Jacques Vergès, the most famous lawyer in the world, died aged 88 in Paris on August 16. These days the world news agencies rush to make reports about his demise either using the sobriquet «Devil’s advocate» or calling him the «Terror Advocate». I had a God-sent unique opportunity to know him personally. Today it’s my duty to tell the world about him and say to media: «No, he was not the Devil’s Advocate. He was the Advocate of the Demonized…»

He was frequently asked the very same question «How can you defend indefensible clients?» Slobodan Milosevic and Saddam Hussein were usually set as the examples… Sometimes these names were mentioned along with Klaus Barbier and Ilich Ramirez Sanchez (more known as Carlos the Jackal). Vergès made a strict distinction between those who were real criminals (and his clients) and those whom he decided to defend because it was cry from his heart. He claims that when asked if he would have defended Hitler, he replied, «…I'd even defend Bush! But only if he agrees to plead guilty». That’s what he was like, the Vergès we knew!

He was a very unique personality, they were right to call him «the live history of the XX century». The last time I saw him was in his study and I felt just that – like having a company with the live history. He showed me around. The study was a real historical museum. He took one thing after another saying «this one is from Che Guevara, this one was given to me by Mao Tse Tung and this is a present from De Gaulle». It was well known he was friendly with Pol Pot…There was a special place for presents given by presidents of African countries. The largest thing inside the study was the African sculpture (which was high enough to touch the ceiling), a present from Moussa Traore, the President of Mali. Vergès also defended the President of Chad Idriss Deby, the President of Gabon Omar Bongo, the President of Congo Sassu-Ngesso, and the President of Cameroon Paul Biya. When Libya was bombed he was in Tripoli to defend Gaddafi. It was a bold political move (taking into account that France was among those who took part in the operation against Libya) to demonstrate his personal courage. It was not about courts and judicial proceedings only. Since 2009 Vergès started to appear…on theatre stage. His Serial Plaideur (1) (Serial Defender) was a very popular chamber play. Many of his presentations, especially the ones for law school students, were more like plays than lectures. It’s not an occasion that one of his best presentations was called «La passion de défendre» (The passion to defend). (2) He really did it with passion! With his life experience it would only be natural to get accustomed to and not be surprised by unjust trials and the vices of the world; after all he was in the business for almost seventy years (!). But no, not him! He ardently defended his clients to the last breath, it looked like his heart was about to break right there in the court room. (3) His passion to defend was real, sincere and unfeigned. As far back as in 1960 he was wounded during the street protests against the murder of Patrice Lumumba, the first Prime Minister of independent Congo. Later he had to defend the one who had a direct relation to the assassination against Lumumba – the notorious Moïse Kapenda Tshombe. (4) The passion proved to be real during the proceedings of one of the most well-known cases in France – the case of Djamila Bouhired. While Algerians fought French imperialism, she was accused of involvement in terrorist activities, death sentence was handed down. Back then Vergès was her lawyer. He defended Djamila to become her husband later. 

Together with his friend Roland Dumas, former French Foreign Minister, he went to Tripoli at the time the country was bombed by NATO. Dumas told me later it was for the first time he saw Vergès crying… 

 The famous lawyer was a defender of the pursued and oppressed. When the West launched the all-out war against the Serbian people, he was among the first to step out in their defense. He wrote the books: L’apartheid judiciaire: le Tribunal penal international, arme de guerre (Legal apartheid: International Crimes Tribunal, a weapon of war) and La Justice pour le Peuple Serbe (The justice for Serbian people) published by Swiss L’Age d’Homme (publishing house) to exert significant influence upon the Western public opinion. In 2006, right after Slobodan Milosevic was killed during the proceedings of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, Vergès published the book called Comment le Tribunal de La Haye a éliminé Slobodan Milosevic ou L'assassinat judiciaire médicalement assisté (How the Hague Tribunal Liquidated Slobodan Milosevic or the Medically Assisted Assassination in Court) describing in detail the trial of former Serbia’s President. The book includes documents to support the evidence adduced. (5) In 2007 me and Jacques Vergès worked together to free Dr. Vojislav Šešelj, the leader of Serbian Radical Party, put behind bars by International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia on trumped up charges. His defense stance always had strictly defined legal substantiation, though sometimes the wording seemed to be a bit too harsh. He called the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia a whore, though media often omitted this king of arguments. The matter is that his definition is irrefutable and exact: it’s not the international community only (the Tribunal calls itself its soldier!), but also individual states and personalities pursuing their own goals that the Tribunal receives money from. (6)

