The trial, which took place at the Palais deJustice, the main court of Paris, consisted oflawyers' arguments from both sides before a panelof three robed French judges, Suleiman says.
During the trial, Jardine recounts, Crenbrought bags filled with books published by thetwo professors and placed them on a table beforethe judges in order to refute Loupan's charge thatthe two lacked any academic qualifications.
"Our lawyer was very elegant and accurate,"Jardine says. "I think he presented a very strongcase."
Jardine says the lawyer for Le Figaro did not have much to say. Suleiman agrees, saying"He presented a very weak argument saying simplythat the journalist had published two books andthat Alice Jardine and I were 'feminist.' That isnot much of an argument."
In France, the plaintiff does not need to showintentional defamation and can win a libel suit ifthere are important factual errors in an article.
"In France, it's very simple," Jardine says."It's about honor."
"French libel law is more weighted in favor ofthe plaintiff," Suleiman says. "Suleiman says. "Ifthe journalist makes statements that are libelous,that is, which do harm to the 'honor andreputation' of an individual, that is sufficient,I believe," to win a case.
"I believe certainly in Alice Jardine's case,she should win," Suleiman says. "What they will doabout the money awards is separate question and Idon't know what they will do about the technicallyinvolving my case."
Many legal experts have predicted that Jardineand Suleiman will win the case, Jardine says. Ifthey do, Le Figaro will have to publish astatement in newspapers of Jardine and Suleiman'schoosing that it was found guilty of libel anddefamation, Jardine says.
"I'm glad we did it," Jardine says. "It wasworth it whatever the verdict."