A leading human rights lawyer has expressed surprise at the leniency of the sentences handed out to the rapists of Gisèle Pelicot. The judge sentenced 51 men to a total of 441 years in prison, falling short of the 652 years sought by prosecutors. Catherine Le Magueresse, president of the European Association Against Violence Toward Women, suggested that the judge may have opted for shorter sentences to deter the convicted men from appealing.
Le Magueresse explained that the judge's strategy might have been to discourage appeals by deliberately issuing lenient sentences. This approach aimed to dissuade the accused men from challenging the decision. The concern was that an appeal process would be distressing for Pelicot, who endured a challenging trial.
It was revealed that the judges handed down varying sentences to minimize the number of potential appeals. Le Magueresse highlighted the difference between the recent trial, which involved a panel of judges, and a potential new trial that would require a public jury.
While the convicted men have 10 days to decide on appealing their sentences, Le Magueresse noted that prosecutors also have the option to appeal if they believe the sentences were too lenient. The possibility of appeals from both sides adds a layer of complexity to the legal proceedings surrounding this case.
