Inass trial: debates on the psychiatric state of 39-year-old mother
At hearings in November 2026, psychiatric and psychological experts debated the mental responsibility of Halima El Bakhti, Inass's mother, at the time of the alleged acts (1983-1987). The question of impaired judgment could influence the sentence.
Psychiatric expertise at the heart of the trial for Inass's death
According to BFM TV, the hearings of 9 and 10 November 2026 at the Blois courthouse concentrated on a central issue: assessing the psychiatric state of Halima El Bakhti, accused of "torture and cruelty resulting in the death" of her 4-year-old daughter in 1987, more than three decades after the alleged acts.
Before the court, psychological and psychiatric experts delivered their analyses of the accused's behaviour and her capacity for judgment at the time of the violence inflicted on the young victim of the A10. Their divergent conclusions raised major questions about criminal responsibility and possible sentence reduction.
The uprooting of 1982 and its effects
Psychologist Valérie Ritzenthaler, who assessed Halima El Bakhti in 2021, described her arrival in France in 1982 as a "wrenching away from a dream life". A teacher in Morocco, she saw herself as "independent" and enjoying "social recognition". Her husband made her leave her native country to join him in France, where she devoted herself to helping in his shop and to raising the children.
When Inass was born, her third daughter, Halima El Bakhti gave birth in Morocco. The maternity staff took the newborn from her, returning it only three days later. "The beginning of her bond with Inass is marked by a separation that she describes as imposed", Valérie Ritzenthaler indicated. A month later, the mother returned to France with her two elder daughters, leaving Inass with her maternal grandmother in Morocco.
The difficult reunification and its misinterpretation
A year or two later, Halima El Bakhti brought Inass to France. The child cried constantly, refused to eat, to wash herself, to play, and was gripped by regular vomiting. Dr Dominique Provost, psychiatric expert, interpreted these symptoms as a "difficulty in reattachment" and adaptation of Inass to her new environment.
The psychologist estimated that the mother, in a show of "immaturity", may have perceived her daughter's rejection, then aged 2 or 3 years old, as an "aggression against her". "This rejection could have been experienced as a questioning of herself, as a blow to her image as a mother", Valérie Ritzenthaler explained. She noted that the accused "draws parallels between Inass's adaptation difficulties and her own arrival in France", which "supports the hypothesis that Inass's arrival may have reactivated her own suffering" linked to her uprooting.
Violence sustained over four years
In response to what she perceived as defiance, Halima El Bakhti regularly inflicted violence on her daughter until her death in August 1987. Although she claims to remember only slaps, numerous traces of blows, burns and human bites were found on the child's body.
Valérie Ritzenthaler noted: "At the time of the acts, she is incapable of perceiving the needs of this little girl, her suffering, it is completely confused." At the bar, the accused removed her glasses and wiped her eyes.
The question of impaired judgment
Despite their diagnosis, Valérie Ritzenthaler and Dr Dominique Provost did not conclude that the accused's judgment was impaired at the time of the acts. This conclusion, if upheld by the court in its deliberations, could result in a sentence reduction. "Concluding this is very delicate. There are some elements that could support the hypothesis of impaired judgment, but this seems fragile, particularly because the violence was sustained and habitual, over several years, and centred on Inass", the two experts stated, instead putting forward an "impediment to the control of her acts".
Dr Roland Coutanceau, who had carried out the first assessment in 2018, created confusion during the debates. After ruling out impaired judgment in his initial report, he said he was "rather" in favour of this hypothesis when questioned by a lawyer for the civil parties. The deputy prosecutor Stéphane Javet, visibly irritated by this reversal, challenged him: "It is a mother who is thoroughly convinced that if she takes her child outside, someone will see the marks on her face, her hands, her feet, and that she risks something, that makes you change your thinking?"
Coutanceau clarified that impaired judgment could be upheld in the case of chronic depression, as is the case for Inass's mother. He reaffirmed: "I think you have understood perfectly well what I said! I said 'rather yes', I am not changing my mind, and you have your answer."
Expert divergences and awaiting the deliberation
Psychiatrist Daniel Zagury, called as a witness by Me Camille Radot, lawyer for Halima El Bakhti, delivered conclusions in line with those of Dr Coutanceau, thus supporting the thesis of impaired judgment. This divergence of opinions among the experts underscores the complexity of retrospective psychiatric evaluation, four decades after the alleged acts. The court will deliberate taking into account these conflicting opinions before pronouncing its sentence.
Source: BFM TV