Le Figaro: " Today, our company, upset by some particularly atrocious businesses, entered the era of the soupçon" .

The fight against the pedophilia thus seems to have been the object, since the years 1990, of a certain political higher bid, encouraged by experts and associations, that the media mainly followed and showed on their account until the audiences of first authority of the business of Outreau, in spite of many alarms.

Institutional antecedents

Another element of the antecedents of the business, recently highlighted by members of Parliament, undoubtedly resides in a chronic reserve of the French institutions to tackle in clearness the question of the responsibility and the appearance of impartiality of the magistrates and other influential bodies of the State.

This question was discussed, in particular, by articles published in Agoravox the May 23rd and August 21st, 2006, commenting on in particular an opinion of the Superior council of the magistrature of March 11th, 2004 on " measurements which could be taken for better guaranteeing the legal authority against the unjustified calling into question of such or such of its membres" . 0n can read in this opinion: " The repetitive demands in challenge or reference can be directed against the same judge or the same jurisdiction, in a quasi obsessional way, by justiciable particularly vindicatory, even unbalanced " .

An article of December 25th, 2006 also underlines, in the light of the recent parliamentary debate, that France had never applied the Charter of 1998 of the Council of Europe on the statute of the judges, in particular its article 5.3: “Any person must have the possibility of subjecting without particular formalism its complaint relating to the dysfunction of justice in a business given at an independent organism. This organization with faculty, if a careful and attentive examination incontestably reveals a failure (...) on behalf of a judge or of a judge, to seize the disciplinary authority of it or at the very least to recommend such a sasine to an authority being normally competent, following the statute, to carry out it” .

The question of the independent organism mentioned by the Charter would be settled, in the current bills, by widening the prerogatives of the Médiateur of the Republic which until now could not intervene as regards justice. But a article published in Agoravox on November 6th, 2006 raised, on this assumption, the question of the appearance of impartiality of the Mediator of the Republic and the Minister of Justice. Question which seems to remain unanswered to date.

The instruction

The instruction begins in 2001. It closes in May 2003 by an ordinance of committal for trial. She is entrusted to the examining magistrate Fabrice Burgaud by the public prosecutor of Boulogne-sur-Mer, Gerald Lesigne. On denunciations of several children, confirmed by their parents, a great number of people are put in police custody then in examination. Eighteen of them - of which parents of the principal accusing children - are écrouées in Detention pending trial by decision of the judge of freedoms and detention. They remain there in all between one and a little more than three years. One of them Suicide in prison by a massive catch of drugs.

During all this time, the children, who had been immediately separated from their parents, are placed in families of reception. One of these families questions the children, which amplifies the revelations that they make in front of the judge. The Crédibilité of these dires is validated by the psychology experts required by the examining magistrate.

The lawsuit of Saint-Omer

In May and June 2004, after an investigation of more than three years, opened, with the law courts of Saint-Omer (Pas-de-Calais) the lawsuit known as lawsuit of Outreau , name of the town of Outreau where were held the judged facts. The business had defrayed the chronicle on several occasions during the instruction - one spoke about a Affaire Dutroux with the Frenchwoman. Seventeen people suspected of belonging to a vast global area network of procuring of children were on the dock.

The debates during the lawsuit reduced finally the facts to sordid but banal business of Inceste. Seven of the seventeen marked ones - which all except four had always protested their innocence - were finally discharged and six slightly condemned after being maintained a long time in detention pending trial, for some during more than three years on the only faith of untrue or inaccurate declarations of certain adults and children. The verdict surprised however the Public opinion by the judgment of six people, while at the same time the majority of the loads in their opposition seemed to be itself ploughed up during the lawsuit: these, continuing to protest their innocence, made call of the judgment.

The hearing of the children took place behind closed doors, which involved the protests of lawyers of shown and poked the doubt.

