These cases are heavy dangers for the France

When the number of guards to view exceeds 550,000 a year, citizens beyond the hardened criminals are concerned. The France is one of the few countries in Europe to not give counsel that a symbolic role during this phase of the investigation in which the suspects are subjected to fire rolling issues. Recent judgments by the European Court of the rights of the human will revolutionize this practice.

To measure their scope, remember that custody is, initially, a measure to prevent a suspect from fleeing, disappearing evidence or prevent accomplices. This is the entrance of lawyers in the offices of education in 1897, which led investigators to a special moment to cause the confession of the suspect. The lawyer could intervene only in 1993, on a minor mode: If a suspect can, in General, meet with a lawyer at the beginning of the custody, the lawyer has no access to the file and does not attend the interrogation of his client. It is this system that is shaken by the European Court.

In question, the absence of counsel

In a 2008 case, it considers that the immediate access to a lawyer is vital for serious offences, as this is that the defence must be best ensured. The Court adds that such access may be delayed after the first examination for "compelling reasons arising from the particular circumstances of this case." Even in this case, an "irremediable impairment comes to the rights of the defence when incriminating statements made during police questioning suffered without possible assistance of a lawyer are used to ground a conviction." and, even if the lawyer is present then.

The ECHR added in 2009, that "discussion of the case, the Organization of the defence, research evidence favourable to the accused, the preparation of examinations, the support of the accused in distress, the control of the conditions of detention are fundamental elements of the defence counsel must freely exercise" as soon as the custody.

These cases are heavy dangers for the France. The report of the arrival of counsel for the more serious offences, validated by the Constitutional Council in 1993, contravenes the European principle according to which the assistance of counsel is, in this case, particularly necessary: the ECHR allowing derogations for compelling reasons for each case, any general exemption rule is condemned. All the guards to view on terrorism, drug trafficking and organized crime are, therefore, of dubious legality. Similarly, police practice - validated by the Court of cassation - who is to start questioning without waiting for the arrival of counsel seems contrary to the rule, even in extreme cases, to question a suspect without his lawyer.

Beyond that, these cases appear to impose the communications counsel to the record of the proceeding and their presence during interrogation. The Chancellery, strictly interpreting the concept of a lawyer, argues that the French procedure, which allows an interview with a lawyer, would be lawful. But the ECHR appears to give wrong:, indicating that the lawyer must be able to organize defence, search for evidence and prepare examinations from the guard in view, it seems that it provides a true defence at this stage.

The French vision of custody is even being evil since the ECHR refuses that the charge can base his arguments "on items collected by compulsion", major purpose of custody, "lower level of torture" according to a former Director of the national police school. Many French judges, as the ECHR, believe that the custody is not a good method of investigation: it does too often to obtain confessions of the weakest; it diverts the investigators of the work of scientific investigation; because the contradiction that counsel does, it does not avoid on false leads. Only the presence of counsel at this stage "contributes to the prevention of miscarriages of Justice".

The reform of the French procedure is therefore urgent, except to compromise number of procedures. Already, freedoms and detention JJ cancel guards to view, in the light of the recent judgments of the ECHR. Not to react would be a significant risk.