Présidé par la Cour Suprême, le système judiciaire Libyen est caractérisé par le principe de l'unité de la justice qui n’a pas impliqué la création de tribunaux administratifs parallèlement aux tribunaux civils. La Cour exerce ses fonctions à travers ses Chambres «constitutionnelles, administratives, civiles, pénales et du statut personnel». Ainsi, l'approche libérale de cette Cour est fondée sur les principes de la justice, de l'égalité et de la liberté. S'il apparait que l'action principale de Cour Suprême est limitée dans ses pouvoirs et sa compétence, il s'avère qu'elle tend vers un élargissement progressif de sa capacité à protéger les droits individuels. Celui-ci se manifeste à travers le jugement obligatoire sur l’inconstitutionnalité des lois ou règlements qui s’opposent aux documents constitutionnels Libyens durant toutes les périodes ( Monarchie, Jamahiriya et transition). / Headed by the Supreme Court, the Libyan judicial system is based on the principle of the unity of justice, which does not involve the establishment of administrative courts alongside civil courts. The Court exercises its functions through its constituencies (constitutional, administrative, civil, criminal and personal). Thus, the liberal approach of this court is based on the principles of justice, equality and freedom. While the main procedure of the Supreme Court appears to be limited in its powers and jurisdiction, it appears to tend to gradually expand its ability to protect individual rights. This is reflected in its binding provisions on the unconstitutionality of laws or regulations that oppose Libyan constitutional documents during all periods (monarchy, mass, and transition).

La question des droits de l’homme et des libertés a suscité un intérêt majeur en Libye depuis l’accès à l’indépendance de ce pays en 1951. La Déclaration constitutionnelle, proclamée le 3 août 2011 dans le sillage du ‘‘printemps arabe’’, a ouvert de nouvelles perspectives pour définir la nature d’un nouvel État post-Kadhafi, voulu démocratique et respectueux des droits de l’homme. En effet, le nouveau texte affiche clairement sa reconnaissance des droits et des libertés qu’il compte promouvoir au niveau national et international. Le constituant libyen a choisi de doter l’ensemble de ces droits et libertés d’une valeur supérieure en les inscrivant dans le corps de la Constitution. Cette valeur les met hors de toute atteinte pouvant provenir des pouvoirs publics. Les particuliers peuvent, en cas de transgression, les défendre devant les juridictions nationales. C’est dire que la Déclaration libyenne ne se satisfait pas seulement de reconnaître les droits et les libertés au plan interne. En effet, ces droits et libertés seraient vains s’ils n’avaient pas été complétés par des garanties effectives qui leur assurent un respect total en cas de violation. Ces mesures se résument principalement, quant aux garanties juridictionnelles, dans l’accès au juge et, quant aux garanties non juridictionnelles, dans l’indépendance de l’autorité judiciaire et des juges. / Since its independence in 1951 Libya has given great priority to human rights and freedoms. The Constitutional Declaration proclaimed, on August 3, 2011 following the “Arab Spring”, opened new horizons while laying the foundations for a new democratic state respectful of human rights beyond the Gaddafi era. Indeed, the Constitutional Declaration is specific about the kinds of rights and freedom the new Libyan state would like to support both nationally and internationally. Such rights and freedoms were embedded within the Constitutional Declaration and prioritized in order to protect them from any abuses by the different executive government branches. This means that individual citizens are constitutionally enabled to seek judiciary protection before local courts whenever their rights are infringed or abused. Rights and freedoms are meaningless unless constitutionally protected and supported through providing for non-judiciary guarantees centered on judiciary independence both as process and practitioners i.e. impartiality of judges.

