The co-founders of Disclose, Geoffrey Livolsi and Mathias Destal, as well as a journalist from the investigative cell of Radio France, Benoît Collombat, were summoned on 14 and 15 May by the General Directorate of Internal Security (DGSI). They were heard under the free hearing regime - a less restrictive regime than that of police custody - a month after the media Disclose published a journalistic investigation containing information and documents "confidential defense". Mathias Destal tells the story of his audition with France 24.
France 24 : how was your hearing on Tuesday with the ISB interviewers ?
Mathias Destal : We were summoned to 9:30 at the headquarters of the DGSI, in Levallois-Perret, with Geoffroy Livolsi [the other co-founder of Disclose, Ed]. We were greeted by the two interviewers who were responsible for auditioning us separately at the 4th basement on their premises. I was then asked to decline my identity, my diplomas ... After, I read a note that recalled the major public interest information released by Disclose [the disclosure of classified documents that detail the French weapons used in the war in Yemen, Editor's note].
What type of questions were you asked during your free audition ?
There was a series of questions about the Disclose media, its operation, funding, partnerships with other media, as well as classification issues - that is, if you know what is the "secret defense" or the "confidential defense". I was also asked about my sources, to find out who provided the documents to Disclose. It was a kind of game of dupes: the investigator was cordial and assured that it was not a question of knowing our sources with this hearing, and at the same time all the legal device is in place to try to find the the people who spoke to us My colleague Geoffrey was also questioned about publications made on social networks. However, there was no question about the content of the Disclose survey. We expected it a bit because the convening of the DGSI did not mention it.
How does the procedural framework used for this survey seem to be problematic ?
This was to say that the procedural framework proposed is not sufficient. First, there is no independent judge, so no access to the current investigation [a preliminary investigation was opened in December 2018 under the authority of the terrorism section of the Paris prosecutor's office, after a complaint filed by the Ministry of the Armed Forces, Editor's note]. Then, the terrorism section of the Paris prosecutor's office has more investigative powers than any other section, which is worrying especially for the secrecy of journalists' sources. Answering questions from the DGSI could have exposed us. Finally, not being summoned as journalists, but in a personal capacity, weakens our position for our investigation which is indeed a journalistic work.
Prime Minister Édouard Philippe said on FranceInfo Thursday about your auditions : "I do not think it intimidates them, and secondly, it is not meant to intimidate". What do you think ?
I do not know how he could deduce that. The current procedure is intimidating, it is maintained that it is an intimidation attempt, for the journalists and especially for the sources that inform the journalists on these questions.
How should the freedom of information prevail over the preservation of the confidentiality of documents of the "confidential defense" type ?
It must prevail when one realizes that the executive power omits truths, even to national representation. On our specific case [the Disclose survey entitled "Made in France", Ed], this obviously prevails: the public place of this information allows to nurture a balanced public debate, serene in a country that is the 3rd exporter world of arms and Saudi Arabia as the second largest client.