The appeal

The appeal of the six people condemned in first authority was held in the Court of Assizes of Paris. As of the first days the charge crumbled, following the consents of the head prosecutor, Myriam Badaoui. This one declared the November 18th that the six appealing ones “had not strictly done anything” and that she had lied. Its ex-husband, Thierry Delay, supported his declarations. During the audience, the psychological expertises were also called into question, so much they appeared skewed and not very serious. The denials of two children who admitted having lied also took part to weaken the charge. Jean-Luc Viaux, psychology expert, had started a polemic by its declarations on the tariff of the experts comparable with those practiced by the cleaning ladies, producing " expertises of woman of ménage".

Certain minors were still heard behind closed doors.

At the end of the lawsuit, the prosecuting attorney required the payment for the whole of the defendants. Defense gave up pleading, preferring to observe in the place one minute of silence for François Mourmand, death in prison by Suicide in the first years of the business. Exceptional fact, the public prosecutor of Paris, Yves Bot, came in the courtroom at the end of the meeting the last day from the lawsuit without warning the president of the Court of Assizes, Mrs. Mondineu-Hederer (see hearing of the parliamentary commission), to present her excuses to marked in the name of justice, before even returned verdict - what was reproached to him by several magistrates.

Lastly, the Thursday the 1st er February 2005, a verdict of general payment for the whole of the defendants was returned by the jury, putting fine at five years as what is often described, since the first lawsuit, of a “ legal shipwreck ”, even of a legal Tchernobyl .

A few hours after returned verdict, the Minister for justice, Pascal Clément, a press conference gave, presenting in its turn its excuses to discharged in the name of the legal institution; announcing the opening of triple inquires of the general inspections of the legal services, police officers and social; finally evoking the possibility of administrative sanctions against certain actors of the business within sight of the results of the investigation. Several modifications in the penal procedure were also announced, especially in the businesses of Sexual abuse on minor.

The December 5th, five days after the verdict of the Court of Appeal, the President of the Republic, Jacques Chirac, published an official statement indicating that it had wished to write with each person concerned to express to them, to personal capacity, all its emotion and its relief, and to present to them, as a guarantor of the legal institution, regrets and excuses. On the reasons of the dysfunctions and possible responsibilities which led to this “ legal catastrophe ”, it made a point of specifying with the victims that investigations were launched, that all the consequences would be drawn from it and that it would take care of it personally.

The parliamentary inquiry

Following the general acquittal with the appeal, the National Assembly decides in December 2005, unanimously, to create a parliamentary board of inquiry. In January 2006, from the polemics are born as for the composition from this commission and about the Door-close decided for the Audition S of certain people concerned with the business. The choice of door-close (initially considered) was disputed by discharged, and the commission did not have any more hesitations to give up door-close when Burgaud judge made also public his preference for public hearings. But this door-close could be restored for the people questioned by making the request. Between on January 10th and on April 12th, 2006, the board of inquiry heard 221 people during more than 200 hours (judges, warned, but also journalists).

Like any parliamentary commission, this commission has 6 months to return his report/ratio. It has a certain number of capacities of which that to force any person to come to testify in front of it. It can also have access has all the documents which it wishes except particular cases (like the Secret defense).

Composition of the commission

Parliamentary board of inquiry into Outreau (officially called " board of inquiry charged to seek the causes of dysfunctions of justice in the business known as of Outreau and to formulate proposals to avoid to them renouvellement") is chaired by André Vallini and has Philippe Houillon as rapporteur. Recordings of the vidéos of the whole of the speakers of this lawsuit " invités" by the commission, lawyers, judges, experts, prosecutor, discharged are visible on the site of the National Assembly.

It is made up of 30 members (the maximum which a commission can count), distributed proportionally with the political representation of the National Assembly.

The commission carries out many hearings whose calendar can be consulted here.