Notre projet de thèse suggère une lecture juridique, politique et sociale d'un conflit entre deux droits fondamentaux culturels. Plusieurs controverses existent aujourd'hui dans le monde occidental, dont l'objectif serait la légitimation éventuelle des restrictions de la liberté d'expression, et la liberté de l'art en particulier, au nom de la protection des croyances religieuses. Nous pourrions constater en effet un certain « paroxysme », qui aboutit, en dernier essor, à un conflit juridique, voire, un conflit réel. Au plan international, les premières indications de ce conflit apparussent peu ou prou au même époque que la controverse autour les « Versets sataniques » de Salman Rushdie. Quinze ans après, déclencha une autre « crise mondiale »: l'affaire des caricatures danoises, suivie, jusqu'aujourd'hui, par des dizaines de résolution du Conseil des droits de l'Homme et de l'Assemblée Générale des Nations Unies sur la diffamation des religions. Si l'on associe ce prétendu ‘conflit de valeurs' aux répercussions des attaques du 11 septembre et de la guerre contre le terrorisme, ainsi qu'aux politiques de discrimination constante à l'encontre des immigrés et les requérants d'asile en Europe, ou encore à la théorie de Huntington qui prône un supposé « conflit de civilisations », nous comprenons bien que la discussion est loin de concerner uniquement la liberté d'expression, ni, a fortiori, la liberté de l'art. Notre but est de proposer des approches « alternatives » aux conflits de droits, basées sur l'analyse des valeurs qui sont en jeu, et ciblant plutôt à la prévention de tels « conflits culturels », qu'à leur résolution formelle en faveur d'un droit ou d'un autre. / Our thesis project suggests suggests a legal, political and social reading of a conflict between two fundamental cultural rights. Several controversies exist today in the west world claiming the eventual legitimacy of the restrictions on artistic freedom, in the name of the protection of religious beliefs. We could even observe a certain ‘paroxysm' on this matter, which ends up at a legal, and virtually a real, conflict. From an international law point of view, the first indications of this kind of conflict appeared more or less during the notorious controversy around Salman Rushdie's ‘Satanic Verses”. Fifteen years later, in 2004, another ‘global crisis' appears: that of the Danish cartoons, followed by several resolutions on the subject of defamation of religions, issued by the UN Human Rights Council and the General Assembly. Associating this supposed “conflict of values” with the impact of 9/11 and the war against terrorism, as well as the discrimination politics against immigrants and asylum seekers in Europe, or even Huntington's theory concerning a pretended ‘conflict of civilisations', we realize that this ‘conflict' is not a matter concerning exclusively freedom of expression(FoE), and certainly not the freedom of the arts. Our aim is to propose alternative methods of conflict resolution techniques, based on the analysis of the values at stake and focusing on the prevention of such « cultural conflicts », rather then on their resolution, in favour of one right or the other.

The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) – supervised by the European Court of Human rights (ECtHR) – coexists with other normative (human rights) instruments that have been created at the national, regional, and international level, both by State and non-State actors. The ECHR represents one legal piece of this normative ‘jungle’, characterized by legal ‘fragmentation’. Whereas a lot is said about the negative aspects of this diverse world, this doctoral thesis aims to focus on its positive sides. To support its interpretation and application of the ECHR, the Strasbourg Court makes reference to a diverse range of instruments other than the ECHR, which we call external instruments. The Grand Chamber-case of Demir and Baykara v. Turkey of 12 November 2008 provides a rare overview of the characteristics of this ‘referencing practice’. In this judgment, the Court included a separate heading to specifically explain its interpretative use of international law, discussing the legal basis as well as the type of instruments that it considers relevant. Two major conclusions follow from the Court’s explanations: firstly, it puts external referencing in the light of some rules on interpretation provided in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) (particularly in Article 31 paragraph 3 (c) VCLT); secondly, it stresses that soft and non-ratified external instruments might equally offer support for (evolutively) interpreting the ECHR. These statements are controversial; the Court has been criticized for misinterpreting the rules of the VCLT, for not well justifying its references as well as for exceeding its powers by incoherently relying on (non-binding) external materials for interpretative purposes.The case of Demir and Baykara v. Turkey left many questions open in respect of the importation of external instruments. There is some confusion about the functions and the weight of (non-binding) external instruments in legal reasoning. In addition, the justificatory arguments developed in this case lack precision and persuasiveness. Addressing these gaps, this study firstly offers an elaborate ‘mapping’ of the usage of external instruments by the ECtHR. For that purpose, all references in each Grand Chamber-case since Demir and Baykara v. Turkey of 12 November 2008 (until the end of 2015) have been analyzed and categorized. Secondly, this work develops arguments to better justify the Court’s practice of using external instruments. Both from a legality and a users’ perspective, this thesis demonstrates how external referencing may (under certain conditions) be a valid method to give meaning to the provisions in the ECHR. The ‘mapping’ of the referencing practice demonstrates that, to support the interpretation and application of the Convention in the ‘law’-section of the decision, external instruments have been invoked by the Grand Chamber in almost 70 percent of the examined cases. This interpretative technique covers a wide variety of instruments, diverging according to their origin as well as to their scope ratione materiae, ratione personae and ratione loci. The legal status of the instruments constitutes an additional root of diversity; the ECtHR imports legal instruments that have been ratified by the Member States, instruments that have not been ratified by some of the Member States and/or by the respondent State, soft instruments created by politically (non-)representative bodies, and finally, case law developed by other (quasi-)judicial bodies. The Grand Chamber references these instruments for different purposes: to dismiss their content, to establish interpretative rules, to support the interpretation of notions and requirements of the Convention, to enable the creation of harmony between the Convention and external legal requirements, or to consider a State’s freedom of manoeuvre when applying the ECHR. An example of a contested – but rather rare – usage of external instruments consists of comparing a mixture of binding and non-binding instruments in order to progressively evolve (and change) the Court’s case law. Overall, however, the Grand Chamber adopts a rather traditional approach to its interpretative ‘sources’, not according to non-binding instruments an independent decisive weight.In the Grand Chamber cases issued after Demir and Baykara v. Turkey, the Court did not undertake efforts to further justify and explain its referencing practice. In our view, two provisions might nonetheless operate as valuable vehicles to enhance the legality of some references. It concerns, more particularly, Article 31 paragraph 3 (c) VCLT, inciting the Court to take into account external applicable norms, and Article 53 ECHR, offering a ‘safeguard’ for human rights. Article 31 paragraph 3 (c) VCLT is regularly used by the Court in connection to the method of ‘harmonious interpretation’, accommodating the obligations of the ECHR with external obligations (that risk to conflict with the Convention). We agree that Article 31 paragraph 3 (c) VCLT – covering a principle of ‘systemic integration’ – offers a legal basis for a coordinative integration of external applicable requirements. Some caution is nonetheless required; the creation of convergence between the ECHR and external legal domains should not supersede the aim of effective and progressive human rights protection. Therefore, when a conflict arises between the ECHR and an external provision, this should be clearly acknowledged instead of being artificially ignored under a pretext of ‘harmonisation’ and ‘anti-fragmentation’. Subsequently, the conflict should be solved by means of ‘hierarchical integration’ (giving precedence to human rights law) rather than by ‘coordinative integration’.Although the Court references Article 31 paragraph 3 (c) VCLT to support harmonious interpretation between the ECHR and external instruments outside the human rights domain, this case law study demonstrates that it does generally not cite this provision in respect of references to human rights catalogues other than the ECHR. For that reason, a criticism claiming that the Court misuses Article 31 paragraph 3 (c) VCLT to expand the ECHR on the basis of external higher human rights provisions, largely misses ground. This does not mean, however, that Article 31 paragraph 3 (c) VCLT has no relevance in respect of the importation of other human rights catalogues. Although this does not accord with the Court’s general practice, we are of the opinion that Article 31 paragraph 3 (c) VCLT mandates the Court to integrate (higher) protection standards applicable in all Member States of the Council of Europe. In other words, the ideal of ‘systemic integration’ is not only relevant in relation to the landscape of (general) international law, but should also permeate the domain of human rights law. As a harmonizing principle, it is supposed to encourage the Court to take account of ratified external human rights catalogues, including their authoritative interpretation by external monitoring bodies. Article 53 ECHR supports this argument too. This provision offers a human rights safeguard ensuring peaceful coexistence between the ECHR and higher protection standards. The message of Article 53 ECHR towards the Strasbourg judges is twofold. In its procedural dimension, the Court should use it directly, to sanction a State that, on the national level, did not give precedence to the highest applicable human rights standard. In its substantive dimension, this provision has effects similar to those of Article 31 paragraph 3 (c) VCLT. When higher and binding human rights standards are applicable in all Member States, Article 53 ECHR obliges the Court to substantively integrate them into its interpretation of the ECHR. In addition, we argue that Article 53 ECHR offers a symmetric human rights safeguard, preventing a downward evolution of the ECHR on the basis of external human rights instruments offering lower standards. The proposed interpretation of Article 53 ECHR is innovative, yet controversial; so far, the Court has not used it in this manner. In line with Articles 31 paragraph 3 (c) VCLT and 53 ECHR, we argue that external instruments, under certain conditions, exercise a binding authority. Apart from that, referencing could be exercised in an optional manner, for instance in order to support argumentative purposes such as ‘evolutive’, ‘practical and effective’, and ‘autonomous’ reasoning and/or the establishment of a ‘margin of appreciation’. Essentially, these interpretation