In 2009 me and Vergès defended together Omar Al-Bashir, the former President of Sudan, charged by the International Crimes Court. The world science of law has not given an appropriate assessment of what happened those days and how the warrant was issued. It is done on purpose, because back then the fundamental pillars of contemporary international legal system were broken, the fact the «democracy-minded» lawyers prefer to shy away from. Just think about it – in order to obtain the warrant a number of states, which were not parties to the international treaty, took a decision which envisioned that another state – a non-party to the treaty – is to comply with its provisions. This is a decision of unprecedented destructive implications! The Al – Bashir case undermined the very foundation of international law. It is related to the countries whose heads of state are subject to arrest upon the presentation of such «international warrants», to be supported by sanctions and bombings. The West was afraid of Vergès; they did their best to keep him away from trials. He was not allowed to defend former Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz. As he told me, Tariq Aziz did invite him to be his lawyer, but the US government didn’t let the barrister in Iraq refusing his visa application. (It’s a separate issue to be discussed why a US visa was necessary to enter Iraq at all). 

The «Terror's Advocate» documentary was shown for the first time in 2007 at the Cannes Film Festival. It described in detail the life of Jacques Vergès. The film is partial (the very name proves that) but the most outstanding moments of life are there. Perhaps this is the best historical film about the XX century based on the life story of the man called Jacques Vergès.  (7)

He was a remarkable writer tackling different themes. He mainly focused on textbooks for those who studied jurisprudence (like his the ones on judicial strategy), but there were also books on politics and law like, for instance, Sarkozy sous BHL (Sarkozy under BHL) (8) or «Crimes et Fraudes» en Côte d'Ivoire (Crime and Fraud in Cote d’Ivoire), which were published almost immediately as France launched military interventions into Libya and Cote d’Ivoire. (9) The books were relevant and greatly influenced the public opinion in France. Many his works are of interest to general public, for instance, Justice Et Litterature (Justice and Literature), where he often cites Feodor Dostoevsky. This year his book called Souvenirs et Rêveries (Memories and Reveries) (10) has seen light. 

I’m grateful to my fate that I had a chance to know this great lawyer and remarkable personality. He is incomparable and the only one in a sense. I remember saying goodbye to him in 2012 when we met last time in Paris, he was seeing me off at the stairs and suddenly sang a verse of a song about Stalin for me. He had a unique voice and, no matter he was in his 90s, he singing was surprisingly beautiful… 

* * *

Post Scriptum

Last year Jacque Vergès gave a large interview for Kazan Journal of International Law, the extracts are below.

A. Mezyaev: Maître Vergès you have seen many legal cases while defending your clients. How do you view the state of international crimes law in the contemporary world? 

Jacque Vergès: It’s absolutely obvious that the international courts are formed by the West against the nations which oppose it. We have the former Yugoslavia Tribunal which sued Milosevic or, to be exact, they put him on trial to kill. The matter is that President Milosevic was gravely ill; the experts from Russia, Serbia and France were unanimous in their opinion that he badly needed rest. Instead they made hearing sessions more frequent and he died. Bosnian President Izetbegović, accused of collaborating with Germans till 1945, was the witness for prosecution this time! So the former resistance fighter became the accused and the man, who was a Nazi collaborationist, was on the side of prosecutors! And it was all blessed by the West. Take the international tribunal on Cambodia, a lawsuit is launched against the Khmer Rouge, the court is to hand down a verdict on the events starting from 1975. But not earlier. Why? Because the fascist coup took place in 1970. Organized by the US Central Intelligence Agency it toppled prince Norodom Sihanouk. The Communists of Cambodia resisted. Are you aware of the fact that Americans dropped three times more bombs on Cambodia than they did on the territory of Japan in WWII? Then many years passed and they started to pursue the Khmer Rouge making them responsible for all victims. The US bombed the city of Hoshemin and used Agent Orange. It hit the victims and their children who suffered afterwards. Some are blind, some deaf or paralyzed. But Americans have never been made responsible. To the contrary, the US flyers involved in those bombings received due benefits in the United States unlike the Vietnamese who suffered the consequences. Talking about Cote d’Ivoire, the local gangs are responsible for the most ferocious bloody slaughters. Here is President Alassane Ouattara, the incumbent country’s leader. He faces no judicial proceedings. No, it is the leader illegally overthrown by French Army who has to stand trial and face responsibility. 

