On September 14, 2023, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) rejected Kamel Daoudi's application, filed five years earlier, for the lifting of his fifteen-year long house arrest.
It decided that it could not rule on the merits of the case (violations of the right to private and family life and the right to liberty perpetrated by the French state) until Kamel had exhausted all domestic remedies in France. Kamel has always sought legal recognition of his rights. However, for the past fifteen years, Kamel Daoudi, his wife and their four children have had their simple request to resume normal family life rejected by the French courts.
Agrandissement : Illustration 1
The ECHR thus represented the "last legal hope" for an entire family: the blow was too hard for Sandra, his wife, mother of their four children and a school teacher, who, in an ultimate act of resistance, went on hunger and thirst strike in the wake of such a cruel decision1.
Sandra and their four children share Kamel's experience, the social and psychological consequences of this deprivation of freedom. Since 23 April 2008, Kamel Daoudi has reported to his local police station several times a day, is obliged to stay within the perimeter of the commune imposed by the state, and observes a night-time curfew between 9pm and 7am. In the event of any breach, however minor, he faces up to three years in prison2. Since 2017, he has been forcibly relocated several hundred kilometres away from his family home, where his wife and their four children live.
Under these conditions, the Ministry of the Interior prevents him from working and taking part in the family’s everyday routine. As a result, his wife has to bear the financial and mental burden of the entire family.
When his wife and children are able to visit him, they share with him, physically and mentally, his daily life as an individual under house arrest. This situation leads to mental exhaustion for the whole family, reinforced by the harassment, intimidation, bullying, remarks and suspicious looks that are part of their daily life as a family under house arrest.
What have they done to deserve this? The answer can be summed up in three words. They did nothing.
Let's go back in time. In 2001, Kamel Daoudi was arrested and convicted of "criminal association in connection with a planned terrorist undertaking". He has always denied it, and the courts have acknowledged that there was no proof of an attack, apart from the "confession" of a co-accused, extracted under torture in the United Arab Emirates.
Stripped of his French nationality and sentenced to a six-year-long imprisonment and a ban on French territory, he served his full sentence. His planned return to Algeria, a country to which he has no ties except his nationality, was prohibited in 2009 by the ECHR in view of the risk of cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment he would face there.
Having lived in France since the age of 5, and having acquired French nationality through naturalisation, which he was deprived of on May 27, 2002, while his case was being examined, Kamel Daoudi has since found himself relegated to a no-man's-land: at once banned from French territory and prevented from expulsion to Algeria; at once released from prison and deprived of his freedom to travel, to work, to live with his family, to resume a normal life. Kamel Daoudi has been living in a state of social quarantine for 15 years.
For the past 15 years, the intelligence services, at the request of the legal services of the Ministry of Justice, have been relentlessly invoking a supposed “dangerousness” through accusations both absurd and unfounded. The latest: having signed a petition and expressed his perfectly legal opinions in publications on social networks. What a strange way of looking at freedom of expression in the "land of human rights": to express oneself freely is enough to be considered dangerous. Above all, while he is one of the most closely watched people in France, and our anti-terrorist legislation is very broad with more than 20 laws passed in the last 30 years, Kamel has been accused of everything and anything, but he has never been charged with anything.
This situation is made possible first and foremost by French legislation, which allows the State to place a foreigner under indefinite house arrest, pending deportation3. In Kamel's case, as we have seen, such an expulsion would not only be illegal, but would also be tantamount to depriving children of their father or forcing them to live in a foreign country. Then there are the administrative courts, which have shown an unfortunate tendency in recent years to take at face value even the most baseless accusations made by intelligence services, presented in the form of undated, unsigned, unsourced "white notes". These notes and their use are highly contested, even outside of the Daoudi affair. Fruits of the generalised suspicion generated by the war on terror and its Islamophobic securitising narratives, they are most often filled with unverifiable and scripted anecdotes. White notes were strongly criticised by the UN Special Rapporteur herself, who "expressed particular concern about administrative measures such as the use by administrative courts of 'white notes', i.e. confidential notes issued by the security and administrative services of the Ministry of the Interior. These documents form the basis for administrative measures. According to the Special Rapporteur, these notes undermine the presumption of innocence, reverse the burden of proof and weaken the rights of the defence in court4". During the state of emergency, these documents served as the basis for a large number of unjustified measures, restricting freedoms and discriminating against people on the grounds of their real or supposed religious affiliation and practices.
