Do you know the cause of hakkar abd el hamide Against fransh

                                                                                                                 Algeria: 05/12/2008


       CONCLUSIONS FOR Case of hakar Abd El Hamid

Mr Abdelhamid Hakkar
Born on 20 July 1955 to Kenchela (Algeria)
Algerian nationality,
Currently held at the Remand Prison The Ensisheim
49 rue of the First Army
68,190 Ensisheim
With the Lawyers:
master Daghbouche Naaman
+ Lawyer cited author of the 120 lots number 21-Khenchela-Algeria
Background Facts
Arrested in 1984 with nine other persons accused of having robbed and murdered a policeman and wounding another when he denied these effects and also the true murderer acknowledged. and the firearm with which the police were you. is recovered from the house of the sister of the real murderer. After the search of the police,
   Abdelhamid Hakkar, an Algerian citizen, was sentenced on 8 December 1989 to life imprisonment with a detention order of 18 years by the court of the Yonne, while the trial was proceeding in his absence in absence and without the presence of his lawyer.
His nine co-defendants have all since been released, the last one in January 1992.
On 14 June 1991, Abdelhamid Hakkar introduced a complaint before the European Commission of Human Rights.
On 27 June 1995, it adopted a report after which it concluded unanimously by its members, the violation by the French state of Articles 6 § 1 and 6 § 3 of the European Convention on the Rights of the ‘Man. (see Convention enclosure)
That report shows qu’Abdelhamid Hakkar was not tried within a reasonable time and that most importantly, did not benefit from the assistance of a lawyer, his trial was unfair.
On 15 December 1995, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, in which the Commission had forwarded the case, concluded unanimously also for the same violations.
At the end of its resolutions, it condemned the French government having to pay 62 000 francs to the complainant in compensation for moral damage. He directed primarily recommendation of having to correct the earlier violations found and to erase the consequences.
Since 1995, noting that there had still not been remedied as the Committee of Ministers that the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe had to recall more than thirty five times in the French government to confront its obligations as deriving from its ratification of the European Convention on Human Rights.
On 10 February 2000, raised by the case of Abdelhamid Hakkar, Mr Jack Lang had a parliamentary amendment to introduce a new case review that would execute the sentences passed by the Council of Europe against the state french.
On 21 April 2000, Prime Vice-President of the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris was seized referred by Mr Hakkar.
After having rejected the objections to jurisdiction filed by the Prefect of the Region Ile de France, Prefect of Paris, he had found:
« Considering that in France, sanctioned by the competent organ of the Treaty by reason of breach of the Convention, had to take office initiatives that would enable it to justify its intention to meet the requirement of a fair trial under the provisions cited in the interest of Mr Hakkari,
« However, given that it is not provided proof of such an initiative, except information on the filing of a bill to enable it to meet the future;
« What a result, Mr Hakkar is denied the exercise of a fundamental human right, namely his right to a fair trial, which characterizes sufficiently assault and he cites that justifies the referral of our jurisdiction guaranteeing respect for individual freedoms. « 
The law of 15 June 2000, strengthening the protection of the presumption of innocence contained the above amendment providing for the inclusion of articles 626-1 and following the Code of Criminal Procedure under the title « From a review Criminal consecutive decision to the imposition of a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights « for immediate application.
A new court, the Commission for review in criminal matters, was established by the Court of Cassation.
On 30 November 2000, after sixteen years of imprisonment and ten years of multiple procedures, the new court rendered its first decision. It ordered the suspension of the life sentence imposed on 8 December 1989 against Abdelhamid Hakkar by the Assize Court of Yonne and referred the case to the Court of Assizes of the Hauts de Seine so that the case be retrial.
Instead of being immediately released, Mr Hakkar was kept in the house arrest of Health and moreover placed in solitary confinement, which removed any sense to the suspension of his criminal sentence to life imprisonment.
To qualify maintain Mr HAKKARD in prison, the prison administration relies on three correctional convictions become final in 1989, 1992 and 1997, made the nut at the behest of the Prosecutor General of Paris and Reims which are, in their view, become « Executory » as of this suspension.
Mr Hakkar strongly supports this decision and that these three sentences have already been executed. They are in any case prescribed.

