Join on WhatsApp
Join on Telegram
Rabat – Judges in Dijon, France, have requested Morocco’s cooperation in the case of priest Yves Grosjean, who was jailed for sexual assaults on minors.
AFP quoted the Dijon Court of Appeal as confirming that the judges addressed an international letter rogatory to Moroccan authorities. The letter is also part of the inquiry into allegations that concern the priest’s years of service in Rabat between 2017 and 2024.
Dominique Brault, president of the Chamber of Investigation of the Dijon Court of Appeal, also said the priest’s request for release was rejected. Brault also did not specify the assistance the French judiciary seeks from Morocco.
Security services put Grosjean in jail at the end of May after a complaint by a young man, who accused the priest of sexual assault. The incident took place in France in 2010 when the complainant was 12 years old, noted the AFP report.
It added that the 68-year-old priest had admitted to three additional abuse cases that also took place in France. A collective representing the victims identified 17 potential victims out of a total of 57 men contacted in France by the association.
The individuals were in contact with the priest when they were minors.
AFP also quoted the association’s head, Emmanuelle Dancourt, who estimated that between 400 and 500 minors had contact with the priest during his career in Burgundy.
The number does not include Grosjean’s service in Rabat. The priest left Morocco in 2024 after new accusations had been made against him. His transfer to Rabat took place in 2017 after an individual first accused him of sexually assaulting a minor.
The collective also published an open letter against the dioceses of Dijon and Rabat regarding the “repeated behavior of this priest.”
AFP spoke to Cardinal Cristobal Lopez Romero, the Archbishop of Rabat, who said that he had received “no reports” concerning Grosjean.
“It was I myself who observed behaviors I deemed inappropriate and dangerous for a priest,” the archbishop told AFP, adding he did not notify local judicial authorities as the “behaviors did not constitute criminal acts.”