In a state governed by the rule of law, since it is impossible to "prove one's innocence", it is up to the justice system to establish the guilt of the accused. In Kamel Daoudi's case, it's the other way around: it's up to him to prove that he's not dangerous, two, three, four times a day at the nearest police station for the past fifteen years. Kamel, and with him his wife and their four children, are literally living in a lawless state.
The ECHR's decision, cruel as it is, has one virtue: it indicates that the primary responsibility for this situation, unworthy of a state governed by the rule of law, lies with the highest French authorities, first and foremost the Ministers of the Interior and Justice. They can put an end to it at any time, provided they show courage, humanity and respect for fundamental rights. If they don't, an entire family will have to live under house arrest for the rest of their lives.
While French law permits these measures, in no way it obliges the government to use them in an arbitrary manner. These measures can be taken in anticipation of an eventual deportation, and in the event of a serious risk of disturbing public order. Removal is impossible, and Kamel Daoudi, in 15 years, has never seriously disturbed public order. At any time, the government can lift Kamel's house arrest, allow him to go back to work, and live with his family, like everyone else. Kamel, like any convict who has served his sentence, aspires to resume a normal life, nothing more, nothing less. Nothing justifies these drastic measures, which, like the water supplice, torture a man, a woman and their four children day after day.
Kamel and Sandra have only one demand: to resume a normal life, and offer their children the presence of a father.
To sign the op-ed, please follow this link
First signatories (2023 November update):
Norman AJARI, Doctor of Philosophy – University of Edinburgh, Scotland;
Hatem AL BAZIAN, Professor – University of Berkeley, California, United States;
Arié ALIMI, Lawyer;
Anas AMARA, Anti-racist activist, Carte blanche, Belgium;
Fionnuala D. NI AOLAIN, Special Rapporteur on human rights and counter-terrorism, United Nations;
Alexandre ARCHAMBAULT, Lawyer;
Maryse ARTIGUELONG, Vice-president, International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH);
Alain BADIOU, philosopher;
Étienne BALIBAR, philosopher;
Fanny BAUER-MOTTI, Psychologist;
Ludivine BANTIGNY, Historian;
Patrick BAUDOUIN, President, Human Rights League;
Julien BLAINE, artist and poet;
Nabil BOUDI, Lawyer;
Taha BOUHAFS, Journalist;
Houria BOUTELDJA, Activist and essayist;
Youcef BRAKNI, Activist from working-class neighborhoods;
Guillaume BRANDT, Director;
Rony BRAUMAN, doctor, former president of MSF;
Henri BRAUN, Lawyer;
Vincent BRENGARTH, Lawyer;
Sebastian BUDGEN, editor;
François BURGAT, Political scientist, former research director, Institute for Research and Studies on the Arab and Muslim World;
Laurent CAUWET, editor;
Claudia CHARLES, Lawyer;
Safa CHEBBI, Collective for political dignity (Canada);
Raphaël CONFIANT, Writer;
Fayçal CHEFFOU, Journalist;
Véronique CLETTE-GAKUBA, Sociologist – Université Libre de Bruxelles, Belgium;
Laurence de COCK, Historian;
Vanessa CODACCIONI, Political scientist – University of Paris VIII;
Patrice COULON, Human rights activist;
Christophe DAADOUCH, Co-president of GISTI;
Rokhaya DIALLO, Journalist and director;
Elsa DORLIN, philosopher;
David DUFRESNE, Writer and director;
Claire DUJARDIN, President, Syndicat des Avocats de France;
Marie Christine ETELIN, lawyer;
Annie ERNAUX, Nobel Prize for Literature;
Mireille FRANTZ FANON, Frantz Fanon Foundation;
Rayan FRESCHI, Researcher, CAGE;
Denis GHEERBRANT, filmmaker;
Liliane GIRAUDON, poet;
Sefen GUEZ GUEZ, Lawyer;
Gabriel HAGAI, Rabbi, actor in interreligious dialogue;
Elias d’IMZALENE, Political advisor, Muslim Perspectives;
Raphaël KEMPF, Lawyer;
Anasse KAZIB, Trade unionist;
Nicolas KRAMEYER, Independent researcher;
Hubert KRIVINE, emeritus physicist;
Stéphane LAVIGNOTTE, Pastor;
Henri LECLERC, Lawyer;
Shady LEWIS, Novelist;
Pierre LINGUANOTTO, Documentary filmmaker;
Danièle LOCHAK, Professor of law emeritus – Paris Nanterre University;
Frédéric LORDON, Philosopher;
Christian MAHIEUX, Trade unionist, retired railway worker;
Jean-Marc MANACH, Data journalist;
Gilles MANCERON, Historian;
Elsa MARCEL, lawyer;
Joëlle MARELLI, Translator and independent researcher;
Christine MARTINEAU, Lawyer;
Stéphane MAUGENDRE, Lawyer;
Mehdi MEFTAH, Decolonial activist;
Nadia MEZIANE, Antoine GREGOIRE, Lignes de Crêtes;
Jacques-Henri MICHOT, writer;
Valérie OSOUF, Film Director;
Karine PARROT, Professor of law – Cergy-Pontoise University;
Charles PENNEQUIN, writer;
Frédérique PRESSMANN, Film Director, TSEDEK (Decolonial Jewish Collective) activist;
Lissell QUIROZ, Professor of Latin American Studies – CY Cergy Paris University;
Shivangi Mariam RAJ, Independent writer and researcher;
Roland RAMIS, President of the Landes Federation, Human Rights League;
Tancrède RAMONET, director and musician;
Fabrice RICEPUTI, Historian;
Mathieu RIGOUSTE, Independent researcher;
Laurent RIPART, professor of medieval history, University of Chambéry;
Denis ROBERT, Writer, investigative journalist;
Vanina ROCHICCIOLI, Co-president, GISTI;
Catherine SAMARY, economist, member of the scientific council of ATTAC;
Jean-Claude SAMOUILLER, President, Amnesty International France;
S.SAYYID, Professor of Rhetoric and Decolonial Theory – University of Leeds;
Jean de SEZE, Lawyer;
Anne-Sophie SIMPERE, Author and community activist;
SKALPEL, rapper;
Serge SLAMA, Professor of public law – University of Grenoble;
Pierre STAMBUL, Spokesperson for the French Jewish Union for Peace (UJFP);
Natacha DE LA SIMONE, l’Atelier bookstore;
Saul TAKAHASHI, Professor of Human Rights and Peace – Jogakuin University, Osaka , Japan;
Françoise VERGES, Theorist of decolonial feminism;
Pedro VIANNA, Economist, poet, theater man, academic;
Noé WAGENER, Professor of public law – Paris-Est Créteil University;
Sharon WEILL, Professor of international law – American University of Paris
1 Read his article explaining the reasons for her action https://blogs.mediapart.fr/kamel-daoudi/blog/180923/non-epuisement-des-recours-vs-epuisement-de-ma-femme
2 It's happened twice before. In 2009, accompanying his wife to the maternity ward in a neighbouring town, he was arrested and jailed for several months. In 2020, for being 25 minutes late for his curfew, he was again sentenced to 6 months in prison. https://www.amnesty.fr/actualites/kamel-daoudi-acharnement-judiciaire-un-an-de-prison
3 In accordance with article 4 of the “Code de l'Entrée et du Séjour des Étrangers” (CESEDA) (the French law governing the entry and residence of foreigners)
4 https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2018/05/preliminary-findings-visit-un-special-rapporteur-promotion-and-protection