principles are covered by a holistic reading of the rules of the VCLT. A concept that catches well a combined reading of the rules of the VCLT, without losing sight of the specificity of human rights law, is the search for ‘opinio juris under the treaty’. Under this interpretative framework, an emerging or an ambiguous State consensus may suffice to develop a dynamic interpretation of the ECHR, provided that the incomplete consensus is confirmed by an opinio juris. To establish an emerging or ambiguous State consensus, ‘hard’ and ratified legal instruments (of national or international origin) are of particular relevance. In addition, a wide variety of (non-binding) external instruments might be useful to demonstrate the opinio juris. Besides legal provisions, some other, less formal, users’ arguments may validate some aspects of the referencing practice. The usage of external human rights catalogues – possibly containing higher protection standards, rights of other ‘generations’, or more specialized and specific provisions – contributes to the creation of human rights that are effective, universal and indivisible. This serves the rights holders who have an interest in equal treatment by a law that operates as a ‘ius gentium’, and in an adjudication process that does justice to all specificities of their identity and lived experiences. In addition, referencing could contribute to progressively evolve the protection of human rights. The referencing practice also enhances the coherence of the system, which is beneficial for ‘legal certainty’ vis-à-vis all users of human rights. Moreover, external referencing may contribute to a more nuanced and ‘shared’ decision-making, inspired by the positions and insights of various actors. Indeed, by means of comparative law, judges can build a dialectic network of mutual influences and communicative enrichment on a global scale. When we acknowledge that it is the Court’s task to translate pluralism in balanced outcomes and to canalize the different interests underlying a case, the importation of external views from across the globe may help the Court is assuming that responsibility. The Strasbourg judges find particularly valuable tools in external instruments. Not only could their usage enhance the procedural economy and the deformalization of the decision-making process, external citations may also make a reasoning more convincing and authoritative towards the audience. However, these benefits only play to the extent that external referencing is transparent, consistent and systematically relies on a solid legal framework.To optimize the justification of the referencing practice, this doctoral thesis recommends the Court to better embed its external citations in both formal and informal arguments. We have done several suggestions as to how such arguments might be developed in practice. Their use could boost the valid usage of external instruments, which, under certain conditions, offers good opportunities for a persuasive interpretation and application of the ECHRWe started our research with a sketch of the present normative environment; it is disordered and can be metaphorically compared to a jungle. The Strasbourg judges walk through this area and use lianas to make connections between all elements that compose this forest. Through their referencing practice, they communicate, learn, and argue. In an ecosystem, all organisms are dependent on one another; they cannot survive in isolation. Following the rules of nature, the organisms mutually profit from each other’s existence and finally, provide each other with oxygen. In order to be good rangers in this jungle, the Strasbourg judges should recognize and acknowledge the existence and the value of all the other organisms. In addition, to ensure a high degree of balance in the ecosystem, they should keep an eye both on the system’s rules (legality) and on the views and interests of those that benefit from the system (the users of human rights). By handling the lianas in such manner, the Court contributes to more coherence of the system (combating ‘fragmentation’) and caters for the users’ needs. This does not mean that one day, the jungle will be turned into a nicely organized cornfield. Some diversity in global times is inevitable and necessary. After all, it is the chaotic context that offers us tools to advance the law, to persuade the public, etc. The art is not to replace pluralism by unity, but to find a balance between divergence and convergence by creating a form of justice that is shared by all. / Doctorat en Sciences juridiques / info:eu-repo/semantics/nonPublished

L’émergence de l’internet, au delà de son aspect novateur et de ses prérogatives pratiques, a eu pour conséquence l’apparition d’un nouveau type de délinquance et de nouveaux profils criminels qu’est la cybercriminalité. En effet, si l’utilisation d’internet est aujourd’hui indéniablement entrée dans les moeurs, Internet est également un vecteurs d’activités illicites. Or le cyberespace est un territoire virtuel qui ne connaît aucune frontière physique. La cybercriminalité est donc une matière complexe en ce qu’elle est transnationale, mobile et très technique. Elle semble apparaître comme un fléau moderne pesant sur les libertés individuelles des utilisateurs des réseaux numériques / The emergence of Internet beyond its innovative nature and its prerogatives led to the appearance of a new type of delinquency and new criminal profiles. Indeed if using Internet is now undeniably into the customs, Internet is also a vector of illegal activities. However cyberspace is a virtual land that knows no physical borders. Therefore cybercrime is a complex matter because it is transnational, highly mobile and really technical. It seems to appear as the modern scourge weighing on individual freedoms of users of digital networks.

