The request from the Robin des Lois association was rejected by the Defender of Rights.
It related to the decision of the Academy of Caesar to withdraw, for the next ceremony, the people implicated "for acts of violence".
She had been taken in the wake of the Sofiane Bennacer affair, a young actor revealed by
Les Amandiers,
indicted for rape.
The association denounced a situation of “
discrimination
” insofar as the accused (and not convicted) were “
deprived of their most essential rights
”.
In particular, according to the association, the decision taken by the Académie des César would not respect the principle of the presumption of innocence.
“Out of respect for the victims (even presumed in the event of indictment or non-final conviction), it was decided not to highlight people who would be implicated by justice for acts of violence”,
could -we read in a press release published by the Academy on January 3.
"The loss of our democratic landmarks"
But, for the Defender of Rights, the qualification of “
discrimination
” cannot be applied in this situation under the law.
To do this, it would have to bring together three elements.
First, a “
difference in treatment between persons placed in a comparable situation
”.
Secondly, that this situation relates to “
an area provided for by law (in particular, professional life or access to goods or services)
”.
Finally, that there is "
a link with a criterion of discrimination prohibited by law (in particular, origin, sex, state of health or disability, sexual orientation, physical appearance, etc.)
" .
For the independent authority, the account is not there.
“
The unfavorable treatment of the request was made according to a criterion defined by law
”, explains to
Figaro
one of its members.
Read alsoWhen the Académie des César ratifies the presumption of guilt
The lawyer and member of the Robin des Lois association, Emmanuel Ludot, accuses the Defender of Rights of "
kicking into touch
" and of not commenting on the real problem posed by this situation.
The association is particularly concerned about the establishment of a “
parallel justice
” which would ignore the real judicial institution and which could lead
to “the loss of our democratic landmarks
”.