This kind of justice has nothing to do with logic: the one who is stronger makes the one who is weaker face the trial and the weaker one is always guilty. The winner makes the looser go on trial no matter what the truth is. If you match this model with WWII, then, according to the International Crimes Tribunal’s logic, it was Stalin, Roosevelt and de Gaulle who had to face trial as criminals. 

A. Mezyaev: Maitre Vergè, you defend former President of Kampuchea (Cambodia) Khieu Samphan before the Special Tribunal for Cambodia How do you view this Tribunal, what’s your assessment of its activities? 

Jacque Vergès: The Tribunal has been functioning for already three years. Millions of dollars spent, and there are only four convicted with absolutely different status. The core goal of tribunal is to make the defeated be responsible for the grievances of people and save the victors from this burden. That’s what the tribunal is about. It’s a real comedy. 

A. Mezyaev: You visited Libya attacked by NATO a few weeks ago. Would you, please, say a few words about your trip? 

Jacque Vergès: Me and my friend and colleague Roland Dumas went to Tripoli and the city was prosperous. According to United Nations data, Libya was a nation with high living standards, free education and free health care. True, it is rich in oil and the state spent on building schools, hospitals and other objects of social sphere. At that, the country had good relations with the West. Mr. Sarkozy welcomed Gaddafi in Paris with outstretched hands and tried to sell him aircraft, factories etc. Some time passed and we took a decision to attack him. We even got a United Nations resolution for the purpose. It called for protecting civilians, not committing murders. But people were bombed in Tripoli and its suburbs. Together with Roland Dumas we visited a Tripoli hospital which had equipment second to none compared to super modern hospitals we have here, in Paris. The up-to-date medical facility was filled with wounded. For instance, there was a man who lost his legs. We asked him how it happened and he said he was driving his taxi. The other one was blind. The explosion took place in his office. That is civilian objects were subject to bombings. 

With all the evidence gathered we came to conclusion that it was a real terrorist attack against civilians. This is normal for the West, the fascists or «democrats», they all do it. Remember the bombing of Rotterdam by Nazi to subjugate the Dutch government, the death toll was estimated in dozens of thousands? The Netherlands armed forces surrendered the next day. What about the Dresden bombing by British? A hundred thousands dead at the time Germany had already been crushed. And the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? 

Still, the actions were never sanctioned by the United Nations. And the resolution we’re talking about was used as a pretext for intervention and we admitted that. French newspapers published articles saying we sent paratroopers and other forces to Libya. The United Nations resolution said nothing about it. I think the resolution was a completely fraudulent scheme. We deceived such countries as Russia and China promising to protect civilians and it was a lie. We killed civilians. We were told it was done to protect the rebels. But it was not a revolution. Gaddafi was not overthrown by people; we saw it when he visited his native city of Sirte. There were no exclusions from the rule, everyone stood up to staunchly repel the aggression while NATO and its collaborators destroyed schools and hospitals…We live in a criminal world! I’ll repeat the joke I told on the French television once. The current political leaders resemble people stricken by syphilis at the third stage of the decease progress. They have degraded. In the XIX century they had control over overseas lands and created colonies there. Now the West has military power capable of overthrowing any regime anywhere. But it lacks political potential to establish a stable government. We face anarchy in Libya… the same thing in Cote d’Ivoire. 

A. Mezyaev: Maitre Vergès, you defended former Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz. Could you, please, comment on his case and the details of proceedings? 

Jacque Vergès: Tariq Aziz himself chose me but I couldn’t defend him on spot because they refused to grant me visa. The puppet US-controlled government didn’t allow me to enter the country and Americans said they would not let me see my client. In everyday life they talk about human rights and inalienable right for defense. The Aziz example is a bright illustration of Western policies. Being a Christian, Tariq Aziz held a top position in a Muslim state – he was the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Now we want to execute him. He was the man all Western leaders wanted to take pictures with. The West has definitely lost this game. It wanted rapid victory in Iraq, but it’s the Shiites who are victorious today. The very same Shiites who are affiliated with Iran. We went to Afghanistan to fight the Taliban. As a result it is being resurrected, moreover, Pakistan has become hostile. The West pins its hopes on the military and economic might paying no attention of moral aspects that define who the winner is. Thus, the degradation of West is obvious. Who could have foreseen twenty years ago that Europe would stretch a begging hand to China? Who could have foreseen it? Nobody. But it has happened. 

A. Mezyaev: You have also defended many African presidents: the leaders of Chad, Gabon, and Togo. Could you share your views on those cases? 

Jacque Vergès: Just imagine Africa in 1960. Remember general De Gaulle, a prominent politician those days, the war in Algeria, revolutions in all African states, the French domination…De Gaulle was perspicacious enough to see the reality and lead the process leaving others behind, he realized the need to grant independence to colonies before the revolutions started. This policy made new rulers dependent on France. Sergeants became generals, administrative personnel – presidents. The relations between France and former colonies were based on subjugation and collaboration. Today it has started to change. Laurent Gbagbo is a good example. He doesn’t owe anything to France. All the African leaders headed the states with the significant presence of large French corporations, or, in other words, French corporations captured those African countries. When I defended the heads of states, I tried to make the French corporations be persecuted. Imagine a tourist firm building a hotel. It trusts the French to construct it. The French violate all the rules while erecting the building. Then there is a reason to demand compensation for the inflicted damage. It is normal and the decision is not so much in the interests of president himself, but rather in the interests of the country. 

A. Mezyaev: In 1961 you were wounded in a demonstration against the assassination of Congolese President Patrice Lumumba. Six years passed and you defended the person who was accused of taking part in the murder – Moïse Kapenda Tshombe. What’s your attitude towards these two people? 

Jacque Vergès: It’s all simple. Moïse Tshombe was recruited by US special services. A French agent on US service he lived in Barcelona. After the contact was established he had to conclude a big deal buying large portions of land on the Baleares Islands. He had to see the land. So he went from Geneva to Barcelona making a stop in Rome because Mr. Devlin, a CIA agent, was waiting for him there. So he arrived at Barcelona to have a flight to the Islands. But the plane was flown by a British special services agent who landed it in Algeria instead. Tshombe was arrested there. Mr. Mobutu, the guardian of American interests, asked for Tshombe’s extradition to Zaire (the Democratic Republic of Congo). At the very same time ex-Minister Mulele returned to the country invited by Mobutu who promised to pardon him. Instead Mulele was killed. A government controlled Algerian court permitted the Tshombe’s extradition. Tshombe made a claim and the court asked me to take on the case. Jules Chome, a Belgian lawyer, who defended Lumumba, told me to agree. He said it was a CIA operation; Tshombe was associated with old European colonialism, while Mobutu was an advocate of the new one. Mobutu wanted to be seen as a patriot by giving an order to shoot Tshombe. So it was not so much the defense of Tshombe as countering the ruses of the Central Intelligence Agency that favored Mobutu. So I said yes and did my best to prevent the Tshombe’s extradition. He had heart problems and died in Algeria, he was never extradited. My arguments were that they could not make a revolution out of what in reality was a CIA operation. Those days I told a story to then President of Algeria Houari Boumediene. Ben Bella (the first President of independent Algeria – author’s note) flew from Morocco to Tunisia. His pilot happened to be a French agent and landed the plane in Algeria. I told him this story to make him see that the leaders of Algerian revolution were against such kidnappings, it looks more like a French tradition. I told him he should refuse to be involved in the acts of such dubious nature; nobody should be kidnapped by force or guile. To extradite Tshombe would be like serving the CIA in detriment of Algeria. So the decision was taken not to give him away. May I repeat, it’s not about defending Tshombe but rather rebuffing the United States Central Intelligence Agency’s tricks. 

