Sciences Po Paris
The fourth week of the Lafarge trial, which began on December 1 before the 16th Chamber of the Paris Criminal Court, brought former Syrian employees of the French cement company back to the spotlight. Proceedings addressed the issue of their safety as well as the responsibility of the French state, “the elephant in the courtroom” of this trial.
On January 16, 2024, the Court of Cassation upheld the indictment of Lafarge, as a legal entity, for complicity in crimes against humanity. This was a first for such charges. On the other hand, it overturned the indictment for “endangering the lives of others”, deeming that the French labour code is not applicable to Syrian employees. The Lafarge case was then “split” into two parts by the investigating judges: one on funding terrorist organizations and violation of financial sanctions in Syria, which is the subject of the ongoing trial; and the other on crimes against humanity charges, which may lead to another trial in future.
This unprecedented division of the case, which is based on an artificial separation of the facts and charges, has so far helped put the issue of Syrian employees’ safety in the background of the trial. It is still not certain if the court will recognize them as civil parties at the time of judgment and so whether they will be able to seek compensation. The civil parties have found themselves marginalized, and their legitimacy challenged by the defence. For example Solange Doumic, lawyer for former Lafarge deputy CEO of Operations Christian Hérault, criticized civil parties for misrepresenting words of people who suffered and overstepping their role, as if they were taking the role of the prosecution.
Nevertheless, civil parties were this week able to play a prominent role in the proceedings, confronting the defendants with their moral responsibility towards Syrian employees and speaking of the concrete effects of management actions. The focus was on safety issues, especially the conditions under which the factory was closed, how much the former managers knew about the terrorist nature of groups receiving payments, and the French authorities’ knowledge and possible involvement.
“Either I starved to death or I went to work”
The tension in the courtroom was palpable. It was hard to stay indifferent to the testimonies of the former Syrian employees. At the last hearing of the week, on December 5, the finger was clearly pointed at Lafarge for responsibility in endangering Syrian employees and their families. S. J., a former employee, described in tears how his son was kidnapped, and spoke of his deep disillusionment with the factory that was responsible, whereas Lafarge had a good reputation when he was recruited. On November 28, another Syrian witness heard via videoconference told the court how he was stopped daily by terrorist groups at checkpoints on his way to the factory. At the end of each month, employees were forced to once again put their lives in danger to collect their meagre salaries at a bank in Aleppo, travelling along a road nicknamed “sniper alley.” Lafarge long refused to move the place of payment despite repeated requests from workers. It only gave in when one of them was killed on his way to Aleppo to collect his salary.
These testimonies highlighted the difference in treatment between Syrian employees and expatriates, the latter having been evacuated well before the factory closed. “Our lives were much cheaper, much less valued,” said one Syrian employee. “Is it because I am Syrian that I can die?” One of the witnesses also described constant pressure exerted on employees, saying the company reportedly reminded him it could recruit other workers in Damascus if he refused to go to the factory. “Either I starved to death or I went to work,” he said. The employees’ resentment remains strong despite the passing years. “Now is the time for justice,” one of them exclaimed.
Defence plays the silent card
On Tuesday December 2, the hearing focused on the closure of the Jalabiya factory. The defendants’ attitude changed dramatically as soon as the civil parties began questioning them. Their usual strategy—muddying the waters by bombarding the audience with details—was replaced by a wall of silence that lasted several hours, while the defendants contested the civil parties’ legitimacy to intervene in the trial.
Frustrated by an exchange that had delivered no answers, the civil parties upped their efforts, but ended up finding themselves alone in delivering long monologues. Their lawyers made no secret of their irritation at the defendants’ strategy to drain the hearing of substance.
“You are trying to make yourself understood, but no one understands you,” said one of the civil parties’ lawyers. “Are you lying, or are you incompetent, Mr. Lafont? When you say ‘in my mind, the factory had to be closed,’ were your employees supposed to know what was going on in your head as CEO?” The questions quickly became rhetorical, and the scathing retorts alternately entertained and exasperated the audience. “What a farce!” whispered a journalist.
“Who were you talking about when you mentioned ‘vulgar scoundrels looking to make money’?” one of the civil parties’ lawyers asked Bruno Pescheux, former director of the Syrian subsidiary. “We assume you were referring to the Free Syrian Army. You don’t want to answer? No, because I think I know who the vulgar scoundrels looking to make money are!” Faced with this barrage, the defendants exercised their right to remain silent—with the exception of Jacob Waerness, Ahmad al-Jaloudi, and the legal entity.
