It is this last assumption today is to apply

While the French Constitution was revised in 2005 to change the criminal status of the President of the Republic, that for the first time a former President is returned before courts of common law, the situation causes some discomfort. It is both an aspiration to equality, a deference to the symbolic dimension of the function and the feeling that the time elapsed makes it less necessary sanction. A certain constitutional tropism turned to the United States, fed by the publicity given to a few cases, then leads to build model freedom and the independence of justice whose presidential function would be insufficient to stop the arms. And if Jacques Chirac had been President of the United States, or more simply if the American system had been implemented in France This question may seem futile; Furthermore the answer cannot, by definition, take into account the cyclical political aspects and cultural differences. But it can lead to relativize the image of the American system as a model.

In France, the Constitution, as regards the criminal (or civil) responsibility of the President of the Republic for the acts committed outside the exercise of its functions, opens an alternative: is removal from Office by Parliament in the High Court, two-thirds majority, breach"duties manifestly incompatible with the exercise of its mandate"; or the removal of any procedure or action against, or the involving, at the end of its mandate. It is this last assumption today is to apply.

In the United States, the President may be, according to the procedure of "impeachment", returned to the Senate by the House of representatives should be tried for "treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors".If the President is convicted by a majority of two thirds, it is removed. In recent history, two Presidents have thus indicted: Richard Nixon for "obstructing justice" and "violation of the constitutional rights of citizens", and Bill Clinton for "perjury and false testimony" and "obstruction of justice."The first resigned before the Senate is pronounced, the second was acquitted. Thus this indictment, for spectacular, is exceptional and has never resulted in a conviction.

Regardless of this procedure, the President enjoys no special protection in a civil trial. Criminal proceedings may be instituted against him; He can be heard as a witness, but may be tried nor a fortiori convicted during the exercise of its functions. And, here again, the absence of practice, these solutions are not entirely fixed.

The Parliament control

What distinguishes the American and French situations, it is the strength of the judicial authority which, under the pressure of an independent Prosecutor, can transform a civil procedure in criminal procedure, and the power of investigation of the commissions of the Congress.

In fact, criticism against the French right are surely more a crisis of political responsibility to the provisional immunity of the head of State. In France, as in other parliamentary democracies, the responsibility to Parliament for holders of governmental Authority - President or Prime Minister - is somewhat moot, as a result of stable majorities. Then, policy, responsibility becomes criminal. The desire to build justice in power, not only independent but autonomous, leads to develop new institutional construction in which the genuine separation of powers met face to face judicial authority and political power.

Allow judges to sue before them the President would certainly be a solution to dispel this malaise is the mis en cause of a President "retired" more than twenty years after the facts. But at what price Including that of a weakening of the Presidential Office and interference of the judges in the exercise of the function of Government, not without danger for the separation of powers. It is probably in a strengthening of the control function of the Parliament that can be refounding a true political accountability of rulers. This would not change the situation criminal Jacques Chirac, but certainly leads to mitigate criticism on immunity felt as irresponsibility.