She said the amount awarded was significantbecause it will force others in France and in theUnited States to take note.

"It's important because it will send exactlythe message that we wanted to send," Jardine said."With freedom comes responsibility, and we've sentthe message that you can't libel or defamesomeone--we've sent the message that people willfight back."

"The thing that is most important to me is thateven though Susan's case was thrown out on atechnicality, the moral and symbolic victory was amutual one," Jardine said.

Jardine's suit was the only one that had legalstanding at the trial last month at thePalaisde Justice, the main court of Paris, becauseSuleiman's papers were delivered two days afterthe statute of limitations on libel had run out.

"Our lawyer sent both affidavits tothehuissier, or bailiff, just a few daysbefore the deadline and asked him to deliver bothin time," Suleiman said last month. "For reasons Ihave not quite understood, only Alice Jardine'saffidavit arrived on time; mine arrived two daysafter."

Lawyer Herve Cren presented both cases in thetrial and asked the court to see what it could doin maintaining judgment in Suleiman's case. Butthe judges did not mention Suleiman in theverdict.

Suleiman said she was disappointed that thejudges did not recognize her standing, but she washappy with the verdict.

"I feel that Alice Jardine's victory issymbolically mine as well since we have been inthis together from the start," Suleiman said. Sheadded that both were grateful to all of thefriends and colleagues world-wide who hadsupported them over the last year.

Suleiman said she was taking further legalaction against the bailiff for not performing hisduty, and that Cren would file the papers withinthe next ten days.

"Our lawyer assures me that the case is clearcut since the bailiff has recognized his fault innot delivering my papers on time," Suleiman said."Therefore as the lawyer puts it, the bailiff hasdeprived me of satisfaction in the case and he isliable for that."

Jardine said that she would split any awardmoney with Suleiman. But Suleiman said she didn'tthink that would be necessary.

"I expect that the suit against the bailiffwill produce at least the same amount of damagesas I would have gotten from Le Figaro,"Suleiman said. "But there may be additionaldamages for the harm done by the bailiff's ownerror."

Jardine and Suleiman also asked in their suitthat they be allowed to choose newspapers inwhichLe Figaro would have to acknowledgethat it was found guilty of libel and defamation,but the judges ruled that the magazine did nothave to publish the error messages because itprinted letters to the editor from Suleiman andJardine responding to the article.

The verdict was reached on Wednesday, but thepapers were not signed and the decision was notmade official until Friday.

Jardine said she called her lawyer's Parisoffice at 6 p.m. and that his secretary said averdict had been handed down.

Jardine said she asked what the verdict was,but the secretary said, "It's not official--thepapers haven't been signed, so I can't tell you."

The secretary did eventually read the decisionto Jardine over the phone.

Le Figaro has one month to decide if itwants to appeal the case, but Jardine said she didnot expect an appeal because the decision was sostrongly worded.

"Whatever happens, we feel that the right thinghas been done, and we don't feel it will bereversed," Jardine said.

"I felt elated, I felt proud of us for doing itand I felt optimistic about the possibility oftruth winning out over all the political 'noise.'"Jardine said