Par essence coercitive, la procédure pénale française se compose d’une succession d’actes auxquels procèdent les autorités publiques. De nature différente, ceux-ci constituent principalement des mesures d’administration judiciaire, des actes de police judiciaire, des actes de poursuite ou d’instruction ou bien des actes juridictionnels. Parmi cette multitude d’actes, certains se révèlent coercitifs. Leur trait commun est de porter atteinte aux libertés individuelles. Il suffit d’évoquer les contrôles et vérifications d’identité, la garde à vue, les perquisitions et saisies, les interceptions de correspondances émises par la voie des télécommunications, les sonorisations et fixations d’images, le contrôle judiciaire, l’assignation à résidence avec surveillance électronique ou la détention provisoire. Ces actes, a priori hétérogènes, forment en réalité une catégorie propre. Correspondant à la réalité juridique, une notion d’acte coercitif existe en procédure pénale, parallèlement aux concepts traditionnels. Son critère principal réside dans la spécificité de son grief. Une classification bipartite des actes, fondée sur leur caractère coercitif ou non, devient alors possible. Au-delà d’un intérêt théorique tangible, des intérêts pratiques apparaissent. Par exemple, les actes interdits au juge d’instruction lorsqu’il découvre des faits nouveaux pourront être identifiés, eu égard à l’interdiction d’accomplir des actes coercitifs dans une telle situation. Cette notion bénéficie en outre d’un régime autonome. Elle obéit à des exigences constitutionnelles, conventionnelles et législatives qui permettent de dépasser les variations inéluctables des actes composant cette catégorie : la légalité, la nécessité et la proportionnalité, le contrôle effectif par l’autorité judiciaire, le respect de la dignité de la personne, de sa santé, etc. Si l’acte coercitif doit respecter les droits de la défense, il doit encore pouvoir être contesté dans tous les cas au moyen d’un recours juridictionnel. Ses abus demeurent enfin sanctionnés puisque le Code pénal réprime les abus d’autorité. Celui qui décide ou exécute un acte coercitif arbitraire s’expose ainsi à différentes poursuites. / « The coercive act in criminal law and procedure » [L’acte coercitif en procédure pénale]. Being essentially coercive, the French criminal law and procedure are composed of a succession of acts that the Public Authorities conduct. As they are all different by nature, these acts principally constitute judicial administration measures,acts of the judiciary police, prosecution or investigation measures, as well as jurisdictional acts. Among this great number of acts, some of them can prove to be coercive. And they have one particular point in common:they all encroach on individual liberties. One simply has to consider the controls or verifications of people’sidentities, police custody, search and seizure, the interceptions of any correspondence over the telecommunications, the use of sound and image detection technology, the judicial suspension, the electronically-monitored house arrest, or custody on remand. These acts, a-priori heterogeneous, constitute infact a category of their own. Corresponding to the judicial reality, a notion of coercive acts exists in criminal procedures in parallel with traditional concepts. Its main criterion lies in the specificity of its grievance. A two part classification of the acts, grounded on their coercive or non-coercive features, is then possible. Practical interests appear beyond a tangible theoretical one. For example, it will be possible to identify any new binding action the investigating judge is not allowed to take when new facts are discovered, in view of the prohibition to carry out coercive acts in such a situation. In addition, this notion qualifies for an autonomous regime. It serves not only constitutional and conventional but also legislative requirements that make it possible to exceed the inevitable variations of the acts that compose this category; namely the notions of legality, necessity and proportionality, the effective control by the judicial authority, the respect of the person’s dignity and health ASO… If the coercive act is to respect the rights of the defense, it could also be appealed in all cases through the courts. At last, its abuses remain punishable by law as the Penal Code represses abuses of authority. Thus, the persons who decide or carry out a coercive arbitrary act expose themselves to prosecution.

