Last Saturday, during his speech at the national tribute to the victims of July 14, the President of the Republic stated, “the truth must be known.”
“Three months after the Nice attack, a key question forcefully emerges again,” wrote Paul Barelli, president of the Club of the Press 06 in InterMed, the publication of the association that brings together 90 journalists in the Alpes-Maritimes and Mediterranean countries: why did the State authorities and the municipality not consider the possibility of an attack with a runaway vehicle? Should this risk have been taken into account? Did the measures implemented correspond to this requirement? It is up to the judiciary to provide the answers the victims are waiting for.
On this subject, Paul Barelli addressed an open letter to the Prosecutor of the Republic in which he challenges him:
“Three months later, a key question forcefully resurfaces. It now haunts numerous residents of Nice, those close to the victims, survivors, and political personalities of all stripes who mention it privately.
The State authorities and the municipality cannot evade this. Why did they not consider the possibility of an attack with a runaway vehicle? Yet you declared on October 5th, ‘this hypothesis was mentioned, analyzed, and considered during Euro-2016, whether in Nice or at other sites. Particularly in Nice, in the so-called Fan Walk section,’ ‘as an example.’
Should a risk of this nature have been considered for July 14, yes or no? If yes, did the measures implemented meet this requirement, yes or no?”
The text concludes with the challenge: “The answer is yours, Mr. Prosecutor of the Republic.”
The interim response from the Prosecutor of the Republic begins with a distinction: “The purpose of the investigation conducted under my authority is not, therefore, on the responsibility for the carnage; this is the subject of the ongoing investigation opened by the prosecutor of the Republic of Paris, and I refer you to him on this point.”
Then, the Prosecutor of the Republic returns to the crucial point: “This investigation aims to determine whether there may have been errors committed in the conception or implementation of the security plan of such gravity that they could entail criminal responsibility. As you correctly state, it concerns the potentially gross misjudgment of the nature of the risk, the resulting security recommendations that should have arisen, as well as the effectiveness of the implementation of these recommendations on the ground.”
For the moment, that is where we stand. We await the Prosecutor to complete his investigation and reach his conclusions.
In these cases, it’s said that one must have patience, which, as we have been taught, is “the virtue of the strong.”
