Six years after the death of Adama Traoré, in 2016, after his arrest in Beaumont-sur-Oise (Val-d'Oise), the investigation of the Traoré case is still not complete.
The Belgian experts mandated by the courts to carry out a tenth medical expertise on the circumstances of Adama Traoré's death have delivered their conclusions, Le Parisien learned on Wednesday.
In this document that Le Parisien was able to consult, the experts conclude that "the new hearings and the medical documents established by occupational medicine do not modify (...) the previous collegial expert report".
They also insist on the fact that the elements resulting from the hearings carried out and brought to their attention within the framework of this new expertise "even reinforce" their "conviction" on the circumstances of the death.
The police officers implicated
The Belgian experts had in their first expertise (the ninth in this case) estimated that the death was due to "heat stroke", due to the heat wave, which however "probably" would not have been fatal without his arrest under the weight of the three gendarmes.
But after that new elements reached the judges.
Investigators had heard in March 2021 from a man whose testimony had been desired from the start.
He intervened when the gendarmes tried for the first time to arrest Adama Traoré.
He had then found him out of breath.
“It's as if his body wasn't reacting.
[…] For me, he was in a state that is not usual, he did not speak, ”said this witness.
Four Belgian experts had been asked to provide a supplement to the judicial expertise they had given in January 2021. They should have given their conclusions at the end of August of the same year, except that one of them had died in the meantime. time.
The judges had thus appointed another Belgian doctor to replace him.
Adama Traoré's family had notably requested the addition to the file of a sick leave from Adama Traoré dated 2014, which underlined the fact that the man, 24 years old at the time of his death, was easily out of breath.
The experts have taken this new document into account, but declare that it “does not provide any element likely to modify the conclusions of the expert report”.