L'introduction du consentement en procédure pénale démontre la volonté du législateur d'impliquer l'auteur dans l'application de la réponse pénale. Le justiciable participe à la justice pénale par le biais de son consentement. L'introduction d'un consentement en procédure pénale mettrait ainsi en lumière la volonté du législateur de développer une justice plus centrée sur l'auteur et ses prérogatives, donc plus proche du justiciable, plus humaine. Pourtant, l'abandon progressif d'un modèle de justice transcendantale pour une justice dite consensuelle ne présente pas que des avantages pour le justiciable. En effet, la mise en place d'une justice intégrant le consentement de l'auteur n'est pas sans danger pour les droits et libertés fondamentaux de ce dernier. La mise en place progressive d'une justice dite plus pacificatrice et moins stigmatisante se fait au prix d'un sacrifice de certains droits processuel et du respect de la dignité. / Le citizen participates in the criminal justice by means of his consent. The introduction of consent in criminal procedure would so bring to light the will of the legislator to develop a justice more centred on the author and its privileges, thus closer of citizen, more human. Nevertheless, the progressive abandonment (relinquishment) of a model of transcendental justice for a consensual said justice does not present that advantage for the citizen. Indeed, the implementation of a justice integrating (joining) the consent of the author is not without danger for the fundamental rights and the liberties of this last one. The progressive implementation of a pacificatorier said justice and less stigmatisante is made at the price (prize) of a sacrifice of certain rights processuel and a respect for the dignity.

Le Second Empire a pour réputation d’être un régime politique ennemi des libertés. Pourtant, la constitution du 14 janvier 1852 reconnaît, confirme et garantit les principes de 1789 comme la base du droit public des Français. Elle crée même des mécanismes pour les protéger. Le régime louis-napoléonien, dès son texte fondateur, s’intéresse donc à la garantie des libertés. Cela fait-il du Second Empire un régime politique libéral ?Le règne de Napoléon III est coupé en deux périodes : l’autoritaire et la libérale. L’expression « Empire libéral » doit beaucoup au travail d’Émile Ollivier qui a cherché à réhabiliter, après 1870, son ralliement à l’Empire. Ainsi, quelle pertinence de qualifier de « libérale » la période s’étendant de 1860 à 1870 ou d’« autoritaire » celle s’étendant de 1852 à 1860 ?Fidèle aux idéaux de la Révolution de 1789, l’Empereur resta soucieux de maintenir le système traditionnel selon lequel la garantie des libertés relevait des missions de l’État, même s’il accepta, progressivement, de laisser à la société la capacité de garantir elle-même les libertés. Un changement de paradigme s’est donc opéré. De la protection des libertés par l’État, la doctrine libérale passa à la protection de la liberté sans l’État, voire contre lui. En fonction de la définition retenue, le Second Empire aurait donc toujours ou jamais été libéral. / The Second Empire has for reputation to be a political system, enemy of freedoms. Nevertheless, 1852-January 14th’s constitution recognizes, confirms and guarantees the 1789 principles as the basis of the public law of the French people. The constitution creates even mechanisms to protect people. The Louis-Napoleonic regime, from its founding text, is thus interested in the guarantee of freedoms. Does that make of Second Empire a liberal political system?The reign of Napoleon III is divided into two periods: the authoritarian and the liberal. The expression " Liberal Empire" owes a great deal to the work of Émile Ollivier, who seeked after 1870, to rehabilitate its rallying to the Empire. Consequently, what is the relevance of qualifying as "liberal" the period extending from 1860 till 1870 or as "authoritarian" the one extending from 1852 till 1860?Faithful to the 1789-French Revolution’s ideals, the Emperor remained aware of the need to maintain the traditional system, according to which the guarantee of freedoms was part of the State’s missions, even if he gradually accepted to leave these guarantees to the society itself. A change of paradigm thus took place. From the protection of the freedoms by the State, the liberal doctrine moved towards the protection of the freedom without the State, or even against it. According to the adopted definition, the Second Empire would thus have still or never been liberal.

