MADAGASCAR: ARBITRARY DETENTION OF POLITICIAN PAUL MAILLOT

The International League Against Arbitrary Detention urges the Government of Madagascar to take all the necessary actions to implement the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention Opinion No. 36/2024 regarding Paul Maillot, asking the Government of Madagascar to immediately and unconditionally release Paul Maillot and to accord him an enforceable right to compensation and other reparations in accordance with international law.

Read the full WGAD Opinion concerning Mr. Maillot (Madagascar): Opinion No. 36/2024.

ARREST AND DETENTION OF A MADAGASCARAN POLITICIAN

Mr. Maillot is a Madagascan and French citizen born in 1963. He was the CEO of a company, but also a retired police officer and political advisor for 10 years.

He was arrested on 20 July 2021 at his home after a search of his house. He was then placed under police custody for 15 days, and on the last day, he was presented to a judge and then placed in pretrial detention. On 11 October 2021, he was indicted with other defendants for being affiliated with a group to plan or commit several crimes, including an assassination against the Head of State.

On 2 September 2021, his lawyers asked for the nullity of the proceedings due to violations of the right to a fair trial. The request was rejected. On 6 December 2021, Mr. Maillot’s trial started, and he was convicted to 20 years of hard labor on 17 December 2021. On 20 December 2021, Mr. Maillot appealed the decision to the Court of Cassation, which was rejected on 26 August 2022, but Mr. Maillot never received the decision. Mr. Maillot is now in solitary confinement at the Tsiafahy prison.

On 23 January 2023, France accepted the transfer asked by Mr. Maillot, however, the Madagascan authorities are against it.

The Government was given the opportunity to respond to those allegations, which it did, but after the extended deadline.

ARRESTED WITHOUT A WARRANT

According to the source, Mr. Maillot was arrested without being presented an arrest warrant or being informed of the reason for his arrest and for the search of his house. The arrest happened in a language he did not understand. He was made aware of the reasons for his arrest and detention only three days later. The Working Group recalled that an arrest warrant is a necessity for the arrest and detention to have a legal basis. It then concluded that Mr. Maillot was not arrested in flagrante delicto as he was arrested the next day, thus, his arrest and detention were in violation of article 9 (2) of the Covenant provides that anyone who is arrested is to be informed, at the time of arrest, of the reasons for the arrest and is to be promptly informed of any charges.

Additionally, the source submitted that he was placed under police custody for 15 days and was presented to a judge on the 15^th day. The Working Group recalled that pretrial detention was to be the exception rather than the norm. Therefore, the Working Group considered that authorities had violated articles 3 and 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights article 9 (3) of the Covenant by holding Mr. Maillot in police custody and presenting him after too long a delay.

In light of the above circumstances, the Working Group found that Mr. Maillot’s detention was arbitrary under category I.

DETAINED WITHOUT ACCESS TO AN IMPARTIAL TRIBUNAL AND VIOLATION OF HIS RIGHT TO BE PRESUMED INNOCENT

The source affirmed that Mr. Maillot was arrested in a language he did not understand, and only three days later was he informed of the reason for the arrest. On that day, he was allowed to talk to his lawyer for the first time. Furthermore, his interactions with his lawyer were recorded and limited in time. The Working Group recalled that the Committee on Human Rights highlighted that every detainee must be able to meet their lawyer in a private space and communicate with the latter in full confidentiality. Thus, the situation of Mr. Maillot was in violation of article 14 (3) of the Covenant.

Moreover, the source stated that Mr. Maillot’s right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty was not respected, as the prosecutor presented forged documents and signatures. Mr. Maillot was also not allowed to present the proofs of his innocence and to access his file. Lastly, culpability was shared in the media even before the beginning of his trial. Based on all that information and the late answer of the Government, the Working group found a violation of articles 10 and 11 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and article 14 of the Covenant.

Lastly, the source shared that Mr. Maillot was limited in his right to appeal the decision of condemnation. The decision from the cours criminelles cannot be appealed as the Court of Cassation is only ruling on the merits and not on the facts. Hence, the Working Group concluded that the situation violated article 14 (5) of the Covenant, which protects the right to have a decision re-examined.

The Working Group thus found Mr. Maillot’s detention arbitrary under category III.

 CONCLUSIONS OF THE UN WORKING GROUP AGAINST ARBITRARY DETENTION

In light of the foregoing, the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention considered that the detention of Mr. Maillot was arbitrary and fell under categories I and III because the deprivation of liberty of Mr. Maillot was in contravention of articles 3, 9, 10 and 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 9 and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The Working Group recommended that the Government of Madagascar take the steps necessary to remedy the situation of Mr. Maillot without delay and bring it into conformity with the relevant international norms. The Working Group considered that, taking into account all circumstances of the case, the appropriate remedy would be to release him immediately and for the Government of Madagascar to accord Mr. Maillot an enforceable right to compensation and reparations, in accordance with international law.