SELMOUNI v. FRANCE JUDGMENT 19 As to the accounts given by the defendants The defendants’ explanations of how the injuries found came about totally lack credibility. Moreover, on these points as on others, their explanations varied. Jean-Bernard Hervé, for instance, initially stated that he had acted as a reinforcement to arrest Selmouni (D57) but subsequently said that he was not in the street where the arrest took place but inside the hotel. The defendants maintain that the accusations against them are the result of orchestrated, concerted action. It should be noted at this point that throughout the seven years of inquiries and judicial investigation no evidence was found to substantiate that allegation. The complainants’ interests differed appreciably. The successive descriptions of the ill-treatment they alleged that they had suffered do not disclose any connivance, and it should be pointed out that Selmouni himself was hardly ever assisted by a lawyer in the proceedings concerning drug trafficking. It is not without relevance to note that Madi and Selmouni, who had never been in police custody before, could not have made use of previous experience of it to fabricate a completely false story. The mere fact of Selmouni’s arrest near his hotel, even if it is assumed to have entailed something of a struggle, cannot explain either the seriousness of the injuries or their gradual onset as confirmed by the photographs in the file, seeing that, immediately afterwards, the policemen concerned did not record any suspicious signs either on their own persons or on that of Selmouni, signs that would have warranted a thorough medical examination, which would have been in their own interest. As regards Madi, the policemen’s account, according to which he had deliberately banged his head against a wall and a cupboard, is not consistent with the findings of the medical examinations. The expert noted that in this type of occurrence it is normal to find, at the time of the events, unequivocal injuries and even bleeding wounds, which was not the case here. Taken as a whole, these factors persuade the Court that the alleged resistance to arrest was invented by the accused to justify the seriousness and location of the haematomas and the lesions found on the detainee. As to the reliability of the police reports The policemen from SDPJ 93, in particular Jean-Bernard Hervé, admitted in court that several reports drawn up during the detention of Selmouni and Madi in police custody contained inaccurate statements both as to times and as to the identity of those who had written them. No persuasive logical explanation of this was given to the Court. Hurault, for example, drew up a report (D114) on the search which he made at Gonesse from 5.30 p.m. to 6.55 p.m. on 26 November, and ‘recorded’ at 6.45 p.m. – that is to say at the same time – in another report (D158) that Madi had resisted arrest, and also told the Court that he had intervened to calm him.