Landmark Paris attacks trial leaves riddles unsolved, tears unnumbered

French judges are set to issue a historic verdict on Wednesday in the trial of 20 men suspected of critical roles in France’s worst-ever terror attacks, the massacre of 130 people at Paris bars, the Bataclan concert hall and the national stadium on the night of Nov. 13, 2015.

Prosecutors have demanded a life sentence without parole for the chief suspect, Salah Abdeslam, the only surviving member of the commando that wreaked carnage on the streets of the French capital. The other 19 on trial include fellow suspected members of the Brussels-based cell that carried out the attacks in the name of the Islamic State (IS) group. Fourteen of the defendants have been in court. All but one of the six absent men are presumed to be dead in Syria or Iraq.  

02:05

By any measure, the Paris attacks trial has been unprecedented in scale and complexity, reflecting the enormity of an atrocity that sent shockwaves through the country and beyond.

The investigation took six years and its written conclusions stretch to 53 metres (174 feet) when lined up. Hearings lasted more than nine months, accommodated in a specially-built courtroom inside the 13th-century Palais de Justice in central Paris, a soothing wood-framed construction with chairs and benches for almost 600 people.

“We will have to be patient,” warned from the onset the presiding judge Jean-Louis Périès, whose adroit balance of authority and bonhomie helped ensure the titanic trial unfolded without incident.

Shattered lives

Among the hundreds of bereaved plaintiffs who gathered each day at the court, those willing to speak expressed different hopes for the trial. Some came to seek a form of psychological healing while others felt a deep desire for justice to be served. Many more yearned for answers to the questions that have haunted them since the attacks.

>> Read more: Foreign victims of Bataclan attack seek solace in testifying at Paris trial

Covid-19 ensured face masks were mandatory during the first months of the trial, but it soon became apparent that tissues would be the trial’s most indispensable item during the heart-wrenching statements that marked the start of proceedings.

During five long weeks, survivors and relatives of the dead delivered harrowing testimonies, some unbearably poignant. Around 450 plaintiffs – roughly a quarter of those registered for the trial – took the stand to recount their ordeals, sometimes gasping for air, their voices trembling, their faces drenched in tears.

Never before had a courtroom given so much time and space to the anguish of those who lost a child, a partner, a sibling, a friend. Some would later describe how the hearings helped them piece together the fragments of their shattered lives.

“When the trial started, it felt like a leap into the unknown. Now we can only be relieved at how it unfolded,” said Arthur Dénouveaux of the victims’ association Life for Paris. The Paris attacks trial will “stand as a landmark for justice,” added Philippe Duperron of the association 13onze15, whose son was killed in the Bataclan concert hall.

Some even thanked the defendants’ lawyers for their passionate but respectful pleas. “It’s important,” said Bruno Poncet, who was at the Bataclan that night, speaking of the eloquent defence put forward by Abdeslam’s lawyers. “It proves that the only answer to barbarity are justice and democracy.”

A deafening silence

Inevitably, Covid took its toll on the proceedings, causing multiple absences and delays. The defendants, clustered together in a single box, were particularly affected – six of them catching the virus in rapid succession. So did one of the three main prosecutors, who was forced to follow key interrogations from home. Covid-induced interruptions account for the month-long delay in the verdict, which was initially due on May 25.

Muteness proved even more contagious among the accused, much to the dismay of prosecutors and plaintiffs yearning for answers.

When the trial finally delved into the heart of the matter, three of the accused – Osama Krayem, Sofien Ayari and Mohamed Bakkali – abruptly stopped answering questions. Their stubborn silence ended all hopes of shedding light on the “key logistical role” attributed to Bakkali in the planning of the Paris attacks and the alleged plot to attack Amsterdam’s Schiphol Airport the same day, for which Krayem and Ayari stand accused.

“I fought hard and I was harshly sentenced for something I didn’t do. I no longer have the strength,” Bakkali, who was jailed for 25 years over the botched attack on a Thalys train bound for Paris in the summer of 2015, told the court. “For people like me, being hopeful is dangerous,” added Ayari, explaining his decision to go mute.

Clios or Kalashnikovs?

Just hours before the attacks in Paris, Krayem and Ayari made a brief and unexplained visit to Amsterdam, according to investigators, who also found a “Nov. 13” file with a “Schiphol Group” subfolder in a discarded laptop in a Brussels rubbish bin. That much was known before the trial, which offered few other leads. Nor did the proceedings clarify why the car Abdeslam used to drop off the Stade de France bombers on Nov. 13 was seen just hours before at Paris Charles-de-Gaulle airport.

All the accused remained tight-lipped when quizzed on the possibility of both airports being on the list of targets.

More than nine months of hearings also failed to determine the origins of the six Kalashnikov rifles found at the scenes of the Paris attacks. The court was left to piece together the fragmentary and sometimes unconvincing accounts of anonymous Belgian investigators testifying by video link.

One lead suggested Bakkali got hold of the guns in Belgium, a week before the attacks. Another pointed to fellow accused Ali El Haddad Asufi, who is known to have looked for “Clios” – a code name for Kalashnikovs, not Renault cars, according to investigators – in the Rotterdam area in the neighbouring Netherlands, in October 2015. Asufi protested his innocence, saying he had nothing to do with the plot.

Abdeslam’s change of heart

Why Abdeslam, alone of the 10-man commando that sowed terror on the streets of Paris, used neither a Kalashnikov rifle nor his explosive vest on the night of the attacks remained the biggest unsolved riddle as the trial wrapped up.

The commando’s sole survivor also remained tight-lipped for much of the hearings – barring the occasional outburst of extremist bravado. In April, however, his words started flowing and he gave a lengthy testimony over several days that at times contradicted earlier statements, including on his loyalty to the IS group.

“I’m going to explain myself because it’s the last time that I’ll have the opportunity to do so,” said the 32-year-old, who had refused to cooperate during his six years behind bars. “All these people in here need my responses. I can’t promise anything, but I’ll do my best.”

As the only member of the Paris attackers who did not join the IS group’s self-proclaimed caliphate, Abdeslam told the court that he was a last-minute add-on to the group. He said he “renounced” his mission to detonate his explosives-packed vest in a bar in northern Paris the night of Nov. 13 even as his brother and other extremists fanned out around the capital mounting parallel attacks.

“I go into the café, I order a drink, I look at the people around me and I say to myself ‘no, I’m not going to do it’,” Abdeslam told the court. “I changed my mind out of humanity, not out of fear,” he insisted, claiming he disabled the suicide belt which investigators said was in fact faulty.

In their concluding arguments, prosecutors condemned Abdeslam’s display of emotion in court as a cynical ploy to encourage leniency. “Who can make an insincere apology for so much suffering?” Abdeslam countered in his final statement, acknowledging mistakes but declaring: “I am not a murderer, I am not a killer.”

The man who began the trial vociferating his support for the IS group ended it with a tearful plea for clemency, presenting his “condolences and apologies” in court. Had he been affected by the months of heart-wrenching testimony or was he merely trying to save his skin? As with the trial’s other twists and turns, Abdeslam’s apparent change of heart raised just as many questions as it answered.