Hearings

January 18th, 2006, those which one names “discharged from Outreau” can express their vision of the legal system within the framework of the investigation, follow-ups the following day by their lawyer S. hearings of the parliamentary board of inquiry are retransmises with recorded moments before to allow bipper the first names of the children, in order to preserve their anonymity, on the Parliamentary chain then reported in the tv news of the national chains like in the press. The poignant description of the martyrdom lived by the defendants through the whole of the legal chain, since the police custody until the lawsuit, the destruction of their lives and that their children (one of the defendants, Alain Marécaux, makes an suicide attempt a few days after its hearing by the commission) and the denunciations incisors of their lawyers, cause a sharp emotion through the country.

Limits of the commission

The work of this parliamentary board of inquiry is the reproach object multiple:

the title even of this commission would be particularly partial since it supposes that there was " dysfunctions of Justice" whereas by definition, the justice of the men would not be infallible and that in the case of species, justice would have repaired itself the errors and restores the truth. If it has been possible for a few years to make call of the decisions of Court of Assizes, it would be well from time to time to revise the decisions taken in first authority, not for systematically endorsing them. The absence of call out of criminal matter was nevertheless, in right, compatible with our international engagements. Because if article 2 of the European Convention of the human rights lays down exceptions to the double degree of jurisdiction, none corresponds to the case which occupies us. However, conscious of the difficulty, the French government, by ratifying the protocol n° 7 (law of 31 Dec. 1985 authorizing the ratification) had added an explanatory statement: “the examination by a higher jurisdiction can be limited to a control of the application of the law, such as the appeal to the Supreme Court”. It is a disguised reserve that the Court of Strasbourg possibly seized could have requalified the declaration in reserve, but this operation would have been exclusive of a judgment of France. The Court of criminal appeal, called to decide on the question (but in connection with military justice) speaks about reserve making it possible to limit control to the application of the law (Dec. 19, 1990, criminal Bulletin, n° 443). The law was thus limited to found a control of legality; it is the law of June 15th, 2000 (known as Guigou) which came to found the criminal matter call. In comparison with the European Convention of the Human rights, the French law imposes the door - closed in Court of Assizes when minors make the request of it, which would be a violation of this international engagement.
For some, it undermines the principle of Séparation of the capacities by political pressures or the search for faults made by the magistrates, while being involved in the development process of their decisions or while attacking the serenity of Justice. The president of the Republic recalled on February 23rd, 2006 the members of this commission to more serenity.
the members of Parliament would hardly wonder about the means of the Justice which would count less magistrates than one century earlier whereas they are the deputies who vote the budget of Justice. The workload of the examining magistrates and the room of the instruction would be heavy, which would necessarily influence the quality and the depth of their work, and they should neglect many files. Burgaud judge would have been indeed far from working full-time on this business.
the dead end would be made on the inequalities of treatment in front of Justice according to the geographical areas or within a jurisdiction. For example, the difference of means and treatment would be manifest between the financial section of the TGI of Paris installed in new offices boulevard of the Italians and the gallery of the examining magistrates of the Law courts located at the Cité, boulevard of the Palate (which would be a “road roller”); moreover, there would be procedures of exception become standardized with the court of Bobigny. What could explain why the Présomption of innocence would seem to apply only to only notable suspected of financial infringements. That would constitute a contrary treatment difference with the constitutional principle of equality in front of the law, but the policies (of which some are Members of the Commission), which would hardly like that the judges control them, are hardly offusqueraient any.
the members would not question the authors of bills tightening with the blind repression of the supposed acts paedophiles and would hardly wonder about the responsibility for the members of Parliament on what would constitute inconsistencies or contradictions of the legislation, had with the succession of laws going in directions different (for example, the law on the presumption of innocence would have been the subject thereafter of a flashback)
Enfin, the commission would have been particularly hard with Burgaud judge who would have missed d'" humanité" and would have made him a lesson of morals, formulating considerations which would be inoperative during an instruction, of which the principal goal would be only to establish the truth, and whereas nothing would make it possible to establish that this judge strictly did not apply the law in any impartiality. Moreover, the diffusion on line of its hearing would be a torment which is inflicted with no criminal, that it is during hearing or its lawsuit.

