That that article gave rise to an entire polemic, in the written as well as in the spoken press, during which the defendant did not abstain from wrongly discrediting the plaintiff and the gendarme;

That a number of debates were dedicated to the subject even on radio and television;

Seen that the defendant also dedicated an entire Internet site to the subject with the publication of the various newspaper articles that appeared on the subject;

Seen that on the same date of 3 September 1998 the defendant directed a brief to the Constant Committee of Control of the Police Services in which she stated the real identity of and requested the instigation of an investigation against the plaintiff for beating and injuries;

That because of the above the plaintiff became the subject of an internal investigation within his professional force and of an investigation by the Constant Committee of Control of the Police Services;

Seen that these investigations were concluded in favour of the plaintiff and that the Prosecution even refused to start a criminal investigation against the plaintiff;

Seen that the description of facts such as it has been put forward by the defendant, is manifestly in conflict with the truth and is only intended to cause disadvantage to the plaintiff;

That no single proof of her description of the facts has been put forward and that she apparently has only wanted to use the whole situation in order to bring herself in the public attention, for the advantage of her career as a writer;

Seen that both the false statements in the press as well as the report to the Constant Committee of Control are libellous;