Moroccan Bar Association Slams Hakimi Rape Case, Citing ’Substantial Violations’ in Fair Trial Guarantees

In a statement signed by its president, Mourad Elajouti, the Moroccan Bar Association denounces shortcomings in the guarantees of a fair trial. The association says it "gravely notes substantial violations of the procedural rights guaranteed in the context of a fair trial, in the treatment reserved" for Achraf Hakimi. "The procedure, conducted under media pressure, seriously departs from the guarantees provided for in Article 6 §1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the preliminary article of the Code of Criminal Procedure, particularly in terms of speed, objectivity and the presumption of innocence," it denounces.

The association points out that "the investigation was opened on a simple declaration, without the filing of a complaint, medical certificate, or immediate willingness of the complainant to cooperate. This unusual triggering, in the absence of forensic findings, questions the rigor of the judicial analysis. However, European case law requires a clear justification of investigative acts (ECHR, Kress v. France, 7 June 2001) and the Court of Cassation recalls that ’any infringement of the rights of the defense must be strictly controlled’ (Crim., 11 Sept. 2019, no. 18-84.941)."

To support its argument, the Moroccan Bar Association notes that "nearly two and a half years have elapsed between the indictment and the final requisition, in violation of the principle of a reasonable time. The European Court has repeatedly stated that ’Justice delayed is justice denied’ (ECHR, Gelli v. Italy, 19 Oct. 2006). Under French law, excessive duration constitutes nullity in the event of proven prejudice (Crim., 14 Apr. 2021, no. 20-80.135)." The association does not hide its deep concerns. "On the merits, the file is marked by a worrying lack of evidence: no direct witness, no medical examination, no psychological expertise," it warns.

According to the association, "the sole declaration of the complainant, without any corroborating element, cannot be sufficient to justify a criminal referral (Crim., 25 March 2015, no. 14-81.899). However, the principle of the benefit of the doubt for the accused is not recognized here (Crim., 6 Jan. 2010, no. 08-87.089)." The association also condemns the "early media coverage, even before the indictment, (which) has seriously undermined the presumption of innocence, in contradiction with Article 9-1 of the Civil Code." It states that "the European Court has condemned France for premature declarations (Allenet de Ribemont v. France, 10 Feb. 1995), and the Court of Cassation has reaffirmed that ’any public declaration of guilt before judgment’ is unlawful (Crim., 16 Feb. 2022, no. 21-81.161)."

The Moroccan Bar Association also notes that the facts reported by the complainant do not seem to correspond to the strict definition of the alleged offense, which requires an act obtained "by violence, coercion, threat or surprise" (Article 222-23 of the Penal Code). "The case law requires a precise characterization of these elements (Crim., 18 Feb. 1998, no. 97-81.702). The maintenance of a criminal qualification, without a solid technical basis, is likely to constitute an excess of qualification," it pointed out. Given the procedural issues raised, the Moroccan Bar Association announces the establishment of a dedicated observation commission specifically for this case.

This independent body will be tasked with examining the entire judicial process, at each stage, to ensure the effective respect of fundamental rights, the principle of adversarial proceedings, and the national and international standards governing the fair trial, while fully respecting the independence of the judiciary, it is specified.