Le principe de publicité de la justice est présenté, notamment par le droit conventionnel, comme contribuant à fonder l'existence d'une « société démocratique ». L'objet de notre étude est d'interroger la portée de cette garantie procédurale à l'heure de la généralisation du principe de transparence afin de déterminer dans quelle mesure elle peut nous aider à penser la démocratie à l’échelle nationale. / The principle of publicity is presented, in particular by conventional law, as contributingto founding the existence of a "democratic society". The purpose of our study is to question therange of this procedural guarantee at the time of the generalization of the principle of transparencyin order to determine to what extent it can help us to regard democracy at the national level.

Prenant jadis la forme d’un « signe de divinité » sous le règne des ordalies, l’indice désignerait dorénavant tout « événement, objets ou traces » amené à forger la conviction du juge. Les traits de l’indice se reconnaissent ainsi à la capacité qu’il possède de rendre possible le fait recherché. En ce sens, l’indice ne peut – aujourd’hui comme hier – indiquer directement la culpabilité, bien qu’il demeure – depuis toujours – en capacité de faire présumer l’imputabilité du fait prohibé à l’encontre des personnes suspectées. Les effets attachés à l’indice sont convoités de tout temps, sans pourtant que quiconque ne parvienne à les expliquer. L’indice rend possible, dispose d’un pouvoir spécifique et s’intègre parfaitement au sein du raisonnement dialectique intrinsèque à la matière juridique. Les juristes usent des présomptions fondées sur l’indice aux fins de compenser les lacunes inhérentes à la preuve en matière pénale. Indéniablement, l’indice occupe une place centrale dans le processus probatoire. Néanmoins, un constat de carence s’impose : les raisons pour lesquelles l’indice produit cet effet à la fois si caractéristique et par là même si commun, ne sont jamais explicitées. Sans doute trop prosaïque, l’indice s’est éclipsé à l’arrière-plan d’une preuve pénale devenue prépondérante par la gravité des conséquences juridiques qu’elle justifie. Un regard cette fois plus aiguisé aurait néanmoins pressenti l’enjeu universel d’une telle notion : depuis toujours, l’indice constitue le socle de la preuve. Fondements d’une réalité morcelée que la justice souhaite reconstituer, les indices jalonnent le cheminement procédural jusqu’à l’obtention d’une preuve. Les différentes phases de la procédure pénale s’organisent au rythme des indices interprétés, autant qu’ils forgent une conviction sur le déroulement des faits prohibés. L’intime conviction ancre de fait l’interprétation de l’indice au cœur de la preuve pénale et, avec elle, la perfectibilité d’une construction humaine au centre de la procédure pénale. / Once taking the form of a "sign of divinity" in the trial by ordeal, the clue would henceforth designate any "event, object or trace" that might forge the judge's conviction. The characteristics of the clue can thus be recognized by its ability to make the desired result possible. In this sense, the clue cannot – today as in the past – directly indicate guilt, although it has always been able to allow for the presumption that the prohibited fact is imputable to suspects. The effects of the clue have always been sought after, without anyone ever being able to explain them. The clue makes possible, has specific power and fits perfectly into the dialectical reasoning inherent in the legal field.Lawyers use clue-based presumptions to compensate for the deficiencies inherent in criminal evidence. Undeniably, the clue occupies a central place in the probationary process. Nevertheless, a finding of deficiency is inevitable: the reasons why the clue produces this effect, which is so characteristic and therefore so common, are never explained. Undoubtedly too prosaic, the clue has vanished into the background of criminal evidence that has become preponderant because of the seriousness of the legal consequences it justifies. A sharper look this time would nevertheless have foreshadowed the universal importance of such a notion: since time immemorial, the clue has been the foundation of proof. As the foundations of a fragmented reality that the justice system wishes to reconstruct, the clues mark out the procedural path until evidence is obtained. The various phases of criminal proceedings are organised according to the rhythm of the interpreted clues, as much as they forge a conviction about the conduct of the prohibited acts. The intimate conviction in fact anchors the interpretation of the clue at the heart of the criminal evidence and, with it, the perfectibility of a human construction at the centre of criminal procedure.