The Moroccan Bar Association has expressed deep concerns regarding the legal proceedings surrounding Moroccan player Achraf Hakimi. This follows the French public prosecutor’s request to refer the player to a criminal court on charges of rape related to an incident from February 2023. The association noted that the proceedings have demonstrated a clear breach of fair trial guarantees, especially given the significant media pressure accompanying the case.
According to Le Parisien, the prosecution believes that the evidence is sufficient for a trial, which could expose Hakimi, 26, to a prison sentence of up to 15 years. The player’s legal team has denied the allegations, labeling them as an attempt at extortion and pointing to inconsistencies in the complainant’s story, which has not been substantiated by a formal complaint or medical or psychological examinations.
In an official statement, the Bar Association criticized the initiation of the investigation based solely on a declaration without any formal complaint or material evidence such as witness testimonies or medical reports, asserting that “the principle of the benefit of the doubt for the accused has been clearly ignored.” The association further indicated that the delay in the investigation, lasting over two and a half years, constitutes a violation of the reasonable timeframe principle stipulated by the European Convention on Human Rights.
The association affirmed that the framing of the charges does not align with the requirements of Article 222-23 of the French Penal Code, which necessitates the presence of violence, threat, or surprise. Meanwhile, Hakimi’s lawyer highlighted the existence of evidence exonerating her client and emphasized the absence of psychological indicators typically associated with sexual assault cases.
In light of these developments, the Bar Association announced the formation of an independent monitoring committee to oversee the trial process, ensuring respect for fundamental rights and principles of justice. Legal circles are awaiting the investigating judge’s decision regarding the acceptance of the referral or the issuance of a dismissal, amidst a noticeable divergence between the positions of the prosecution and defense.
