\nSciences Po Paris<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n
\u0627\u0644\u0645\u0642\u0627\u0644 \u0645\u062a\u0648\u0641\u0631 \u0628\u0627\u0644\u0644\u063a\u0629 \u0627\u0644\u0639\u0631\u0628\u064a\u0629<\/strong><\/a> \/ This article is also available in Arabic<\/a> on the Syrian Justice and Accountability Centre (SJAC) website.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n The fourth week of the Lafarge trial, which began on December 1 before the 16th Chamber of the Paris Criminal Court, placed former Syrian employees of the French cement company at centre stage of the case. Proceedings addressed the issue of their safety as well as the responsibility of the French state, \u201cthe elephant in the courtroom\u201d of this trial.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On January 16, 2024<\/a>, the Court of Cassation upheld the indictment of Lafarge, as a legal entity, for complicity in crimes against humanity \u2013 a historical first for such charges. However, it also overturned the company\u2019s indictment for \u201cendangering the lives of others\u201d, reasoning that the French labour code did not apply to Syrian employees. The Lafarge case was then \u201csplit\u201d into two separate parts by the investigating judges: the first focussing on the financing of terrorist organizations and violation of financial sanctions in Syria - the subject of the ongoing trial - and the second on the charges of crimes against humanity, pointing towards a potential second trial at a later date.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This unprecedented division of the case, based on an artificial separation of facts and charges, has so far led to the issue of Syrian employees\u2019 safety being sidelined throughout the trial. It is still uncertain whether the court will recognize these workers as civil parties when passing its judgment and thus if they will be entitled to 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 H\u00e9rault, criticized the lawyers of the civil parties for misrepresenting the words of people who had suffered and for overstepping their role as quasi-prosecutors.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Nevertheless, this week, civil parties were able to play a prominent part in the proceedings, confronting the defendants with their moral responsibility towards Syrian employees and addressing the concrete repercussions of their managerial actions. The focus was on safety issues, especially the conditions under which the factory was closed, the degree to which the former managers knew about the terrorist nature of groups receiving payments, and the French authorities\u2019 knowledge and possible involvement in the affair.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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 Lafarge, a company which had benefited from a good reputation at the moment of his recruitment. On November 28, another Syrian witness testifying 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 once again to put their lives in danger to collect their meagre salaries at a bank in Aleppo, travelling along a road nicknamed \u201csniper alley.\u201d Lafarge persistently refused to relocate the place of payment despite repeated requests from workers. It only ceded to these demands when one of its workers was killed en route to Aleppo to collect his salary.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These testimonies highlighted the difference in treatment between Syrian employees and expatriates, the latter having been evacuated well before the factory\u2019s closure. \u201cOur lives were much cheaper, much less valued,\u201d said one Syrian employee. \u201cIs it because I am Syrian that I must die?\u201d One of the witnesses also described constant pressure exerted on employees, alleging that the company reminded him that it could recruit other workers in Damascus if he refused to go to the factory. \u201cEither I starved to death or I went to work,\u201d he said. The employees\u2019 resentment remains strong despite the many years that have passed since the events took place. \u201cNow is the time for justice,\u201d one of the former workers exclaimed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On Tuesday December 2, the hearing focused on the closure of the Jalabiya factory. The defendants\u2019 attitude changed dramatically as soon as the civil parties began questioning them. Their usual strategy\u2014muddying the waters by inundating the audience with details\u2014was replaced by a wall of silence that lasted several hours, with the defendants contesting the civil parties\u2019 legitimacy to participate in the trial.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Frustrated by this unfruitful exchange, the civil parties upped their efforts, but eventually found themselves alone in delivering long monologues. Their lawyers made no secret of their irritation at the defendants\u2019 strategy to drain the hearing of substance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cYou are trying to make yourself understood, but no one understands you,\u201d said one of the civil parties\u2019 lawyers. \u201cAre you lying, or are you incompetent, Mr. Lafont? When you say \u2018in my mind, the factory had to be closed,\u2019 were your employees supposed to know what was going on in your head as CEO?\u201d The questions quickly became rhetorical, and the scathing retorts alternately entertained and exasperated the audience. \u201cWhat a farce!\u201d whispered a journalist.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cWho were you talking about when you mentioned \u2018vulgar scoundrels looking to make money\u2019?\u201d one of the civil parties\u2019 lawyers asked Bruno Pescheux, former director of the Syrian subsidiary. \u201cWe assume you were referring to the Free Syrian Army. You don\u2019t want to answer? No, because I think I know who the vulgar scoundrels looking to make money are!