« La honte est dans le camp de l’agresseur »

“La honte est dans le camp de l’agresseur” is the moral principle articulated by Mila Wizman’s lawyer at Alexandre Farel’s trial: shame should be assigned to the person responsible for the assault, not to the person who reports it. In a case shaped by contested interpretations of a sexual encounter, the phrase directs attention away from suspicion of the complainant and toward the enduring harm she describes.

Meaning and Context

The phrase appears in the lawyer’s account of Mila’s continuing distress. Her daily life is marked by nightmares and avoidance; for a long time, she had difficulty leaving home. The lawyer asks the court to recognize that suffering and to tell Mila that shame is not hers to bear, presenting that recognition as a possible first step toward rebuilding her life.

The appeal also addresses the barriers Mila faced in speaking. The prosecutor later recalls that she was ashamed, feared she would not be believed, and was afraid she would fail to describe what had happened. Reporting brought further encounters with police, a judge, medical examinations, and the scrutiny of an assize court. Against that sequence, the phrase does not treat disclosure as the end of the ordeal: it names the social burden that can accompany it.

The Case Behind the Appeal

The legal proceedings establish a distinction between the occurrence of sexual intercourse and the question of whether it was consensual. The investigating officer testified that Mila came to the police station with her mother at 8:32 a.m., in tears, and reported that Alexandre, the son of her father’s partner, had assaulted her. Police arranged medical examinations, searched the location she identified and her parents’ apartment, and found the yellow underwear she had described. Mila identified Alexandre in a lineup; DNA tests later confirmed sexual intercourse, while experts disagreed about whether it had been coercive.

The account also records that both Mila and Alexandre had consumed alcohol and smoked cannabis, and that Alexandre had taken cocaine. At closing arguments, the prosecutor said that sexual intercourse between them on the night of January 11–12, 2016, was not in dispute; the central difficulty, she argued, was understanding the accused’s character and the circumstances in which he acted. The phrase about shame intervenes in that contested legal and social terrain without treating the existence of intercourse as proof of consent.

Shame, Testimony, and Recognition

Mila’s experience of the proceedings is conveyed not only through argument but through the courtroom’s responses. When a recording of her distressed voice was played, Alexandre kept his head lowered, while Claire Farel struggled to contain her dismay. The investigating officer’s testimony then set out the early steps of the complaint and evidence gathering. These scenes show how her account moved from an initial report into institutional procedures and public testimony, where it was heard and examined by others.

The lawyer’s appeal connects that public process to Mila’s private aftermath. Its force lies in reversing the direction of judgment: rather than making the complainant answer for the shame associated with sexual violence, it assigns that shame to the aggressor. The phrase therefore functions as both an ethical claim and a request for recognition, directed to the jurors and to Mila herself.

A Principle Complicated by the Trial

The prosecutor’s closing remarks partly echo the appeal by emphasizing Mila’s fear, pain, and decision to file a complaint. Yet she also turns to Alexandre’s prospects for reintegration and suggests that Mila may show signs of forgiveness. Mila responds with a frightened look toward her lawyers, apparently unable to understand why the prosecutor seems to have crossed to the other side. The moment complicates any easy account of courtroom support: acknowledgment of her suffering sits alongside attention to the accused’s future and an interpretation of her possible forgiveness.

Within that tension, “La honte est dans le camp de l’agresseur” remains a clear counterweight to victim-blaming. It does not resolve the trial’s questions about culpability or determine its outcome. Instead, it identifies the moral distinction the proceedings risk obscuring: the complainant’s shame and fear are part of the harm she has endured, not evidence that responsibility belongs to her.