The Government will extend the list of associations that can be a civil party in the case of apology for crime against humanity, the Constitutional Council said Friday that the possibility could not be confined to organizations defending the victims of World War II World.

The current situation. Article 48-2 of the law of 29 July 1881 on freedom of the press provides that only associations that propose in their status, “to defend the moral interests and honor of the Resistance or deportees” may “exercise the rights granted to the civil party in respect of the defense of war crimes, crimes against humanity or crimes or offenses of collaboration with the enemy.”

A QPC on the issue. The Sages were seized since July of a priority question of constitutionality (QPC) by the Rwandan Community in France Association which challenged this provision, arguing that organizations representing the interests of victims of war crimes other than those committed during the Second World War were not treated with the same respect under the law.

The Constitutional Council ruled in their favor on Friday and decided to censor part of the article to urge the legislature to re-specify the cases in which an association may bring civil actions in case of war crimes or glorification of crime against humanity.

In a statement the Minister of Justice has indicated take note of the decision of the Constitutional Council 2015-492 QPC The custody of Sceaux precise and it will soon present to Parliament a text that expand the definition of associations authorized to civil parties when such crimes were committed.

Decision No. 2015-492 QPC of 16 October 2015 – Rwandan Community Association France [Associations may exercise the rights granted to the civil party in respect of the defense of war crimes and crimes against humanity]

The Constitutional Council was seized July 17, 2015 by the Court of Cassation a priority issue of constitutionality raised by the Rwandan Community Association France concerning compliance with the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution of the provisions of the fifth paragraph of Article 48-2 of the Law of 29 July 1881.

These provisions reserve for only associations that propose, in their statutes, to defend the moral interests and honor of the Resistance or of deportees, the possibility of public action made apology for crimes against humanity.

The applicant association argued that by doing so, the impugned provisions infringe the principle of equality.

The Constitutional Council upheld this argument.

He first noted that the offenses under the Penal Code does not penalize the only defense of war crimes and crimes against humanity committed during the Second World War.

The Constitutional Council then held, first, that the legislature did not provide a different penal repression for defending war crimes and crimes against humanity under these crimes were committed or not during second World War. On the other hand, it appears neither challenged provisions or other statutory provision nor the preparatory works of the law which established the challenged provisions of the existence of grounds to reserve only to associations defending the moral interests and honor Resistance or deportees the right to exercise the rights granted to the civil party in respect of the defense of war crimes and crimes against humanity. The Constitutional Council inferred that the contested provisions, in excluding from the exercise of rights granted to the plaintiff associations who intend to defend the moral interests and honor of the victims of war crimes and crimes against other than humanity committed during the Second World War, infringe the principle of equality before the law.

The Constitutional Council, therefore, declared unconstitutional the words “war crimes, crimes against humanity” in Article 48-2 of the Law of 29 July 1881 on freedom of press.

Immediate censure would however have had the effect of eliminating, to any association whose purpose is to defend the moral interests and honor of the Resistance or of deportees, the right to exercise the rights granted to the civil party in respect advocating war crimes and crimes against humanity. As the Constitutional Council he decided to postpone until 1 October 2016 the date of the repeal he delivered to enable the legislator to assess the appropriate follow-up to this declaration of unconstitutionality. It also suspended the limitation period applicable to the setting in motion of public action by the civil party in the field of defense of war crimes and crimes against humanity until the entry into force of a new legislation and no later than until 1 October 2016.