Characterizing the jihadists who carried out the attack as “brave” paris attacks 13 November 2015, in which 130 people were killed and several hundred injured. in the scope of Freedom of expressionAccording to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).
According to an opinion made public this Thursday, the ECtHR France finds 18-month prison sentence given to Jean-Marc Rouillan “disproportionate”Former member of the terrorist group Direct Action.
European judges note this. the decision in itself constitutes “just and adequate compensation for the non-pecuniary damage suffered”. It is with this conviction of Rouillan that France will have to pay 15,000 euros for legal costs.
This former terrorist was paroled in 2012 after serving 25 years in prison, where he was sentenced to life in prison for “acts of terrorist murder”.
In a radio interview in 2016, referring to the November 13 jihadists who caused a massacre in the Bataclan room, on several bar terraces in Paris and at the Stade de France, he said: “I think they were very brave, they fought bravely…”.
He was sentenced to prison for this statement apology from terrorism The prison sentence of up to 8 months was increased to 18 after an appeal to the Supreme Court, as well as the payment of 300 euros to the French Association of Victims of Terrorism (AFVT). The plaintiff served 6 months and 3 days in prison at home.
The Strasbourg Court admits: comments should be regarded as an “indirect encouragement to the use of terrorist violence”.and sees “no compelling reason to deviate from the meaning and scope of the comments” made by the French Justice.
But remember, in parallel, “national authorities should exercise restraint in the use of the penal codeespecially in the imposition of prison sentences, which have a particular chilling effect on the exercise of freedom of expression”.
The Court is aware that “the context marked by the recent and particularly deadly terrorist attacks justified a response by the national authorities that matched the threats in the applicant’s statements”.
Despite the fact that the French courts confirmed that their reasoning when considering this issue was “not sufficient to be able to consider that the sanction in question was proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued”.
Because, “the interference with his freedom of expression was not necessary in a democratic society because of his prison sentence“.
Source: Informacion
