SELMOUNI v. FRANCE JUDGMENT 15 55. On 25 August 1998 the investigating judge served notice on Mr Selmouni that the investigation was complete. The investigation file was sent to the public prosecutor’s office on 15 September 1998. 56. On 19 October 1998 the public prosecutor submitted his written statement of how he wished the investigating judge to proceed with the case. He submitted, inter alia: “ … the denials by the police officers concerned do not stand up to examination any more than does their reference to a ‘struggle’ when effecting the arrest or to forceful resistance during questioning. The absence of any variation or inconsistency in the statements made by Ahmed Selmouni and Abdelmajid Madi justifies taking them into consideration. They are, moreover, corroborated by medical findings and therefore amount to sufficient evidence against the five persons in question for the allegations to be examined by the trial court …” 57. In an order of 21 October 1998 the investigating judge committed the five police officers in question for trial at the Versailles Criminal Court. In respect of Mr Selmouni’s allegations, the judge committed the four police officers concerned for trial at that court on charges of assault occasioning total unfitness for work for less than eight days and indecent assault committed collectively and with violence and coercion. 58. The trial was held at the Versailles Criminal Court on 5 February 1999. The applicant filed pleadings in support of an objection that the court had no jurisdiction to try the case and that it should be transferred to the Assize Court. He submitted that the sexual assault had in fact been rape; that he had been the victim of assault occasioning permanent disability, namely loss of visual acuity, committed by public servants; and, lastly, that the ill-treatment he had suffered should be classified as acts of torture inflicted before or during the commission of a crime. The court joined that objection to the merits. At the end of the trial the public prosecutor requested that Mr Hervé be sentenced to four years’ imprisonment and Mr Staebler, Mr Hurault and Mr Gautier to three years’ imprisonment. The Criminal Court reserved judgment until 25 March 1999. 59. In a judgment of 25 March 1999 the Versailles Criminal Court dismissed the objection to jurisdiction raised by Mr Selmouni, on the following grounds in particular: (a) as to classification of the sex offence as rape: “ … The Court must, however, conclude that neither the medical certificates nor the expert reports support the allegation of anal penetration. Furthermore, Selmouni was unable to identify the police officer who had allegedly raped him. Accordingly, the offence cannot be classified as rape.” (b) as to classification of the assault as assault occasioning permanent disability: