Gisèle Pelicot, a victim who wanted to break the silence around rape

French prosecutors will present their closing arguments in the sexual assault case that has shocked France and the world.

On November 20, prosecutors and lawyers representing the victim, Gisèle Pelicot, will present their closing arguments. Then, lawyers representing her husband and 50 other defendants accused of rape will present their final arguments to the court over an estimated period of three weeks.

A ruling is expected on December 20, after the five-member tribunal deliberates for a week. This marks the final phase of the trial, during which Pelicot’s final statements will be recorded. “It is time we change our perspective on rape,” she said on November 19, claiming the trial will go down in history as one that exposes a “sexist and patriarchal society that trivializes sexual violence.”

A “brave” decision

This process started in early September and will make history. Primarily because of the large number of defendants: approximately fifty men accused of raping Pelicot after she was drugged and sedated by her husband. This ‘historic’ process also gained worldwide fame and sparked countless debates about sexual violence, masculinity and the crucial issue of consent.

This fame would not have been possible without Pelicot’s decision to decline a trial behind closed doors, away from the eyes of journalists and the public. “This was a very courageous and powerful decision. This trial would never have sparked such a social debate if it had taken place behind closed doors,” said Maria Cornaz Bassoli, a Paris-based lawyer and president of the court. Choose the cause of women (“Supporting Women’s Causes”), an association founded by Tunisian-French lawyer and feminist activist Gisèle Halimi.

There is an ongoing battle between these two women – Pelicot and Halimi. When questioned during the October 23 hearing, Pelicot expressed her rejection of a closed-door trial, affirming her “will” and “determination to change this society.” To shift the burden of shame so that it no longer weighs on the victims. “The shame is not ours; it belongs to them (the accused),” she added.

These comments echoed those made by Halimi more than forty years ago. “When it comes to rape, we in our movement emphasize the public nature of the debates, because we believe that the female victim should not feel guilty and has nothing to hide,” the lawyer claimed before another historic trial: the case from 1978 the southern French city of Aix-en-Provence, where three men were tried and convicted of raping two women, Anne Tonglet and Araceli Castellano, who also refused a hearing behind closed doors.

“We believe there is a difference between a man who rapes and a man who wants this to be known in his village, at work and in the newspapers. Publicity can have a deterrent effect,” Halimi said at the time.

“Shame must change sides”

Before this trial, rape cases were routinely held behind closed doors. The impact of the Aix-en-Provence trial led to the adoption of a law in 1980 that allowed the decision to make public legal arguments to be left solely to the discretion of the victim. “Since that law, only the victim can request or refuse the public nature of the debates,” Bassoli explained.

But should arguments in a rape case be made public? “It is up to the victim to decide without any coercion. Some women immediately say to me: I don’t want a trial behind closed doors, because the shame has to change sides. Others say to me: I don’t want an audience or media at the trial,” said Carine Durrieu-Diebolt, a lawyer who has represented countless victims of sexual violence.

“It’s always case by case. Some women worry that telling the facts in front of an audience will make them feel uncomfortable. Sometimes they are afraid of public pressure,” the lawyer added, recalling a trial in which she represented a woman who was the victim of a gang rape in Corsica. “This woman came from the Paris region and feared that during the trial, far from home, many people would show up to support the suspect. That’s why she asked for a trial behind closed doors.”

“Nothing should be imposed on a victim”

Durrieu-Diebolt is also the lawyer for two women who accuse French actor Gérard Depardieu of sexual assault. At the end of October, they wanted a public debate during a court hearing in Paris, which was ultimately postponed until March due to the actor’s absence for medical reasons. “For them it was important that the media were present to report on the proceedings, to tell their story and to relay everything that Gérard Depardieu would say in his defense.”

While praising Pelicot’s “courage”, the two lawyers stressed the importance, after the current trial in Avignon, that each victim feels free to choose or reject a closed-door trial for his own case, without the obligation to to follow in the footsteps of the judge. icon that Pelicot has become.

“There can be no prohibition on a trial behind closed doors. Nothing should be imposed on a victim,” said Cornaz Bassoli. “A victim who refuses public debate is no less courageous or determined than those who request a trial behind closed doors,” Durrieu-Diebolt added.