Tariq Ramadan case: expert opinion finding control over the plaintiffs invalidated for procedural flaw

Doctor Daniel Zagury’s expertise has been canceled because the psychiatrist questioned several complainants or witnesses without the agreement of the investigating judges.

Article written by



Reading time : 1 min.

The conclusions ofu Doctor Daniel Zagury are excluded from the case. La Paris court of appeal canceled Thursday, June 17 the psychiatric expertise according to which the women who accuse the intellectual Tariq Ramadan of rape were partly under his influence, France Televisions learned from lawyers, confirming information from the AFP. The expertise, which dates from May 2020, was invalidated by the investigating chamber for a procedural defect because the psychiatrist questioned several complainants or witnesses without the consent of the investigating judges. Daniel Zagury had only been authorized to consult the file, in which the statements of the women concerned appeared.

“The expert committed an abuse of power which was sanctioned, it is the fair application of the law”, rejoiced Philippe Ohayon, one of the councils of Tariq Ramadan, who disputes the accusations of the plaintiffs and pleads agreed relations. Two other defense lawyers, Nabila Asmane and Ouadie Elhamamouchi, deduce that “this decision confirms that there is no more Ramadan file” and consider “the notion of hold” as “a lifeline to save this investigation from legal wreck”.

However, the court held that “The analysis of the relations that may have existed between the eight plaintiffs and witnesses identified (…) and Tariq Ramadan constitutes a central element of the procedure which must imperatively be the subject of an in-depth study”. New experts will have to re-examine this question at the heart of the matter. This new expertise could be entrusted to “a college of experts”, depending on the judgment. Pour Eric Morain, lawyer for two plaintiffs, “the court ordered a second opinion, proof, if any, that the issue of influence is more than ever at the heart of this case”.

This judicial debate on the notion of influence is essential for the investigating judges who must determine, before ordering a possible trial or the abandonment of the proceedings, whether or not the Islamologist can be accused of having imposed acts. of sexual penetration by a form of “moral constraint”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *