Mobilization for justice and the rights of Tariq Ramadan
Tariq Ramadan, a Swiss intellectual and emeritus professor of Islamic studies at the University of Oxford, has been at the center of a complex and controversial judicial case since 2017.
Accused of rape in France and Switzerland, he has consistently maintained his innocence, denouncing what he sees as the politicization of his case.
This affair, which has dragged on for more than seven years, raises profound questions about how it has been handled, both judicially and politically. Two of the plaintiffs themselves admitted to having come under pressure from the civil party, highlighting the possible external influences that may have weighed on the investigation.
These revelations fuel doubts about the neutrality of certain actors involved, particularly regarding the integrity of the judicial process. Such tensions cast a shadow over the fairness of the proceedings.
The Tariq Ramadan case goes beyond the strictly legal framework, revealing a heavy political and media climate in which certain political figures are said to have sought to influence the outcome of the case. This raises serious concerns about the independence of justice in highly sensitive matters,
where public and political pressure appears to play a disproportionate role.
Tariq Ramadan’s struggle to restore the truth continues, in a context where procedural irregularities and external influences make the process scarcely transparent. This case raises a crucial question: that of safeguarding fundamental rights and ensuring judicial impartiality in cases that are both highly mediatised and politically charged.
Mobilize for Tariq Ramadan: How to Help?
Tariq Ramadan, at the center of a case marked by political and media interference, is facing legal proceedings that raise serious concerns about their impartiality. You can take action to support his fight for justice and fairness.
Here’s how you can help:
Sign the petition
Support the demand for a fair and just trial by signing the petition Justice for Tariq Ramadan. Every signature helps put pressure on the authorities and reminds them of the importance of upholding fundamental rights.
Share the petition
Spread the petition link around you — on social media, with your friends, family, and colleagues. The more visibility this petition gains, the stronger the support will grow.
Educate and Raise Awareness
Get informed about the details of this case and speak about it. Highlight the political and media-related stakes surrounding this affair to mobilize a larger number of people.
Listen and Share Our Resources
Explore and share our materials on the case to better understand the international implications of this affair.
By taking action now, you can contribute to the defense of Tariq Ramadan’s rights and support transparency and fairness in the justice system.
dans la justice.
01
Reminder of the Facts and Accusations
The facts
The Plaintiffs
The timeline
In October 2017, four women filed complaints against Tariq Ramadan, accusing him of sexual assault. These allegations, widely covered in the media, led to his arrest in France in February 2018, followed by nine months of pre-trial detention. This prolonged incarceration sparked international criticism, with some denouncing the politicization of the case due to Ramadan’s stature in the French intellectual and social landscape.
During his nine months in detention, Ramadan, who suffers from multiple sclerosis, saw his health deteriorate. Despite several medical certificates attesting to the seriousness of his illness, the judges ignored these warnings, ordering a counter-expertise which, months later, confirmed his diagnosis as well as the risks posed by keeping him imprisoned. This treatment marked the beginning of a large-scale politico-judicial fiasco.
Despite several requests for release, the French judiciary long refused to grant them, raising questions about equality before the law. No other political or public figure in France has faced such severe treatment for similar accusations. Ultimately released under judicial supervision in November 2018, Ramadan has since faced an investigation plagued by serious irregularities that cast doubt on the integrity of the proceedings.
Meanwhile, another rape complaint was filed in Switzerland in 2018. After a trial in 2023, Ramadan was acquitted of all charges, but in 2024, against all expectations, he was sentenced to 12 months in prison. This reversal alarmed the international community, with some suggesting possible French interference in the Swiss case.
As of 2024, Tariq Ramadan continues to face multiple accusations in France, with the risk of a trial depending on the outcome of the investigation. Among the controversies, numerous exculpatory elements have been ignored or dismissed, and the examining magistrate’s use of the notion of “control” (emprise), particularly by citing the Muslim religion as an influence over one of the plaintiffs, has drawn sharp criticism. Equating Islam with a form of pathological control has been deemed dangerous and discriminatory by many observers, who warn against such a reductive and stigmatizing drift.
Two of the plaintiffs revealed that they had come under strong pressure from the civil party when filing their complaints and during the investigation, casting doubt on the sincerity of the accusations. Political figures such as Jean-Claude Elfassi have been accused of seeking to manipulate the complaints, and one of the plaintiffs now speaks of a “political conspiracy” at the origin of the case.
Tariq Ramadan’s lawyers also denounce the disregard of several exculpatory pieces of evidence, glaring inconsistencies in testimonies, and truncated elements submitted to the case file by the civil party. They criticize what they describe as a biased investigation and a judicial process that, far from being impartial, appears to have been influenced by political and media interests.
02
Irregularities and Legal Concerns
The Investigation
The Expert Reports
The Tariq Ramadan case is marked by multiple irregularities that raise serious doubts about the fairness of the judicial process.
First, the investigation conducted by Judge Madame Guillermet relies primarily on the notion of psychological control (emprise), without any proof being provided that Tariq Ramadan exercised coercion. During the proceedings, the judge used up to four different definitions of this concept, at least one of which has been recognized as scientifically erroneous, thereby undermining the validity of the conclusions drawn from it.
In addition, the psychological assessment has been criticized for its lack of rigor and professional ethics, since the main expert in charge had previously spoken publicly about Tariq Ramadan and his grandfather, associating them with political Islam and the dangers it allegedly poses to French society. Given such evident bias, the expert should have recused himself. Yet he insisted on remaining in charge, despite complaints filed against him with the Medical Council.
The investigation also flagrantly omitted exculpatory elements essential to the defense of Tariq Ramadan. These included emails, contradictions in the plaintiffs’ testimonies, and other pieces of evidence favorable to the defense, which were sometimes not even included in the case file. This omission constitutes a breach of Article 81 of the French Code of Criminal Procedure, which requires that investigations seek the truth “both for and against” the accused. Such a failure strikes at the heart of the right to a fair trial.
Moreover, a falsified and truncated email was submitted to the file by the civil party, further heightening concerns about the manipulation of evidence to support the accusations. Finally, the investigating judge distorted certain exculpatory materials in the referral order, which should have presented the case both for and against. She notably attributed a blog authored by one of the plaintiffs (the complainant in Switzerland) — whose content contained fundamental exculpatory elements for Tariq Ramadan — to a press outlet, even though it was in fact the plaintiff’s own official blog, which she admitted during her hearing.
All these elements constitute violations of fundamental principles of judicial fairness. According to the French Code of Criminal Procedure, and in particular Article 81, an investigation must seek the truth impartially, including both incriminating and exculpatory evidence. In this case, numerous exculpatory materials, such as email exchanges and contradictions in the plaintiffs’ statements, were either mishandled or ignored, casting a shadow over the impartiality of the judicial process.
Finally, the use of Islam as an argument to support the claim of psychological “control” is especially troubling. Equating the practice of the Muslim faith with indoctrination or mental manipulation sets a dangerous precedent, one that risks fostering unjustified stigmatization and religious prejudice within the judicial process.
These multiple irregularities highlight profound concerns about the impartiality and independence of justice in this case. It is crucial that Tariq Ramadan’s rights be respected within a fair procedure — one that duly considers all evidence, whether incriminating or exculpatory. Above all, politics must not intrude into the courtroom, and justice must be allowed to reclaim its proper role.
03
For a Fair and Transparent Trial
The Law
The Justice
Transparency
Tariq Ramadan, like any citizen, has the fundamental right to a fair trial, in full respect of the principles of the presumption of innocence and the right to defense. We, as citizens committed to the defense of human rights, recall that it is crucial for justice to be carried out within an impartial and independent procedure, grounded in facts and free from external pressures or political and media influence.
We call upon the French judicial authorities to ensure that Tariq Ramadan is treated in full respect of his human rights. It is essential that justice be rendered in a transparent and equitable manner, and that Tariq Ramadan’s rights be fully upheld, in accordance with international human rights standards. Media-driven and politicized trials must not undermine the fairness of the judicial system or call into question the fundamental principles of justice.
04
What Tariq Ramadan Risks and the Stakes for Society
Tariq Ramadan faces extremely serious accusations, including multiple counts of sexual assault and rape in France. If these accusations lead to a conviction, he risks up to 15 years of criminal imprisonment, which could be increased to 20 years if aggravating circumstances are established.
The Tariq Ramadan affair goes far beyond his personal case and raises deeply troubling questions for society, particularly with regard to human rights and fair justice. If this case—marked by irregularities and potential bias—results in a conviction without due consideration of exculpatory evidence, it could set a dangerous precedent.
Furthermore, the use of the concept of psychological control (emprise) without scientific substantiation, and with Islam being cited in the case of one complainant as the triggering factor of a pathological bond, risks sliding towards a form of justice that instrumentalizes faith and culture as incriminating evidence. This could reinforce stigmatization and fuel a climate of racism within the courts, where certain communities might be judged differently because of their cultural or religious practices.
In addition, a procedure perceived as biased undermines public trust in the judicial system, particularly in cases that are highly mediatised or politically sensitive. Potential violations of the rights of the defense and of the presumption of innocence in the judicial handling of Tariq Ramadan’s case may pave the way for a more politicized justice, where trials unfold under the pressure of public opinion and the media, to the detriment of judicial independence.
Finally, this case weakens the fundamental principles of fair justice, eroding universal human rights protections and creating precedents that could be applied to other individuals—thereby undermining both democracy and the rule of law.
05
The Political Dimension of the Tariq Ramadan Case: The Role of Media Actors and Underlying Issues
Caroline Fourest
Elfassi
Politisation
Among the actors involved in this case, Jean-Claude Elfassi, a controversial paparazzo, played a central role in the media manipulation surrounding the affair. He publicly boasted of being behind Ramadan’s downfall, but his involvement went further: two plaintiffs accused him of falsifying their complaints. One claims he wrote her complaint on her behalf and had her sign it, while another revealed messages proving that he had asked her to alter evidence. Yet these allegations were never the subject of a thorough investigation, leaving doubts about the integrity of the judicial process. Elfassi’s interference in the case, spreading often false and intimate information, blurred the lines between truth and speculation, feeding a parallel media tribunal.
Caroline Fourest, journalist and essayist, is also a key figure in this affair. Even before the judicial accusations, she regularly criticized Tariq Ramadan, accusing him of promoting political Islam in Europe. From the moment the complaints were made public, Fourest actively took a stand, intensifying her attacks against Ramadan in the media.
She met with three of the plaintiffs as early as 2009, without any mention at the time of rape or violence. Exchanges between Fourest and some of the plaintiffs show that these meetings focused more on Ramadan’s moral conduct than on criminal accusations.
Moreover, Fourest gave contradictory versions during her hearings, raising the question: why such inconsistencies? Her interventions, perceived as part of an ideological crusade, contributed to the politicization of the affair, where ideological motivations at times seem to outweigh the pursuit of truth.
The Ramadan case is thus marked by a complex intertwining of political, media, and judicial influences. The involvement of figures such as Elfassi and Fourest raises troubling questions about the fairness of the treatment reserved for Ramadan, while exculpatory evidence continues to be ignored or minimized, and external pressures further cloud the judicial process.
The Politicization of the Case: A Challenge for Justice
The Tariq Ramadan case, shaped by the influence of personalities like Caroline Fourest and Jean-Claude Elfassi, illustrates how a judicial proceeding can be transformed into a political and media arena.
This situation reflects a broader issue in contemporary societies, where certain trials acquire an ideological, even political dimension, diverting attention away from the fundamental principles of justice.
In Ramadan’s case, some of his supporters argue that the trial has become a symbolic battle against a form of political Islam, rather than an objective legal matter based on facts. The use of the notion of psychological control (emprise) in the case, along with the reference to the Muslim religion as a factor of mental manipulation, reinforces the impression that an ideological battle is at play. Critics warn of a dangerous drift in which ideological considerations infiltrate the courtroom, eroding the foundations of a fair trial.
Conclusion
Accusations
Media
Manipulation
The Tariq Ramadan affair is not limited to accusations of rape; it is embedded within a broader context of political and ideological debates surrounding the place of Islam in Europe, secularism, and the management of media-driven cases within the courts.
Figures such as Caroline Fourest and Jean-Claude Elfassi have played a central role in this politicization, contributing to an intense media coverage that shapes public opinion and, possibly, influences judicial actors.
Beyond the Ramadan case, this situation highlights the dangers of politicizing judicial proceedings and raises crucial questions about the future of justice in highly sensitive cases.
FAQ
The injustice in the Tariq Ramadan case is evident on multiple levels. From the outset, both the judicial system and the media handled the case in a highly unbalanced way. Serious accusations against him were widely publicized even before a thorough investigation had been conducted. This media treatment severely undermined the presumption of innocence, a fundamental right and cornerstone of any fair justice system.
Moreover, the investigation appears to have been conducted entirely to the detriment of the defense. Key findings favorable to Tariq Ramadan, including those from the criminal investigation unit, were either ignored or downplayed. Numerous crucial documents — including proven forgeries — were never seriously considered by the judiciary. Some political figures, accused of manipulating complaints or even lying under oath, have never been questioned or held accountable.
Everything suggests that this case is tainted by external influences, blending politics and ideology. These interferences jeopardize the impartiality of the judicial process and raise serious concerns about the respect for fundamental rights.
A case of this magnitude requires a rigorous and neutral investigation, free from political or media pressure.
No, several serious irregularities cast doubt on the fairness of the judicial process in Tariq Ramadan’s case.
First, he was placed in pre-trial detention for many months without any solid evidence justifying such a measure. Multiple medical certificates issued by renowned doctors attesting that his health was incompatible with incarceration were ignored or dismissed.
Then, key exculpatory evidence was minimized or excluded. Inconsistencies in the testimonies of the complainants and material evidence that could have exonerated Tariq Ramadan were not adequately considered. Moreover, the investigation failed to examine fundamental elements, such as the role of political figures accused of manipulating complaints. One complainant even denounced the influence of one such figure, who lied under oath without facing any consequences.
Another major concern relates to the psychological assessments used in the case. These do not meet legal or impartial standards. One report notably claimed that Islam was likely to create pathological behaviors — an unscientific and deeply biased statement. The expert who wrote this had previously participated in public events where Tariq Ramadan and his lineage were portrayed as threats to the Republic, which violates the neutrality expected in judicial expertise. Despite these serious issues, the judge decided to keep this expert on the case.
Finally, several fundamental rights appear to have been violated throughout the process: the absence of a fair trial, repeated violations of the presumption of innocence, and a clear disregard for the legal standards of neutrality and impartiality. These failures point to a biased handling of the case, incompatible with the principles of fair and equitable justice.
The media played a central role by spreading biased and sometimes false information from the very beginning of the case. Tariq Ramadan was portrayed as guilty even before a fair trial took place. This media lynching influenced public opinion and likely judicial actors as well, thereby compromising the neutrality of the investigation.
The treatment of Tariq Ramadan clearly appears to be marked by prejudice related to his identity, lineage, and ideas. As an influential Muslim intellectual, he has been at the center of controversies that often went beyond the realm of intellectual debate, sliding into systematic suspicion. This context is exacerbated by an Islamophobic climate in certain social, political, and media circles, which contributes to constructing a stereotyped image of Tariq Ramadan.
A striking example of discrimination can be found in a psychological expert report central to the case. This report goes so far as to claim that Islam could create “relational pathologies,” a completely unscientific and deeply biased statement. This shows a clear stigmatization of his religion, insidiously used to reinforce a negative perception of Tariq Ramadan.
Furthermore, his identity and lineage have been repeatedly instrumentalized. A former lawyer for the civil party denigrated a medical certificate issued in favor of Tariq Ramadan, not based on its content, but solely because of the Arabic-sounding name of the doctor. This behavior, which should have been firmly condemned, never provoked any reaction from the judge, who should have ensured equality and respect for fundamental rights. This fuels the perception that he is being judged more for his name and origin than as an ordinary citizen.
Another troubling element in the case is the judge's assertion that some complainants approached him for “religious reasons.” Yet no writings or evidence support this claim. The exchanges between Tariq Ramadan and these women, available from the beginning of the investigation, contain no mention of any religious connection. Why then invent such a claim, if not to artificially construct a public persona embodying an ideology perceived as dangerous?
These elements illustrate clear discriminatory treatment, where Tariq Ramadan is judged not on proven facts, but through the lens of an ideological stereotype that distorts any impartiality. This constitutes a fundamental violation of his right to be treated as an equal before the law.
We are calling for a fair investigation conducted with impartiality, and a review of the case based exclusively on verified facts. It is crucial that all evidence, including that which exonerates Tariq Ramadan, be taken into account with the same seriousness as the evidence presented against him. Justice must be shielded from any political or ideological influence in order to preserve its independence and impartiality. Only by adhering to these fundamental principles can trust in the judicial system be restored and a truly just decision be delivered.
This case goes beyond the individual of Tariq Ramadan and raises fundamental questions about the fairness of the judicial system, the respect for the presumption of innocence, and the excessive influence of the media in highly publicized cases. It also highlights the dangers of stigmatizing public figures, particularly those from religious or ethnic minorities. When justice is compromised by media or political pressure, it is all citizens who lose a vital guarantee: that of equal treatment under the law.
-
You can support Tariq Ramadan through several concrete actions:
-
Stay informed:
-
Learn about the facts and available evidence in this case to counter media bias.
-
Share verified information: Use your social media or personal conversations to raise awareness with objective facts and thoughtful analysis.
-
Participate in initiatives: Join petitions, attend conferences or rallies in favor of justice and fairness.
-
Support the legal defense: If possible, contribute to funds or campaigns supporting Tariq Ramadan’s legal defense.
-
Spread the message: Be a messenger of information to promote the idea of impartial justice and the respect of fundamental rights.
-
-
Your involvement can help amplify a call for justice and raise awareness about the potential abuses that can affect any citizen.
-