A surprisingly profitable war
Some of the week’s hearings again focused on looking at money flows. The defendants used company cement sales charts to try and explain the lack of supporting documents for payments to terrorist groups, as well as to employees and intermediaries. The presiding judge, Isabelle Prévost-Desprez, considered it “inexplicable” for a group as meticulous as Lafarge that a large number of supporting documents in the file were absent. Pescheux tried his best to justify the anomalies, saying that “there were certificates of varying quality”. He explained that the unstable situation had disrupted normal working methods and that the amounts fluctuated depending on the context. According to him, there was no embezzlement. The president commented that she had “never run a multinational company”.
The possible reconstruction of Syria was also discussed in court this week. An Email from 2013 cited at the trial indicates that nearly 1.2 million homes were destroyed during the civil war. Profit prospects for Lafarge were considerable and undoubtedly weighed heavily in the decision to keep the plant open for so long under perilous conditions.
The presiding judge questioned Hérault on this subject. He assured her that at the time, Lafarge’s primary objective was to survive. The company was not continuing its activities in Syria “at any cost”, he said, although he acknowledged it was seeking to remain profitable. “We are not an NGO or a financial institution,” he told the court. Then, taking up his words, the presiding judge asked: “So, all these payments were not at any price?” This exchange reminds us of what the former Syrian manager of the factory warehouse said in his November 28 testimony: “Maintaining the factory meant maintaining it at any cost. Lafarge was paying to have us killed.”
Involvement of the French State: who are we talking about?
A sensitive issue in was raised at the end of this week: involvement of the French state, or more specifically the close relationship between Lafarge’s senior executives and members of the French diplomatic corps in Syria.
On September 10, 2014, just as Islamic State had proclaimed its “caliphate” and the international coalition began its bombing campaign, the director of the Syrian subsidiary, Frédéric Jolibois, met with Guillaume Henry, the French diplomatic adviser in charge of the Syrian dossier. In the minutes of this meeting, which were shown in court, Jolibois stated that Lafarge was continuing to pay taxes to the regime but was “not paying anything to Islamic State” — which turned out to be false.
“So you are lying, sir?” the presiding judge asked Jolibois. He finally admitted that he had “not told the truth”, citing the need to protect the company’s interests. He said he had just been informed that the “problematic payments” had to be stopped and did not know what he could or could not disclose to a representative of the State. “The defendants say they are not lying, that they are simply not telling the truth. But a cat is a cat, not a furry animal,” the presiding judge remarked.
Eric Chevallier, the ambassador who knew nothing
A lengthy exchange ensued, particularly about the role of former French ambassador to Damascus Eric Chevallier and his controversial meetings with Herrault, former Lafarge deputy CEO in charge of operations in Syria. The defence pointed out that the ambassador initially told investigating judges he had “no connection” with Lafarge, but then retracted and admitted he had met with Herrault on several occasions. Herrault said he was “stunned” by this “State lie”, and that they had met four times. But without other evidence, the truth of what was said during these exchanges remains a question of who to believe.
Herrault claims he had informed the ambassador as early as December 2013 that “we are giving money to ISIS”. “Are you sure about these dates?” the president insisted. “We are right in the middle of the period covered by the case!” She then asked: “And that didn’t embarrass the ambassador?” “No,” replied Herrault, who maintains that he did not receive any warning from the diplomat. According to him, the ambassador referred to a “transitional phase” in Syria where, in this context, paying “a little” to armed groups seemed acceptable. Referring to the intelligence services’ supposed knowledge of the situation, Pescheux summed up how he felt: “I was confident that France was on my side.”
Although the Email exchanges examined since the start of the trial show that the intelligence services were aware of the situation, there may still be a gap between diplomatic and intelligence information channels. It is still not clear whether the entire state apparatus was fully informed of Lafarge’s payments to ISIS.
Jean-Claude Veillard, Lafarge’s security manager and liaison with the security services—who was ultimately not charged—will testify on Tuesday this week. His testimony could shed crucial light on these issues.
As part of the Capstone Course in International Law in Action, Professor Sharon Weill and eleven students at Sciences Po Paris, in partnership with Justice Info, are dedicated to weekly coverage of the Lafarge trial, conducting an ethnography of the proceedings. The members of this student group are Sofia Ackerman, Maria Araos Florez, Toscane Barraqué-Ciucci, Laïa Berthomieu, Emilia Ferrigno, Dominika Kapalova, Garret Lyne, Lou-Anne Magnin, Ines Peignien, Laura Alves Das Neves, and Lydia Jebakumar.