\u201d Faced with this barrage, the defendants exercised their right to remain silent\u2014with the exception of Jacob Waerness, Ahmad al-Jaloudi, and the legal entity of Lafarge, who replied to the questions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Some of the week\u2019s hearings again focused on 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 Pr\u00e9vost-Desprez, considered it \u201cinexplicable\u201d 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 \u201cthere were certificates of varying quality\u201d. He explained that the unstable situation had disrupted normal working methods and that the amounts fluctuated depending on the context \u2013 allowing him to deny accusations of embezzlement. The presiding judge then expressed, with sarcasm, the general sense of bewilderment in the room: \u201cI have never run a multinational company\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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 on the decision to keep the plant open for so long under such perilous conditions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The presiding judge questioned H\u00e9rault on this subject. He assured her that at the time, Lafarge\u2019s primary objective was to survive. The company was not continuing its activities in Syria \u201cat any cost\u201d, he said, although he acknowledged it was seeking to remain profitable. \u201cWe are not an NGO or a financial institution,\u201d he told the court. Then, the presiding judge replied critically: \u201cSo, all these payments were not at any price?\u201d This exchange rang hollow, especially in light of the testimony of the former Syrian manager of the factory warehouse on November 28 : \u201cKeeping the factory open meant maintaining it at any cost. Lafarge was paying to have us killed.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n A final sensitive issue was raised at the end of this week: the involvement of the French state, or more specifically the close relationship between Lafarge\u2019s senior executives and members of the French diplomatic corps in Syria.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On September 10, 2014, just as the Islamic State had proclaimed its \u201ccaliphate\u201d and the international coalition began its bombing campaign, the director of the Syrian subsidiary, Fr\u00e9d\u00e9ric Jolibois, met with Guillaume Henry, the French diplomatic adviser in charge of Syrian affairs. In the minutes of their meeting shown in court, Jolibois stated that Lafarge was continuing to pay taxes to the regime but was \u201cnot paying anything to the Islamic State\u201d \u2014 which turned out to be false.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cSo you are lying, sir?\u201d the presiding judge asked Jolibois. He finally admitted that he had \u201cnot told the truth\u201d, citing the need to protect the company\u2019s interests. He said he had just been informed that the \u201cproblematic payments\u201d had to be stopped and did not know what he should disclose to a representative of the State. \u201cThe defendants say they are not lying, that they are simply not telling the truth. But a cat is a cat, not a furry animal,\u201d the presiding judge remarked with a smile.<\/p>\n\n\n\t A lengthy exchange ensued, particularly regarding the role of former French ambassador to Damascus, Eric Chevallier, and his controversial meetings with Christian H\u00e9rault. The defence pointed out that the ambassador had initially told investigating judges that he had \u201cno connection\u201d with Lafarge, only to subsequently retract this claim and admit that had met with H\u00e9rault on several occasions. H\u00e9rault professed that he was \u201cstunned\u201d by this \u201cstate lie\u201d, and that they had met four times. But without further evidence, the truth of what was said during these exchanges remains one person\u2019s word against another\u2019s.<\/p>\n\n\n\n H\u00e9rault claims he had informed the ambassador as early as December 2013 that \u201cwe are giving money to ISIS\u201d. \u201cAre you sure about these dates?\u201d the presiding judge insisted. \u201cWe are right in the middle of the period covered by the case!\u201d She then asked: \u201cAnd that didn\u2019t disturb the ambassador?\u201d \u201cNo,\u201d replied H\u00e9rault, who maintains that he did not receive any warning from the diplomat. According to him, the ambassador referred to a \u201ctransitional phase\u201d in Syria where, in this context, paying \u201ca little\u201d to armed groups seemed acceptable. Referring to the intelligence services\u2019 alleged knowledge of the situation, Pescheux summed up how he felt: \u201cI was confident that France was on my side.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Although the email exchanges examined since the start of the trial show that the intelligence services were aware of the situation, it is possible that there remained a gap between diplomatic and intelligence information channels. It is still unclear whether the entire state apparatus was fully informed of Lafarge\u2019s payments to ISIS.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Jean-Claude Veillard, Lafarge\u2019s security manager and liaison with the security services\u2014who was ultimately not indicted \u2014will testify on Tuesday this upcoming week. His testimony could shed crucial light on the affair.<\/p>\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\u201cEither I starved to death or I went to work\u201d<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Defence plays the silent card<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
![\"Pencil](\"https:\/\/www.justiceinfo.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/proces-Lafarge-trial_avocat-lawyer_@Maria-Araos-Florez.jpg\")
A surprisingly profitable war<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Involvement of the French State: who are we talking about?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Eric Chevallier, the ambassador who knew nothing<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
![\"Lafarge](\"https:\/\/www.justiceinfo.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/proces-Lafarge-trial_salle-audience-courtroom_2_v2_@Maria-Araos-Florez-540x360.jpg\")
<\/div><\/a>\r\n\t\t\t![\"Lafarge](\"https:\/\/www.justiceinfo.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/Syria-France_Lafarge-trial_v3_@Capstone-Course-Sciences-Po-Paris.jpg\")
CAPSTONE COURSE, SCIENCES PO PARIS<\/strong><\/p>\n