Multiple dysfunctions

Dysfunctions of justice

Initially concerning justice: all the levels of the legal apparatus are blamed, especially the important capacities of the Examining magistrate, the non-observance of the Présomption of innocence, the recourse to the preventive imprisonment as well as the importance given to the psychiatric evaluations, considered to be too large.

The social actors are also blamed, in particular the psychiatric experts and professionals (social workers, etc) having collected the word of the child, but also associations of Child welfare shown to make lobbying and to exert a strong pressure on the judges by drawing up the spectrum of the scandal.

Many criticisms related to the listening of the word of the child victim, considered like wrongly believed without precautions, a such word of Gospel - end which would be a return of beam following the awakening of the gravity of the sexual abuses on minor during the previous decade. One can however notice as in this type of business, the material proofs are rare, and consents of the culprits extremely difficult to obtain during the instruction, being given the gravity (as well for the law as for morals) of the facts. There thus remain only testimonys of the victims, the facts generally being held in the absence of any witness.

Others critical also relate to the role of the police services, which could take freedoms compared to the presumption of innocence and could have a lack of neutrality.

One of the elements generally proposed by the parliamentary commission seems to be the problem of the loneliness of the examining magistrate . The members of Parliament underlined on several occasions that it appeared difficult to continue to let the examining magistrate take as many so important decisions without referring about it or at least to discuss it with anyone.

Another arising problem of the hearing of Burgaud judge on February 8th, 2006 is that of the inexperience of the judges " leaving the école". A member of Parliament thus indicated that it seemed to him that, for businesses of importance, a 5 years of experience deadline seemed to be a minimum. In fact, the problem is that, in the jurisdiction of Boulogne-sur-Mer, there were only 3 examining magistrates of which more tested did not have, at the time of the facts, which one year and half of experiment.

The shortage of means, vis-a-vis a judiciarisation of the social relations, is also proposed: the budget of justice would put France at the 29e European row (European commission for the effectiveness of justice, October 2006).

Procedure inquisitoire

The procedure inquisitoire of French justice is largely called into question, the role assigned with the examining magistrate in the Procédure inquisitoire would prevent this one from showing of humanity and humility. Its position within the institution would not place it either in position to inform with discharge the businesses which are entrusted to him. One can however recall that more than two thousand withdrawals of case were returned in 2005 to France, which tends to show that indeed, the current practice is to inform with load and décharge.

According to a compared penal law professor questioned within the framework of the Board of inquiry, the share of the penal files treated by the examining magistrates regressed de facto since about thirty years to the profit of the prosecutors and their assistants. The parquet floor makes more and more carry out surveys by the police force and reaches the stage of the instruction only once of the sufficiently convincing elements - from its point of view - obtained. The institution of the examining magistrate and the procedure inquisitoire which goes with are thus in regression, in fact, since already a long time.

Political reactions

The role of the experts

The declaration of Marie-Christine Gryson referred to above, published by the Express train of September 12th, 1996, shows that the lobbies experts played a determining role in the launching of the countryside against the pedophilia and in its dysfunctions. The article of Agoravox of October 2nd, 2006 also points out the publication, in spring 1997, by INHES (National institute of the High Safety studies), of a work entitled '' " The pédophilie" '', of Renaud Goddaughter and Catherine Montiel, published in the Collection Studies and Research, whose Humanity of May 14th, 1997 underlines the call to " to always take with serious the word of a enfant" , together with explanation: " The denunciations are very often checked. And, if there is lie, there remains in any case the expression of a malaise" .

The role of the media

The media treatment of the pedophilia cases, and the legal affairs in progress was also shown finger: were denounced shovel-mixes a precipitation with the media, a lack of professionalism, a tendency to believe the worst without checking, of the nominal charges sometimes ridiculing the Présomption of innocence, and especially an abandonment of the basic journalistic principles.

