Magistrates are increasingly using a specific phrase during courtroom proceedings: “Madame, on vous croit mais…” The expression is spreading and raises questions about its legal validity and effects in judicial practice, according to magistrate Valérie-Odile Dervieux.
Origins of the phrase
The formula “on vous croit,” addressed by the trial court to the civil party during a judgment of acquittal, appears to be gaining traction. It creates a complex situation: the accused may feel partially exonerated, while the victim may feel heard but not fully understood. The magistrate questions whether this is an invitation to the prosecution to appeal, a recognition of insufficient investigations, or a symptom of a failing evidentiary system. Some speculate that specialized training in sexual and gender-based violence cases might be influencing this practice.
One possible origin is presidential. The November 2023 public report from the CIIVISE (Independent Commission on Sexual Violence against Children) is titled “Sexual Violence Against Children: We Believe You.” The commission notes that the President of the Republic tasked it with implementing his promise to victims: “We believe you and you will never be alone again.” However, the commission’s recommendations—phrased as “I believe you and I protect you” directed at the child—were intended as a standard for initial reception by doctors, teachers, and social workers, not as a judicial stance during a trial on guilt.
The phrase may also reflect doctrinal debates on the idea of a “presumption of credibility” or “presumption of victimhood” for victims. Sociologist Irène Théry sparked this discussion in 2011 following the Strauss-Kahn affair. More recently, Professor Anne-Blandine Caire has advocated for a “presumption of victimhood” to protect victims from unjust disqualification. This presumption is not codified in current law.
Related Post: Pradeep Rai elected Supreme Court Bar Association president
Making it the exact counterpart to the presumption of innocence is also difficult, as the presumption of innocence has constitutional and conventional foundations, including Article 9 of the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and the preliminary provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The judicial phrase might therefore be an informal translation of a demand that the legislature has not yet formalized as a legal presumption.
Another source could be the evidentiary difficulties in cases of sexual violence. In these disputes, proof often relies solely on the plaintiff’s testimony, sometimes corroborated by psychological reports but rarely by contextual control mechanisms. The judge who acquits risks being read by the public and the civil party as a verdict of lies. The phrase might aim to correct this reading. It also serves a procedural purpose: by acknowledging the victim’s truthfulness, the court may prevent the use of acquittal as a step in a subsequent complaint for defamation, as Article 226-10 of the Penal Code specifies that a finding that a fact was not committed does not constitute a false declaration.
This trend coincides with the growing importance of the victim’s role in criminal proceedings. The law on criminal justice and victim respect raises the victim’s recognition as one of the procedural objectives. The judge integrates this expectation. When the law does not allow for a conviction, the phrase “we believe you” becomes an expression of this demand. It also has a defensive function: it verbalizes the condition under which an acquittal does not imply defamation.
Consequences for the Cour de Cassation
The court may say, “We heard you” or “We believe you” without this statement being legally recorded in the written judgment. The magistrate points out that this oral statement has no legal existence, no judicial motive status, and is not part of the dispositif or appealable.
Related Post: Delhi High Court Criticises ED Quashes PMLA Case
However, the phrase risks clashing with the principle of the benefit of the doubt. The Code of Criminal Procedure requires the president of the Assize Court to remind jurors that the accused is presumed innocent and that doubt benefits the accused. The European Union directive 2016/343 requires that any doubt regarding guilt benefit the suspect. The French Supreme Court has ruled that an acquittal based on the benefit of doubt requires the court to examine all elements of the offense and must be pronounced when proof is not certain.
The court treats this as a distinct category of review. In cases of false accusation, the court must still determine whether the plaintiff knew the facts were false when denouncing them. An acquittal based on the benefit of doubt is not a half-verdict; it excludes culpability entirely. This creates a tension: if the phrase is seen as implying a finding of truth, it may be perceived as contradicting the benefit of the doubt, which is based on a lack of proof, not the discovery of the truth.
The magistrate notes that the phrase may serve a defensive procedural purpose by verbalizing the condition under which an acquittal does not constitute a false declaration, as Article 226-10 of the Penal Code specifies that a finding that a fact was not committed does not constitute a false declaration. However, if the president states “we believe you” in a way that could be seen as contradicting the requirement of proof, the decision may potentially be challenged.
Leave a Reply