The issue before the Court on the implementation of these three convictions including correctional prison itself to maintain Mr Hakkar in detention.
It argues first conviction, the head of attempted escape, to 18 months’ imprisonment and a decision keeping in detention imposed by the Court of Appeal in Paris on 2 December 1988.
It then takes advantage of the conviction, the head of attempted escape with violence, to 8 years imprisonment pronounced by the same court on February 27 1992.
Finally, the prison reported a conviction, the head of breach of the law on narcotics, 6 months’ imprisonment on 14 March 1996 by the Court of Appeal in Sacramento.
Under Article 710 of the Criminal Procedure Code, « any incident related to litigation enforcement is brought before the tribunal or court which handed down the sentence. »
The Court of céans is competent to examine incidents of execution for the two sentences it has imposed in 1988 and 1992.
Regarding the sentence imposed by the Court of Appeal Reims, no problem of execution may arise since it is indisputable that this sentence was fully served.
Indeed, even this sentence to 6 months imprisonment would become binding only on 30 November 2000, and the prison administration says it has been fully implemented no later than 30 March 2001, with Mr Hakkar received on that conviction, two months graceful surrender under Decree collective Thanksgiving 1997.
- The execution of these sentences
- On penalty of 18 months imposed on 2 December 1998 by the 10th Chamber of the Court of Appeal of Paris
In November 1986, Mr. Hakkar tried to escape.
In this context, a warrant was taken in July 1988 and a release was ordered five months later, in December 1988.
On 21 September 1989, Mr Hakkar was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment (sentence to three years reported by the Court of Appeal of Paris) and a new warrant was taken.
Given its record of performance, the beginning of the sentence of three years was set on 21 September 1989, the day of the second term of deposit.
The administration believes, rightly, that this penalty is carried out to date.
In January 1988, Mr. Hakkar trying to escape a second time and was convicted of the chief punishment of 18 months imprisonment by the Court of Appeal in Paris on 2 December 1988.
In this context, a warrant was taken on 27 July 1988, fourteen months before the warrant taken into account in order to begin the sentence of three years which alone would have been executed.
However, in all logic, the sentence of 18 months necessarily has started on 27 July 1988, the day of term deposit.
At that time, Mr Hakkar not serving any sentence became final.
Only on 27 January 1990, eighteen months later, to begin the sentence of three years.
In any event, the sentence of eighteen months has been imposed in the first instance and has become final before the three years, which confirms that its implementation has started necessarily before this one.
The sentence of 18 months was therefore fully executed, like that of three years.
3.1.2 On-sentenced to 8 years’ imprisonment imposed on 27 February 1992 by the 10th Chamber of the Court of Appeal of Paris
The prison administration maintains that this sentence was implemented on 30 November 2000.
The penalty, which had not resulted in a warrant under investigation, has been gracious remission of three months under Decree Thanksgiving 2 July 1992.
Article 3 of this decree, necessarily applicable to the situation of Mr Hakkari, provided that « persons convicted on or before 7 July 1992 to a term temporary freedom not brought into effect on that date, receive a Courtesy of three months provided that the sentence has become enforceable until 19 July 1992.
Circular 92-11 stated further that the discount applied only if the three following conditions were met:
« The sentence was pronounced at the latest on July 7 1992
the penalty has not yet been reduced to execution, ie, it has not been put to the nut, as of 7 July 1992
the sentence must now be enforceable until 19 July 1992
The sentence of 8 years was therefore binding on 19 July 1992. Above all, the second condition expresses clearly that making the nut of a reduced sentence of execution.
However, this sentence of 8 years’ imprisonment imposed on 27 February 1992 was last nut and thus brought into effect on December 8 1992 at the initiative of Public Prosecutions, in any case on 30 December 2000 as claimed today Today the prison administration.
Mr. Attorney General acknowledges himself in the comments he made in the context of this request, Mr Hakkar properly invoked the provisions of the decree.
The penalty, which should be subtracted three months’ grace, was fully executed on September 8 2000 at the latest.
In support of his demonstration, he produced a consultation with Mr Bouloc professor confirms his analysis.
Thus, finding on the question of whether two sentences for attempted escape or above could not be reduced to the execution, Mr. Professor Bouloc said:
« The sentences for attempted escape, but they must be executed in addition to the sentence for the offense for which the convicted person was detained, can only be absorbed by a sentence of life imprisonment .
It is not in fact how after this death penalty not, it would be possible to implement. « 
Contrary to the opinion of the prosecutor general that « these penalties accumulate without possibility of confusion and sentence on 2 December 1988 must be sustained after the sentence on 8 December 1989, Mr. Professor Bouloc yet concluded without ambiguity completed its consultation:
« In any case, the sentences imposed by the Court of Appeal in Paris under the escape have necessarily been brought into effect because of their mention on the prison register, they can not be brought into effect as a result a single stay of enforcement of a sentence of life imprisonment which is not in its execution. « 
3.1.3 On-the sentence of 6 months’ imprisonment on 14 March 1996 by the Court of Appeal Reims
For information, the death penalty has also been a gracious surrender two months under the decree of pardon in 1997, is established to have been implemented and is now served.
It was last nut and thus brought into effect on September 8 1997.
It was therefore fully executed on 8 January 1998 at the latest.
If not accepted the Court, like the prison administration, that the sentences of 18 months and 8 years of imprisonment had been brought into effect until 30 November 2000, she could only see that the requirement of these sentences was acquired.
On the 3.2-prescription of these sentences