A. Mezyaev: This summer you went to Cote D’Ivoire to meet President Laurent Gbagbo. He is charged by the International Crimes Court. What has really happened in this country? And could you, please, make a representation of your new book. 

Jacque Vergès: There were two candidates at the Cote D’Ivoire elections – Mr. Gbagbo and Mr. Ouattara. Ouattara is pro-Western, Gbagbo is a nationalist. The West, as the United Nations (which has by and large become a pro-Western organization since a long time, despite Russia and China are there) wanted Ouattara to win. The book I have written together with Roland Dumas about the events in Cote D’Ivoire has just been published. It contains copies of ballots. If you study them attentively you’ll see obvious inconsistencies. For instance, a polling place has 60 registered voters but there were 65 people to vote. All of them voted Ouattara, none supported Gbagbo. Egregious! The book adduces many documents from polling stations to demonstrate how far the falsification has gone. But the Constitutional Council of the country has declared Gbagbo the winner. Then there was an operation conducted to topple him. Overthrowing leaders it’s not a very popular act. So it was undertaken by the forces loyal to Ouattara. Actually they are not regular military under the command of Gbagbo but rather rebels acting on their own. The mutineers invaded the southern part of the country coming from the North supported by French forces. The resistance was tough; it was a real manslaughter, as the United Nations admitted. 700 people were killed by machete, including children. Please note, they were not killed in action but cut to pieces by machete. They attacked Abidjan, the capital of the country, to capture Gbagbo… They asked the French to intervene. The city dwellers had nothing against Gbagbo, to the contrary, they supported him. It was the French forces that bombed the presidential palace and allowed groups of rebels get into the government buildings area, then to the French embassy and then capture and put Gbagbo into prison. It was not Ouattara winning the election, but the French army winning the battle. Today Outtara is sending his people around the country to gain support and cement the pre-Western regime. I think these plans are doomed to failure, because it’s not the XIX century, African countries have people to express their views and they also have armies. 

A. Mezyaev: Maitre Vergès, you say a lawsuit is an art. You often use literature and art in your practice. Your book Justice et Littérature is an example. What would you say to Russian students who study law and want to become lawyers like you? 

Jacque Vergès: Addressing Russian students I’d say law and literature are closely intertwined. Sometimes they have the same pattern. For instance, Antigone by Sophocles. It unfolds like a lawsuit. Or let’s have a look at the trial proceedings Jeanne D’Arc was subject to. It’s a real tragedy. The theme of trial and the theme of tragedy are alike and related to the existing world order. Antigone reassesses monarchy which opposes the power of God. Jeanne D’Arc doubts the legality of the power of church. In all the works we face reassessment of the existing world order. Read Dostoevsky, he talks about changing the world order all the time, take his Roskolnikov, for instance. Take Anna Karenina by Tolstoy. Actors challenge the world around them. Anna Karenina faces a lawsuit of her own – an out-of-marriage love affair. So there is a common background. All these examples help us live and they come from literature: the works of Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, Stendhal and Shakespeare…The Jeanne D’Arc lawsuit is unique and is kind of art in a way, though different in its form. Jeanne D’Arc would not be saint and worldwide known if there were no lawsuit. She commanded troops, a thing extraordinary in itself. Then she faced the trial, was executed and then became a saint. 

What comes to mind is the liberation war in Algeria, back then I defended a group of female bombers. The young women planted explosive devices in public places, like cafes, for instance. The death toll was impressive and the case received great publicity. I defended one of the women. After the trial Youssef Chahine shot a film about her. In real life she was called Djamila Bouhired, the film was called Jamila the Algerian. The lawsuit changed her. I mean she remained as she was preserving her civil status, but she became a symbol, a legend. That’s what the trial did. (Djamila Bouhired was sentenced to death but was set free thanks to Jacque Verges efforts. She became his wife afterwards – author’s note). 

A lawsuit in essence is an art. Let’s remember the well-known Dimitrov’s case; it was in 1934, if I remember it right. He was a Communist accused of setting fire to Reichstag. The Nazi tribunal acquitted him and Dimitrov became a symbol of Communist presence in the Nazi state. You see, a lawsuit is magic; everything is possible if there is a will to win. 

(Kazan Journal of International Law, 2012. N 25) 

Foto: Jacques Vergès (1925-2013)