Although criminal trials are primarily designed to repress individual acts, a new role has emerged in the era of French jihadist trials. They have transformed into a ‘forum’ giving voice to different actors to comprehend the phenomenon in all its complexity, as in truth commissions: defendants presented their path to radicalization, victims related their trauma, experts situated jihadism in a socio-political context, and security forces disclosed their work. Aligned with forms of justice, which seeks to return control ‘stolen’ by professionals to the parties involved, they also place significant emphasis on emotions, in contrast to the cold, impersonal authority of conventional law, which relies on legal rhetoric, justified to maintain neutrality and impartiality.

Employing an ethnographic approach, we examine this trial as an experiment that challenges the way justice is administered after mass violence. Our premise is that this judicial experiment can propose a new paradigm for the prosecution of mass crimes, in line with contemporary new mechanisms that more effectively incorporate restorative objectives. It could serve as inspiration for procedures in international courts by attributing space to the direct participation of both the victims and the defendants, basing the procedure on narrative rather than strict legalistic rules, and engaging with social science expertise.