This business thus raises the problem of the appreciation of the media on a sensitive file, causing a particular emotion in the opinion. The media plead for a reflection on the balance which must be found between the right and the duty to inform and the respect of the presumption of innocence which was diluted in the middle of the media scandal. In spite of these posted good intentions, Antoine Perraud shows that the media especially were concerned with be covered mutually.

Social pressure

At the time of this Lawsuit, the whole of the social reaction vis-a-vis the businesses of Sexual abuse on minor was called in question. How to leave a place in the process of justice to the public opinion, whereas it is generally handled by the media (it is enough to see the reactions differentiated from the beginning and the end to the business)? That is all the more critical as the public opinions " embalent" generally and do not show moderation, requiring exemplary measurements.

The traditional answer of the right is to try to limit to the maximum any social pressure on the judges (they cannot give press conference, for example).

However, it is necessary to underline, not to seem to reflect the only supporter of corporatism point of view of of the magistrates whom the commission represents the people which have the right to request accounts from all the public agents, including the magistrates.

The reform of justice slightly approached this point with the first of the laws (see will infra).

Consequences and lessons of the business

Reform justice

Dysfunctions of " the Outreau" business; marked the opinion because they threw a light believed on the responsibility for a judge.

the reasons for reforms

There are two principal reasons: detentions pending trial were very long and the business was very médiatisée. The parts of the file were communicated to lawyers with enormously of delay, of the considerable media means were used, and one could progressively attend a media swing of the lawsuit. Prevention of abusive detentions pending trial

The parliamentary report proposed new stops with the limitation of detention, but the more complex the business is, the more research of the truth is long. It is however necessary to better frame detention pending trial.

Certain criteria of setting in detention pending trial are maintained: to avoid the escape of the persons, to avoid starting again the infringements, to preserve the evidence. The criterion of disorder to the law and order is removed for the offenses and is maintained for the crimes such as the profanation of tombs, a serious accident of circulation. Detention pending trial cannot result from the media repercussion.

The presence of a lawyer is made compulsory at the time it debate to decide preventive detention.

Concerning the contradictory public nature of the proceedings, the secrecy of the instruction is arranged: previously, the request for publicity emanated from the person blamed and resulted in a press release. The law of March 2007 makes the debate public, making it possible to inform on the causes of detention pending trial. It is possible to be opposed to the public nature of the proceedings, for example in the event of risk of obstacle to justice, if the victim requires it (as it is the case for the lawsuit), or if the continued person opposes it (risk of attack to the presumption of innocence).

An audience of control in front of the room of instruction east creates. It must:

• To reinforce the rights of the parts and the contradictory character of the procedure

• dispute of the presumption of innocence: possibility of becoming assisted witness, progressively of the evolution of the file;

• ask confrontation; • reinforcement of the contradictory character of the expertise: the lawyers will be able to indicate against expert;

• reinforcement of the contradictory character of information before the audience: the lawyer will be able to put forward elements before the audience;

• celerity of the procedures: suppressions of the useless procedures (a private individual can seize the penal judge; so continuations were committed, to block certain lawsuits, the penal one blocked the other judgments with the risk to encumber the examining magistrates unnecessarily; nonthe place will be easier in the event of “useless” complaint obviously);

• poles of instructions in certain TGI (Court of Bankruptcy): the cosaisine several judges will be easier; the creation of poles of instruction is envisaged in March 2008: the three magistrates will have to seize the JFD (judge of freedoms and detention) for a setting in detention pending trial, with intervention of the prosecutor, but certain TGI will have one judge!

• audio-visual recording (set up at June 1st, 2008) during the police custodies and the instruction for the crimes; already exist for the minors; this measurement can be interpreted as a distrust with regard to justice but can also be used as guarantee and would prevent possible disputes.

Then, the bill contains seventeen articles whose measurement most important is the obligatory audio-visual recording of the police custodies in the criminal cases, and still other than most serious, i.e. those which relate to terrorism and the organized crime.

