It can be the result of simple statements

If lightning first overwhelmed the guilty! ", implores Jocasta, racinian heroin in"the Thebaid or the enemy brothers ". Then the work of the judges would probably more simple in the bad remake that plays since 21 September to the 11th correctional Chamber of Paris. Because in a week of the end of the hearings, the Clearstream trial methodically dug in the fog. Since the beginning, between parts of verbal ping-pong, vehement denials, pompous tirades, the Court unsuccessfully seeks the truth that the confrontations and evidence of these three weeks have failed to emerge. Outside the courtroom, Etéocle-Sarkozy and Polynices-Villepin dropping hateful sentences and revengeful statements. That there be no mistake not. There was in the theatre of the former Prime Minister defence and the relentless charge of the President of the Republic a true judicial strategy. Taking one and the other opinion public witness, they seek to destroy the first feed for the second, a record that everyone knows well thin in law but which may be of havoc on their fate.

The 11th correctional Chamber of Paris becomes the scene of a poor theatre. Or sometimes the waiting room of a psychiatric hospital. But the judges are neither critics nor the public, more than analysts. They will have to make the right to give their judgment of conviction or acquittal. Impossible to keep, as the criminal law authorized, a single beam of indices. Using the term of "guilty", Nicolas Sarkozy, guarantor of the independence of the judiciary, definitively annihilated this argument: give without restraint belief, the President of the Republic has forced prosecutors to focus on the only technical record elements, only way, for them, to avoid being taxed submission... or rebellion against the élyséenne award.

The right therefore and nothing but law. To convict an accused, the judges require three elements: the legal element - the facts must be punished by the law; the material element - the facts must be established; the intentional element - the accused had the intent to commit an offence. Take in the order: Dominique de Villepin is prosecuted for complicity of calumnious denunciation, complicity of the use of false, concealment of abuse of confidence and flight. In the order for reference, the judges of instruction argue that former Prime Minister has "instructed" to Jean-Louis Gergorin, as of April 2004, of "seize or to inform a judge Renaud Van Ruymbeck, ed. on Clearstream files" while he had knowledge of their "falsity". But the complicity implies an active Act. However, Dominique de Villepin did not take the hand of Jean-Louis Gergorin time listings in the envelope. Aware of this legal difficulty, yet in the centre of the record, the Prosecutor's Office, he is merely a "complicity of calumnious denunciation by abstention": by saying nothing, Dominique de Villepin has made possible the continuation of shipments of files in August and October 2004. Contrary to what has been said, the Attorney of the Republic, Jean-Claude Marin, has not released this legal concept of his hat. Complicity by failure exists in the case law, particularly in matters... abuse of social goods: such partner, aware of the manoeuvre, would you while another was committing the offence. But, here, the Prosecutor's Office makes a daring extension to the calumnious denunciation of forgery. Or a false criminal law within the meaning of article 441-1 "must assert title" and its use should prejudice. True or false Clearstream listings are anything but titles of ownership. Forward therefore to prove the calumnious denunciation, judges will have to legally establish the existence of false. This is the legal element. The hardware element, the evidence in the criminal law is free. It can be the result of simple statements. But, so far, no evidence, no confrontation came did give evidence of a formal knowledge by Dominique de Villepin of falsification of the listings. While hearings and including confrontation with General Rondot showed the willingness of concealment of Dominique de Villepin, but this does not, however, evidence of his guilt and his willingness to harm (intentional element). Would be another crime. The non-use of article 40: any official who in the exercise of its functions to the knowledge of a fact or omissions must disclose it. But in this game, others that Dominique de Villepin could fall. Former Prime Minister, who was Monday stigmatized Michèle Alliot-Marie, Minister of defence at the time of the facts, know.

The truth will be struggling to emerge from this trial, after all, regardless of the facts, which as well hard to exist legally. Jocasta concluded his tirade: "do therefore pleased to make the perpetrators, to make after illustrious miserable." Poor Queen, sad justice.