Pursuant to Article 133-3 of the Penal Code, sentences of 18 months and 8 years of imprisonment are clearly prescribed.
Article 133-3 of the Penal Code which, as was made clear the legislature of restrictive application, states that « the sentences for a crime is barred by five full years from the date on which the conviction becomes final. « 
Thus, the sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment, became final on October 18 1989, was barred on 18 October 1994.
The sentence of 8 years, became final on June 23 1992, was laid on 23 June 1997.
The interruption of the prescription used by the prison administration has no effect.
In a letter dated 23 November 2000 Mr Hakkari, the director of the house arrest of Health explained that making the nut convictions to 18 months and 8 years of imprisonment would have interrupted the limitation period .
However, the interruption of the prescription has other effect than to cancel the time and to begin a new deadline.
Thus, if the Court admits that making the nut does not reduce the sentence of execution and interrupt the limitation period, she could only see that despite all penalties are prescribed.
The sentence of 18 months imprisonment, making the nut on 12 January 1990, would have been required on 12 January 1995.
The sentence of 8 years, making the nut on 8 December 1992, was prescribed on December 8 1997.
Mr Hakkar is held irregularly whatever the presentation of his situation.
The prison administration also can not invoke the suspension of the limitation period by the execution of the life sentence.
This analysis, however, retained by Mr. Attorney General, would be in total contradiction with the principle of the first paragraph of Article 132-5 of the Penal Code after which « any deprivation of liberty is confused with a life sentence. »
Moreover, suspension of the life sentence, ordered on 30 November 2000 retroactively destroy the alleged suspension of the limitation period penalties of 8 years and 18 months.
This analysis was given to Mr Hakkar in a letter dated 22 January 2001 written on behalf of Ms. Keeper of the Seals, which stated that following the ruling on November 30 2000, it is in situation and accused that the conviction pronounced on 8 December 1989 by the Assize Court of Yonne to rigorous imprisonment for life is neither final nor enforceable.
  « Apart from that position at the nut such sentences have been carried out, we must also recognize, in case they were not executed (despite the rule that the mention on the nut outweighs the execution), prosecutors General would not be entitled to implement.
In fact, the review has only suspend the sentence of imprisonment, it has not annulled the conviction that remains until a new vienna decision to replace the original decision. A fortiori the decision of the committee review has not halted the execution of the original sentence, so that life has not been completed on 30 November 2000. (…) In such cases, there is a deferred execution, and not the sentence served, making it impossible to start the sentences for escape is not as the penalty expired for crime for which he was detained.
It is clear that life imprisonment whose execution was suspended temporarily is not complete and therefore the penalties for avoidance can not be implemented. « 
3.3-On the ambiguities of the hotel
The purge of those convictions – because of their execution or their prescription-is still prepared, if necessary, by the French state itself.
Thus, in April 2000, before the judge, prosecutors and judicial Agent Treasury does not have availed of these prison sentences, in addition to the life sentence deemed illegal and void by the Committee of Ministers of Council of Europe to demonstrate qu’Abdelhamid Hakkar could not claim to be arbitrarily detained and thus exonerate the State of the assault he was charged.
Then the form of execution sentences Mr Hakkari, as established before 30 November 2000, reveals that were proposed for parole on 2 September 2002, ten-eight years after his imprisonment in 1984 , Which is the penalty security imposed by the Court of Assizes of the Yonne in 1989.
In calculating the date on which Mr Hakkar was proposed for parole, only the life sentence was taken into account, to the exclusion of all correctional penalties.
The prison had seen just before the suspension of the life sentence, that all correctional sentences were, in fact, entirely « absorbed » by the life sentence, in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 of Article 132-5 of the Penal Code.
Regarding the absorption of punishment by correctional penalties, Mr. Professor Bouloc confirms the interpretation of the complainant.
After recalling the principle set under the influence of the former Penal Code, reflected in Article 132-5 of the Penal Code and the exception applies this principle in relation to escape, it is very clearly: « logic dictates that the penalty imposed for temporary escape is executed at the same time as the life sentence or the death penalty for evasion can never be reduced to execution. »
His argument that the sixteen years of detention prior to the suspension of life sentence corresponds to a period of provisional detention is clearly excluded, especially as the administration maintains that the sentence of three years was executed during this period.
How can we say that Mr decently Hakkari, which would have suffered a « provisional detention » of size years, should now serve in excess of ten years in prison for acts that were committed when he was already in « provisional detention « And were finally tried between 1989 and 1995.
How can one seriously claim that a person could be detained under preventive detention for sixteen years, while this time, she could be detained for ten years, executing three penalties definitive?
Mr Hakkar is clearly detained except as provided by law and, therefore, detained arbitrarily.
His release must be ordered without delay.
For more details you can see on the net on google and put the keyword that the (case Hakkar Abd El Hamid against France)

     Master Daghbouche Naaman

Publié dans : Non classé |le 9 décembre, 2008 |1 Commentaire »

Vous pouvez laisser une réponse.

1 Commentaire Commenter.

  1. le 3 février, 2009 à 12:29 ajebmptgtfh écrit:

    dqzFMX gzsgoxbdcyzt, [url=]sxqctffuaegz[/url], [link=]psrjfzumvmoc[/link],

Laisser un commentaire

La marche européenne des pa... |
Me Olicier PIERICHE |
Hélioparc, une bien sale hi... | | Annuaire | Signaler un abus | Site officiel de l'Hôtel de...
| lianejuridique
| revolutionblogger