Expressing a clear dissatisfaction towards the reform of the justice in progress, the deputy Georges Fenech, accompanied by the lawyer Eric Dupont-Moretti and by discharged by Outreau Dominique Wiel and Roseline Godard, on December 21st, 2006 the creation of a " announced; Observatory of Outreau" intended for " to promote a deep reform of justice and to alert the authorities as well as the public opinion on the necessary changes awaited by the pays" . An support group with this initiative would count in particular other deputies, magistrates and discharged from Outreau Alain Marecaux.

Bonds of the laws

(Site of the Ministry for justice and the Council of Ministers of October 24th, 2006).

The three laws were:

Bill 3391 and associated page " Formation and responsibility for the magistrats" Text adopted in first reading on December 14th, 2006 (n° 635).
Bill 3392 and associated page " Mediator of the republic and justiciables" . Incorporated in the first.
Bill 3393 and associated page " Balance procedure pénale" . Text adopted in first reading on December 19th, 2006 (n° 639).

See too

Internal bonds

the Affaire Montmirail presents similar questionings on the word of the children.
Sexual abuse on minor
Court of Assizes (France)
List of the miscarriage of justices
jurisdictional Organization (France)

External bonds

Sites approaching in all or partly the business of Outreau

parliamentary Board of inquiry
Commission Report of inquiry parliamentary
Transcriptions of parliamentary hearings
the Support group with the six people in call
File the voice of the North * Together of vidéos of hearings of the commission of Outreau (site of the Parliamentary chain)
Report/ratio of the general inspection of the legal services, May 2006
Communication of Pascal Clément of June 12th, 2006 in front of the Academy of Science Morals and Political
Site '' " Small citoyenne" '' of Isabelle Debergue
articles of Co '' which calt? '' in AgoraVox
Congress of the European Public Service Union of the Magistrates, October 20th, 2006: speech of the president of the USM Dominique Barella and the Minister of Justice Pascal Clément of October 20th, 2006

Articles

After Outreau, it is not enough, Thomas Clay, Betapolitique.
the business of Outreau and its hard lesson.
Minor and justice: to learn the lessons from Outreau - Site of the Prime Minister.
reports/ratios of French Documentation on the lesson of the legal treatment of the business known as “of Outreau”.
Article for a reform of justice, by the League of the human rights.
“Business of Outreau”: After “is delirious” media, collective amnesia , article of Acrimed on the role of the press.
various facts, or the court relentless of the media, by Gilles Balbastre, diplomatic Le Monde (December 2004).
Outreau or the impossible autodenonciation of a system (I), (II) (III) and (IV) article published by Indymédia .
Outreau is not a business of money laundering, article published by Indymédia .
Not with the integration of the administrative judges within the Council of State, article published by Indymédia .
the lesson of an defendant of Outreau, Le Monde, October 12th, 2006.
Dominique Wiel forgives but does not forget Pèlerin.info, October 20th, 2006.
Justice-Reform finally isolated flagship measures RTL-Information, October 20th, 2006.
It will not have there a reform of French justice, article published by Indymédia (October 21st, 2006).
Reform of justice: dissatisfied lawyers of Outreau RTL-Information, October 21st, 2006.
Justice: the reform " allégée" satisfied the trade unions New Obervateur, October 21st, 2006.
One discharged of Outreau denounces a backing Nouvel Obervateur, October 22nd, 2006.
the reform of justice will comprise an aspect on the responsibility for the judges, ensures Mr. de Villepin, Nouvel Obervateur, October 22nd, 2006.
'' Création of a " Observatory of Outreau" '', Europe December 1st, 22nd and th 2006.

Books on the business of Outreau

the Mistake: the business of Outreau , Florence Aubenas, Threshold, 2005.
That God has pity of us , Dominique Wiel, Oh Editions, September 2006.
Innocent, the martyrdom of shown of Outreau , Barret Year and Patrice Trapier, ED. I have Lu, 2006.
Me, Karine innocent and broken , Karine Duchochois and Florence Assouline

Sources of the article

Random links: