Experts of the Human Rights Committee Welcome France’s Efforts to Combat Homophobia, Raise Questions on Violence in New Caledonia and Rules Governing Identity Checks

One Committee Expert said the Committee welcomed the national plan for equality and against hatred and discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex persons (2020-2026) and the government plan (2023-2026) to combat homophobia and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

Another Expert said it appeared that the current violence in the non-self-governing territory of New Caledonia was linked to reforms of the Nouméa Accord and a lack of progress in the decolonisation process. What was the progress made on the issue of self-determination of the non-self-governing territory of New Caledonia as well as that of French Polynesia, and the participation and consultation processes put in place with the indigenous peoples living in these territories to obtain their free and informed consent and access to independence?

Another Expert asked if the State party could indicate whether mandatory training on racial and ethnic discrimination and profiling was systematically offered to law enforcement officials, both in metropolitan France and in the overseas territories? Did the State party systematically collect data to monitor the use of identity checks, both in metropolitan France and in the overseas territories? Would the State party be prepared to implement a template for all individuals subject to an identity check? Would it be willing to introduce a centralised record of all identity checks to have an overview of how they were used, with whom and where?

The delegation said France supported the recognition of indigenous peoples. New Caledonia was one of the most advanced examples of the French Government recognising the rights of indigenous peoples. Since the Nouméa Accord, an institutional framework had been put into place allowing for shared governance between the communities, representing the customs of the Kanak people. On 1 October, the Prime Minister announced the postponement of elections in 2025, which was unanimously agreed by Parliament. Since 1998, France had been cooperating with the decolonisation committee and the work had been fruitful.

The delegation said all French citizens were equal before the law. The code of ethics for the police and national gendarmerie prohibited discriminatory identity checks. When the law authorised an identity check, the police should not rely on any physical trait, unless there were specific grounds. Any act of discrimination could be reported by someone who believed they were a victim of discriminatory profiling. There were several ways to do this, including through the various controlling and monitoring authorities and the judiciary.

Introducing the report, Isabelle Rome, Ambassador for Human Rights of France and head of the delegation, said human rights were a priority for France. In December 2023, the President of the Republic announced that a House of Human Rights would be created in Paris to support civil society organizations. France had strengthened its public policies on the judiciary, democracy and the law enforcement agencies since 2022, paying particular attention to conditions for the use of force, and compliance with the rules of ethics during all police operations. Ms. Rome concluded by saying that France believed in its democratic model, in liberty, equality and fraternity, as illustrated this summer by the Olympic and Paralympic Games.

In concluding remarks, Ms. Rome thanked the Committee for the dialogue. France was deeply attached to the rule of law and the Committee’s recommendations would be scrupulously considered. The country was committed to renewing dialogue with the territory of New Caledonia and its inhabitants.

Tania María Abdo Rocholl, Committee Chairperson, thanked the delegation for the dialogue, which had covered a wide range of subjects under the Covenant. The Committee aimed to ensure the highest level of implementation of the Covenant in France.

The delegation of France was made up of representatives of the Ministry for Europe and Foreign Affairs; the Ministry of the Interior and Overseas; the Ministry of Justice; the State Council; the Interministerial delegation to the fight against racism, anti-Semitism, and hatred; the French office for the protection of refugees and stateless persons; and the Permanent Mission of France to the United Nations Office at Geneva.

The Human Rights Committee’s one hundred and forty-second session is being held from 14 October to 7 November 2024. All the documents relating to the Committee’s work, including reports submitted by States parties, can be found on the session’s webpage. Meeting summary releases can be found here. The webcast of the Committee’s public meetings can be accessed via the UN Web TV webpage.

The Committee will next meet in public at 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 23 October, to begin its consideration of the second periodic report of Türkiye (CCPR/C/TUR/2).

Report

The Committee has before it the sixth periodic report of France (CCPR/C/FRA/6).

Presentation of Report

ISABELLE ROME, Ambassador for Human Rights of France and head of the delegation, said human rights were a priority for France. In December 2023, the President of the Republic announced that a House of Human Rights would be created in Paris to support civil society organizations. Launched in 2021, the Marianne initiative for human rights defenders aimed to encourage the activities of human rights defenders, both in their country of origin, and by welcoming them in France. The fight against the death penalty was also a priority for France. France would host the ninth World Congress against the Death Penalty in Paris in 2026. France was also contributing to the organization of the first World Congress on Enforced Disappearances in Geneva on 15 and 16 January 2025.

The State’s new feminist diplomacy strategy would be published by the end of 2024. France was proud that the Paris 2024 Olympic and Paralympic Games were the first gender-balanced games in history. Through its diplomatic and consular network, France supported projects of democratic governance, respect for the rule of law, the fight against impunity, access to justice, and mechanisms to monitor the effective exercise of civil and political rights. In 2019, France launched the Partnership for Information and Democracy, which was joined by 54 States from all regions, to guarantee freedom of expression. In May 2024, the President of the French Republic and the Prime Minister of New Zealand announced the creation of a new non-governmental organization, the Christchurch Call Foundation, to coordinate the work of the Christchurch Call to eliminate terrorist and violent extremist content online.

France had strengthened its public policies on the judiciary, democracy and the law enforcement agencies since 2022, paying particular attention to conditions for the use of force, and compliance with the rules of ethics during all police operations. The national law enforcement plan published in 2021 provided for an adaptation of the employment strategies of the republican security companies and the mobile gendarmerie squadrons during public demonstrations. The right to demonstrate was guaranteed by the Constitution in France. By getting in touch with the prefects and police units involved in public demonstrations, journalists could be added to communication channels, allowing them to receive live information and ask questions.

Between 2020 and 2024, the Ministry of Justice's budget increased by 33 per cent, from €7.6 billion in 2020 to €10.1 billion in 2024. In five years, the French Ministry of Justice would have recruited as many magistrates as in the last 20 years. To combat prison overcrowding, the Ministry of Justice was implementing a proactive prison regulation policy, based on the development of alternatives to incarceration, the strengthening of early release mechanisms, and an ambitious prison real estate programme creating 15,000 net prison places. An Interministerial Committee for Overseas Territories was set up in July 2023. France had mobilised authorities to enable and guarantee the return to calm and security of people in New Caledonia. Emergency measures were deployed last June. The mediation and work mission continued its work, with the aim of renewing political dialogue.

France had been implementing a new interministerial plan for gender equality 2023-2027, which contained 161 measures divided into four priority areas: the fight against violence against women; the global approach to women's health; professional and economic equality; and the dissemination and transmission of a culture of equality. The law of July 2023 aimed at strengthening women's access to responsibilities in the public service. It increased the mandatory quota of first-time female appointments to senior and management positions to 50 per cent. On 8 March 2024, France became the first country in the world to enshrine the freedom to have access to voluntary termination of pregnancy in its Constitution.

Since 2023, France had been implementing a new plan to combat racism, anti-Semitism and discrimination based on origin. The national plan for equality 2023-2026 was against anti-lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender plus hatred and discrimination. It was part of a strong political will to deploy concrete and ambitious actions to eradicate the scourge of hatred and violence. The law of 31 January 2022 banned practices aimed at changing a person's sexual orientation or gender identity, also known as "conversion therapy”. France had strengthened its public policies to combat hate speech. The creation of a national unit to combat online hate within the Paris Public Prosecutor's Office in 2020 illustrated the efforts to fight online harassment. Ms. Rome concluded by saying that France believed in its democratic model, in liberty, equality and fraternity, as illustrated this summer by the Olympic and Paralympic Games.

Questions by Committee Experts

A Committee Expert welcomed that France’s report was prepared in consultation with the National Consultative Commission on Human Rights, whose role was to monitor France's international commitments and the implementation of recommendations issued by international and regional bodies. In May 2024, despite the provisions of the Nouméa Accord which provided for a process of gradual transfer of power from France to New Caledonia, the National Assembly voted in favour of expanding the electorate of New Caledonia. Thousands of Kanak demonstrators mobilised to denounce these reforms, which were allegedly passed without adequate consultation or free, prior and informed consent. In the absence of sufficient dialogue on the part of the authorities, a violent conflict had been raging since that date.

The French Government had deployed considerable military resources to restore order, but at the cost of numerous allegations of excessive use of force that led to several deaths among Kanak protesters and security forces, as well as injuries. According to information received by the Committee, at least 11 people were shot dead and 169 others were injured; 2658 demonstrators were arrested, many of whom were arbitrarily arrested and detained, dozens of them were also transferred to metropolitan France.

It appeared that the current violence in the non-self-governing territory of New Caledonia was linked to reforms of the Nouméa Accord and a lack of progress in the decolonisation process. What was the progress made on the issue of self-determination of the non-self-governing territory of New Caledonia as well as that of French Polynesia, and the participation and consultation processes put in place with the indigenous peoples living in these territories to obtain their free and informed consent and access to independence?

There had been several prominent court cases regarding the removal of headscarves in France. In the opinion of the French State, should the Committee’s Views be followed only in the case where the Committee considered a complaint to be inadmissible or agreed with the arguments presented by the French Government? Were there intentions to lift reservations to the Covenant? Who currently appointed the magistrates of the courts? What was the current state of the constitutional reform initiated with a view to making the Prosecutor's Office independent of the executive? How could the full independence of judges and prosecutors be guaranteed?

Since 2015, France had put in place measures to combat terrorism, which had been seen over the years to be increasingly detrimental to people's rights and freedoms.

Was the new legislation accompanied by sufficient guarantees against the risk of arbitrary and discriminatory implementation of these measures? What independent and impartial expertise did public authorities have to assess the impact of new technologies on the exercise of the rights and freedoms recognised by the Covenant?

It was understood that mass surveillance technology was used during the Olympic and Paralympic Games. How did the State party ensure that it did not lead to profiling that disproportionately affected racial, ethnic and religious minorities? How did the State party ensure that continuous surveillance by algorithm-based systems did not violate the right to privacy and respected the requirements of proportionality and necessity? For how long could the data collected in this way be kept?

What were the current conditions for the communication of information to the intelligence services, particularly in the area of sensitive data? What information could be transmitted and what traceability requirements were in place? Under what conditions could information provided by the intelligence services be made available to the judicial authority and the Public Prosecutor's Office? What means of access was available to defendants and those accused of acts of terrorism?

Another Expert said the Committee was informed that people of colour were subjected to identity checks by the police about 20 times more often than other citizens. They also faced discriminatory treatment during police stops and searches, including direct fines, often without objective suspicion and without being informed of the reasons. What could be done to ensure that the use of identity checks and fines was not left to the discretion of law enforcement agencies, and was based only on objective and individualised conditions, and not on racial origins? Did the State party have explicit guidelines for law enforcement agencies that clearly prohibited racial profiling in police operations as well as discriminatory identity checks?

Could the State party indicate whether mandatory training on racial and ethnic discrimination and profiling was systematically offered to law enforcement officials, both in metropolitan France and in the overseas territories? Did the State party systematically collect data to monitor the use of identity checks, both in metropolitan France and in the overseas territories? Would the State party be prepared to implement a template for all individuals subject to an identity check? Would it be willing to introduce a centralised record of all identity checks to have an overview of how they were used, with whom and where?

The Committee had received extensive information that showed the persistent problem of systemic racial discrimination, as well as the use of negative stereotypes against minorities. What measures had the State party taken to effectively combat all forms of hate speech and hate crimes against racial, ethnic and religious minorities? What training was provided to law enforcement officers, judges and prosecutors, and what awareness campaigns were organised to prevent and combat hate crime and hate speech? Would France develop data collection and research in compliance with data protection rules, to effectively identify cases of racial or ethnic profiling and offences in metropolitan France and overseas?

The Committee welcomed the national plan for equality and against hatred and discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex persons (2020-2026) and the government plan (2023-2026) to combat homophobia and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. How would the State party ensure adequate resources and the active participation of civil society in the implementation of these plans? Did these programmes sufficiently take into account minorities within minorities, such as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex asylum seekers?

The Committee was informed that some of the measures granting extensive powers to the administrative authorities, developed in the context of the state of emergency, had been granted permanent status. What measures had the State party taken to ensure that initial emergency measures were in conformity with the Covenant in terms of necessity and proportionality? How did the State party promote the accessibility of judicial procedures and ensure that they were effective?

How would France ensure that anti-terrorism legislation did not disproportionately target Muslims and that actions were based on alleged criminal behaviour rather than religious practices? How did the State party ensure that house searches and dissolution of organizations were conducted by the courts? What was the percentage of terrorist offences in relation to criminal offences committed in the last five years? The Committee was informed of the law establishing a new security regime, which subjected the accused to certain obligations, with a view of ensuring their reintegration. How did France ensure that this monitoring system, which was based on the rather vague notion of "dangerousness", was not arbitrary and did not disproportionately infringe on the rights of persons who had served their sentences?

One Committee Expert said the Committee particularly welcomed the State party’s commitment of significant financial resources to address the needs of vulnerable groups during the health crisis of COVID-19. What was the impact of the measures described in the State party's report, to ensure that the COVID-19 pandemic did not exacerbate inequalities, discrimination and exclusion, including among vulnerable groups? Specifically, regarding domestic violence against women, which was said to have increased during the pandemic, what was the assessment of the effectiveness and impact of the measures taken?

While noting the information provided by the State party, including on the judicial review of the restrictions imposed, could the proportionality of the measures imposed to address COVID-19 be explained, including the ban on any gathering of more than 10 people imposed for a certain period? What assessment did the State party make of this experience for a better consideration of human rights in future crises?

Another Expert said the State party had reported on humanitarian repatriations from Syria of women and children of French nationality. With regard to returns, according to public reports, there was still a significant number of women and children detained or held in camps and rehabilitation centres in Syria. What was the number, the current situation, and the measures taken by the State party to ensure the full repatriation of all French women and children still in detention camps and rehabilitation centres for minors in Syria?

What was the estimated number of detained men and women in Syria who participated as Islamic State fighters? Had measures been taken to ensure that due process standards were strictly respected in the trials before the Syrian national courts? According to information, in May and June 2019, 11 French nationals had been sentenced to death in Iraq for their involvement as Islamic State fighters. Could the delegation provide an update on that information and indicate what steps the State party had taken to prevent the continued imposition of death sentences on its nationals in that country? What other penalties had been applied to these French nationals in lieu of the death penalty?

The Committee had requested information related to the Arms Trade Treaty, in order to know whether the State party carried out an evaluation for the granting of export licenses aimed at determining that the recipient country used the weapons included in the respective license within the framework of respect for the right to life. Did the evaluation of an arms export take this into account? Had any measures been taken to ensure a total ban on arms sales to countries where there was a clear risk that such weapons could be used to violate international human rights law? Was it possible to access information on arms exports so that civil society could carry out oversight? What measures had been taken to prevent the negative effects on the right to life of the operations of French companies abroad, especially in the province of Cabo Delgado in Mozambique?

A Committee Expert said the Committee was informed that there had been a rise in police violence in recent years, with multiple incidents resulting in fatal outcomes, some of them young boys. Could more information be provided on trainings on racism for police officers? Had improvements been made, bearing in mind previous incidents? The Committee was informed that investigations and legal procedures of unlawful killings by law enforcement officials were not expeditious, sometimes even leading to de facto police impunity, or that sentences were not commensurate with the gravity of the crime.

Had there been plans to amend legal norms and review legal conditions for the use of firearms by the police and the gendarmerie, aiming to reduce the risks of disproportionate use of lethal force, and to strike a better balance with the principles of absolute necessity and strict proportionality? What was the status of investigations of fatalities and injuries, including those related to alleged excessive use of force, which emerged during conflicts that started in May 2024 in New Caledonia? Had trainings been undertaken for those operating in France’s overseas territories?

The Committee welcomed the reported introduction of the new right to appeal introduced by article 803-8 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as a step forward. However, Experts had been informed that there were several challenges preventing its full use and benefits. Since the right to a judicial remedy against undignified conditions of detention was introduced in 2021, what were the steps taken by the State party to disseminate it within the incarcerated population? Was the information on the creation of a new legal tool easily reachable in all penitentiaries under the jurisdiction of the State party? Had legal aid been introduced to those incarcerated persons who could not afford a lawyer or judicial taxes? Were there plans to introduce wider use of alternatives to detention or a more restricted use of detention as a last resort?

Responses by the Delegation

The delegation said France supported the recognition of indigenous peoples. New Caledonia was one of the most advanced examples of the French Government recognising the rights of indigenous peoples. Since the Nouméa Accord, an institutional framework had been put into place allowing for shared governance between the communities, representing the customs of the Kanak people. On 1 October, the Prime Minister announced the postponement of elections in 2025, which was unanimously agreed by Parliament. Since 1998, France had been cooperating with the decolonisation committee and the work had been fruitful.

Since 2015, the technical intelligence community had been working on a specific legal framework. The law included respect for the private lives of citizens and had a strict principle of proportionality. The law set forth the procedures to be respected when it came to implementing intelligence techniques, including prior authorisation by the Prime Minister. There were restrictions on how long the data could be held. The enhanced video surveillance was enacted in advance of the Olympics and Paralympics Games. France chose to engage in a rigorous oversight mechanism regarding this surveillance. This was a tool for detecting events without having to resort to facial recognition.

All French citizens were equal before the law. The code of ethics for the police and national gendarmerie prohibited discriminatory identity checks. When the law authorised an identity check, the police should not rely on any physical trait, unless there were specific grounds. Any act of discrimination could be reported by someone who believed they were a victim of discriminatory profiling. There were several ways to do this, including through the various controlling and monitoring authorities and the judiciary.

At the end of the state of emergency, which followed the attacks carried out on France in 2015, the Government acknowledged the need to keep these tools in place due to the possibility of other attacks. Four new measures had then been created. These laws were only for preventing terrorism and were accompanied with significant guarantees for citizens. The law of 30 July 2021 on preventing acts of terrorism gave these measures permanency. The Constitutional Council believed this was a balanced approach that ensured achieving the goal of preventing terrorism while respecting private life. House searches could not be instigated unless there was prior authorisation from a judge; 1,447 remedies were presented for the state of emergency. The law of 2021 applied to people who had been sentenced to acts of terrorism. Sentences for terrorist activities represented around 0.04 per cent of all criminal activities.

A plan had been developed to prepare the plan on combatting lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex hatred, involving members of civil society. The plan contained 16 key measures, including a ten-million-euro fund by 2027 to improve the host centres for these individuals. The goal was to have two centres per region in France. For hate speech, the legislation provision had recently been strengthened. In 2021, there was a vote to govern the digital space and that law had a set of provisions on combatting online hate speech to better regulate illegal behaviour. There had been significant progress made in this area, given that a bill had been introduced in the European Parliament to regulate heinous content online.

In France, 2020 was the year that the State had the lowest rate of femicide. This meant that the measures set up were effective, and that the police and justice systems were able to act swiftly to combat family violence. There were also provisions which allowed complaints to be raised.

Measures adopted during the pandemic were considered to be proportional. The measures taken to address the pandemic did not overturn other measures in place. During COVID-19, the number of calls to victim support groups for violence had increased. The accelerated measures implemented by France to support victims included electronic bracelets to ensure restraining orders were complied with. In 2021, emergency plans were implemented to ensure people were protected. At the end of the pandemic, the State provided hotlines 24/7 and reception centres in shopping malls. More specialised support was also provided in courts.

International commitments by France to human rights did not involve a repatriation of citizens in an area where France had no control. Authorities responded systematically to requests for repatriation made by French citizens. Since 2019, repatriation efforts for minors had been organised. France exported weapons to countries that wished to strengthen their armies, only with strict national oversight.

Force was only used when necessary in cases set forth by law and in a manner which was proportional to the threat. A police or member of the gendarmerie would only use force if it was essential in their work, such as in cases of self-defence. Police had additional guidelines on the use of weapons. There should never be doubt regarding the reasons of an arrest warrant.

France had a law which allowed for all inmates to request guarantees for their detention conditions, ensuring they were dignified. A provision was in place which allowed individuals to benefit from jurisdictional support, in place since 2023. Template forms for this purpose were provided to all detainees upon their detention.

Questions by Committee Experts

A Committee Expert said the problem with the New Caledonia information was the outcome of the projects which arose in France in 1984. The idea of postponing elections to 2025 was a positive sign as this would allow for mediation between the local and French authorities. Over recent years, there had been a considerable strengthening of anti-terrorist measures. However, the majority of terrorist threats were foiled by international cooperation efforts. Were the measures justified by the threats the State faced? How could this be transmitted between different intelligence branches? How long was intelligence data stored and what measures were provided to keep the information secure?

Another Expert asked for disaggregated data on what law enforcement officials had been charged with? Were inmates allowed to apply to a collective appeal so that others could benefit?

An Expert said there were laws which prohibited discrimination in identification checks; how was it ensured that this legislation was implemented?

Another Committee Expert asked for the delegation to bear in mind the matter of redress granted to victims of violence.

One Expert asked for a more specific response to the measures adopted to comply with the rulings of the European courts against certain cases against France? How did the State party ensure effective judicial control and parliamentary oversight in weapon exportation?

Responses by the Delegation

The delegation said the French overseas territories met all international criteria under the law. France had completed the decolonisation process and no longer administered non-self-governing territories. As for French Polynesia, in 2023, France decided to speak before the General Assembly, illustrating ongoing dialogue between the State and French Polynesia. France supported the development of French Polynesia.

The French Government followed the individual communications procedure before the Committee. Any communications were the subject of broad consultations among many ministries and institutions.

When France ended the state of emergency of 2015 to 2017, the risk of terrorism in the country was still high. While this risk had come down, threats still persisted; 45 attacks had been foiled between 2017 and now.

In 2022, over 700 people brought cases to court regarding acts of violence committed by people in public authority. Over 200 of these led to convictions.

The Ministry of Education and Youth was currently creating a programme to consider the new kinds of racism and anti-Semitism which had cropped up in recent years.

The French law enforcement force represented the population and was diverse. Inmates could ask for specific improvements to detention conditions which impacted their dignity. Improvements had been carried out in several penitentiaries as a result of this. Several inmates could present these complaints together.

Questions by Committee Experts

A Committee Expert said since the end of the state of health emergency on 10 July 2020, the situation of exiled people in Calais had deteriorated. The nearly 1,200 homeless men, women and children in Calais had seen their living conditions deteriorated due to the brutal "evacuations" of several large camps, and the dramatic reduction in vital services such as food distributions, and lack of access to showers and water points. Additionally, around 100 unaccompanied minors had settled in tents in Jules Ferry Square to highlight that they had been abandoned by the State. Could the State party comment on this?

According to information received, journalists and media organizations were reportedly facing increasing challenges in carrying out their duties, including restrictions on reporting, potential abuses of power, and other pressures that undermined press freedom. Reporters without Borders reported that police reportedly assaulted several "clearly identifiable" journalists. There were several cases cited to support these allegations, including journalists in New Caledonia who stated they were constantly harassed for their coverage of the riots. Could the delegation comment on these allegations? What measures did the State party intend to take to better protect journalists and human rights defenders in the exercise of their work? Had the perpetrators of the mentioned cases been prosecuted and what was the outcome, including convictions and reparations?

Another Expert noted the numerous allegations of prison overcrowding in the State party and the serious health risks during the most critical period of the COVID-19 pandemic, asking what were the reasons for providing, through decree-law 2020-303, for the full continuation of pre-trial detention, which even affected minors? What were the conditions for the application of the measure of full maintenance of pre-trial detention to children and how many children were affected by this measure? How did law no. 2021-646 of 25 May 2021 on global security preserving freedoms effectively guarantee respect for privacy, especially in the use of portable cameras by law enforcement officers and cameras installed on unmanned aerial vehicles? Did it include the principles of proportionality and necessity? In the case of the use of surveillance devices in public demonstrations by law enforcement officers, were there safeguards or limitations to prevent their use from affecting the right to peaceful assembly and freedom of expression?

It was alleged that four former national secretaries of the General Confederation of Labour were being investigated for defamation and public slander following a complaint filed against them by the Directorate of the National School of Prison Administration. Could information on this be provided? The Committee would also like information on the processes followed against various union, political and community leaders for the crime of glorifying terrorism after the Hamas attacks of 7 October 2023. It was reported that during the recent Olympic Games, there were many cases of systematic Islamophobia that mainly affected Muslim athletes and communities, a situation exacerbated by the security measures adopted. Could the delegation comment on this? What measures had the State party taken to combat hate speech against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex persons?

One Expert said the Committee had unfortunately been informed that the situation of migrants in Calais and Grande-Synthe was still very worrying, with authorities continuing to apply the "zero point of fixation" policy, under which temporary shelters were systematically dismantled, sometimes with excessive use of force, every 48 hours. How were migrants informed of the 48 hour rule and the possible dismantling of their temporary shelters? Could the State consider the use of more humane and proportionate alternatives to dismantling these shelters, including increasing the capacity of reception centres? What measures had been adopted to facilitate reporting on police abuses?

The Committee was concerned by reports that migrants had been detained at the French-Italian border without having obtained legal documents explaining their detention. How did France ensure that such detentions were not arbitrary and that all migrants were informed of their procedural rights? The Committee was also informed that the immigration law of 2 January 2024 expanded the criteria for expulsion to include minor offences, and allowed authorities to place a foreign person in administrative detention for reasons related to a potential threat to public order without justification, as well as allowing detention to be extended and reducing procedural rights. How was it ensured that these measures were compatible with the provisions of the Covenant?

The Committee had received information that the State party continued to issue expulsion notices for the return of persons to countries where they were at risk of serious violations of their rights. How did the State party ensure respect for the principle of non-refoulement in all cases of expulsion? Regarding the internal borders of the Schengen area, in particular the issue of rapid refoulement at the border between France and Italy, the Committee noted with appreciation the State party's follow-up to the conclusion of the Court of Justice of the European Union. The Committee welcomed the annulment by the Council of State, in February, of certain parts of the Code on the Entry and Residence of Foreigners and the Right of Asylum.

However, information had been received that foreign nationals continued to be forcibly returned to Italy without having had access to a proper asylum procedure. How did France ensure the individualised examination of all applications and effective access to asylum procedures? Did the State intend to end the use of bone tests in law and in practice? What was the objective of the January 2024 law to establish files to identify unaccompanied minors suspected of a criminal offence? Who controlled these files and who kept them? What measures had been taken to ensure adequate temporary accommodation and emergency accommodation for unaccompanied minors?

One Committee Expert said France had adopted the third national action plan against human trafficking (2024-2027) at the beginning of 2024. Could the evaluation of achievements from the second action plan be provided and what goals were set for the third plan? What were the measures developed to combat trafficking? Could victims receive compensation within the criminal procedure, or did they have to undergo civil suits for compensation? What safeguards were in place to protect victims themselves from criminal accountability? What methods had been developed for victims’ identification? Had trainings been organised for prosecutors, judges and lawyers on human trafficking?

The Committee was concerned by numerous reports that the ban on manifestation of religious beliefs by means of clothing, headgear or other religious symbols was a source of tension in French society and was seen by some as disrespect for multiculturism, fuelling the sense of discrimination, racism, anti-Semitism, and Islamophobia. What measures were being taken to ensure that the ban on expressing religion by means of religious clothing, headgear or symbols did not have a discriminatory effect in practice? How was it ensured that all visible religious symbols were treated equally? What criteria was used to decide what symbol should be treated as conspicuous and thus be banned, while others were treated as discrete and allowed? How did the State party avoid that the ban on manifestation of religious beliefs by means of clothing affected predominantly Muslim girls and women?

What safeguards were in place to ensure that provisions on the dissolution of association would not be broadly interpreted and end in violating the right to freedom of assembly? There had been examples of associations, such as Uprisings of the Earth, labelled as eco-terrorists. Could the delegation provide its views on this? The Committee was concerned at the expansion of police powers to stop and check persons in the vicinity of protests, and the effect that this could have on the effective enjoyment of the right of peaceful assembly. A significant number of protesters had been arrested and detained and a small percentage of the protesters arrested had been charged. What was the position of the State party on these allegations? How were personal dignity and respect understood by the courts?

Another Expert said the year 2023 was marked by a succession of bans on demonstrations, particularly related to the mobilisation against the pension reform, or those carried out in support of the Palestinian people. In October 2023, the Minister of the Interior issued a memo calling on local authorities to pre-emptively ban all demonstrations of solidarity with the Palestine people. The ban was challenged before the Council of State, which determined that local authorities had to judge on a case-by-case basis the risks to public order and thus avoid repression by invoking public order, excessive force or arbitrary arrest. This had had repercussions, even in the area of the right to information, which was concerning.

Did the National Law Enforcement Scheme adopted in September 2020 mention the path of "de-escalation", as a strategic principle for policing political manifestations in Europe, supported by the European Union? The Committee had expressed concern about allegations of ill treatment, excessive use of force, and disproportionate use of intermediate force weapons, in particular during arrests, forced evacuations, and law enforcement operations. A 2017 law (the Cazeneuve law) created a common framework for the use of weapons, allowing police to use armed force in five different cases. However, the number of deaths had increased fivefold after the 2017 law, causing France to become the country in the European Union with the largest numbers of people killed or injured by shots fired by police.

Could the delegation explain the extent to which law enforcement agencies followed the applicable protocols in practice, with supporting statistics, and respected the principles of necessity, proportionality, precaution, non-discrimination and self-defence in the use of weapons? What measures, in terms of training for law enforcement agencies, were envisaged? Would the State party be willing to review the legal framework on the use of weapons and limit the use of firearms within the Security Code? What follow-up had been given to decision 2020-131 of the Defender of Rights on general recommendations on law enforcement practices with regard to the rules of ethics?

According to a decision by the Ombudsman, France was the only country in Europe to use stun grenades to keep demonstrators at bay. Would grenades continue to be used despite the serious mutilations and injuries they caused? Could the delegation provide updated information on the number of persons who had died as a result of police operations during arrests, including through the excessive use of force, and on the outcome of investigations into such deaths, sanctions imposed, and reparations provided to victims and their families? Could statistics be provided on the number of proposals for sanctions presented by the Defender of Rights and what became of them, in particular the number of prosecutions?

Would the Brigades for the Repression of Motorised Violent Actions be dissolved? The State party's report provided information on complaints and investigations initiated concerning members of the security forces. What measures would be taken to make the relevant statistical data more reliable, disaggregated and complete?

Responses by the Delegation

The delegation said the evacuations of camps in Calais which took place were done through either a legal or an administrative decision. These decisions were carried out with proper supervision and were overseen by the Government and social organizations. Unaccompanied minors were housed in emergency shelter systems when possible and the same for adults when possible.

France guaranteed the right to protest and freedom of collective speech and expression of ideas. The French State allowed journalists free circulation. France was seeking to strike a balance because there were now many journalists without press identification who ran risks, placing themselves between protesters and law enforcement officials. Law enforcement officers were called on to show professional behaviour at all times, including in situations where protests were violent.

Videos in public spaces were used to call attention to pre-determined actions; they did not have any impact on the right to protest. France supported the European plan for protecting journalists against violence. This had allowed for additional guarantees to be provided in certain cases.

French authorities were mobilised to support efforts against hate speech, and there were efforts to address this phenomenon within the Ministry of Justice. When cases were thrown out, they could be appealed before the appeals court. Investigations into allegations of hate speech were underway.

The administrative police were evacuating camps, which were aimed at putting an end to illegal occupation and squatting of lands. These operations on the ground involved parameters being established. Regarding expulsions in Calais, 36 operations had taken place. They were based on the same legal foundations; the anti-squat laws had been utilised to proceed with the evacuation. Minors were always supported. The State was aware of the situation of unaccompanied minors in Calais. Systems had been put in place to address these realities and identify the unaccompanied minors. Work was being done with associations on the ground in Calais, including Doctors without Borders. The shelters were only 20 minutes from Calais and allowed for daily operations and support. This distance was far enough to protect unaccompanied minors from traffickers found in these camps.

When foreigners were not eligible for asylum seeking procedures, they could then be placed under administrative detention in administrative detention centres. These decisions were subjected to oversight by judges. During the detention period, foreigners benefitted from health care support and legal counsel. Voluntary returnees received financial support. Some countries were not considered to be safe, and therefore returns were only on a voluntary basis. Since October 2022, the Government was active in Mayotte, allowing active participation in the asylum-seeking process.

There were 2,100 victims of trafficking and exploitation in 2023, a six per cent increase compared to 2022. Around 882 people had been sentenced for exploitation and trafficking. France thanked civil society for helping contribute to the National Action Plan against Trafficking. Training was an important part of the strategy to combat trafficking; there was a training course on human trafficking with a focus on modern slavery. Training was provided to 150 different professionals. To care for the victims of human trafficking, several mechanisms were in place, including an early detection mechanism.

France guaranteed the rights of citizens at the highest level, and any restrictions applied to all religions equally. There was freedom for an individual to display religious signs, but this needed to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Any restriction on a religious symbol was only imposed if they were identified as a risk to the public service.

Freedom of expression was guaranteed in France, but this could result in some groups promoting racist and hate speech. The law of 2021 amended the list of cases where a dissolution could take place, broadening the list of discriminatory measures which could lead to a dissolution.

The Public Ministry could carry out prosecutions. Sometimes the Prosecutor could enact educational measures instead, which was used in some cases of minors. The judges of France were required to argue for their decisions, given that there were no automatic sentences in the State. This was also true for those found guilty of threatening public order.

France was one of the first countries to call for a ceasefire in Gaza. There had been a significant increase in anti-Semitic acts since October 2023. Freedom to demonstrate was a fundamental right protected by the Constitution and protests were not subjected to authorisation. There should be a notification to law enforcement around 15 days before to protect the safety of those participating and those living in the area. The prohibition of protests was only carried out if it was believed they were a threat to public order, and this was done with the oversight of a judge. Exceptionally, some protests had been prohibited due to the risk they posed to public order.

The use of firearms in France was regulated by the Criminal Code. This allowed a gradual response to respect necessity and proportionality to the violence and the threat. The goal was to reduce the risk of threatening life and the integrity of people. The police and gendarmerie were trained on how to use these weapons. Regarding the brigades, several changes in the practices of demonstrators, including the increase in use of social media, had meant that for three years, the strategy had changed. On average, there were two to three protests every day in Paris. To meet this challenge, the brigades were developed and had been used to break up certain disruptive groups. Since October 2023, the Ministry of Justice had circulated a document on combatting offences related to terrorist activities.

The fight against Islamophobia was a strong State policy. The strong Muslim community in France should be able to live with their beliefs peacefully to enjoy their religion. Any law which might be seen as a restriction did not target any specific population or any specific religion.

Questions by Committee Experts

A Committee Expert asked if minors in Mayotte could be afforded the same protections as in metropolitan France?

Another Expert said hate speech online affected artists and activists in the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex community. What had been done to prevent this?

An Expert said there had been a significant increase in those killed or wounded during protests or police operations. Were grenades and defensive bullets still used? What happened when police used these weapons? Was there a compulsory inquiry? Was there oversight regarding each use of weapons?

Responses by the Delegation

Minors were subjected to an age evaluation before they were recorded as minors. If recorded as a minor, they should not undergo another evaluation. The dismantling of camps was based on public legal rulings. The individuals were informed, and efforts were made to help them find shelters or to change their immigration status. Readmission into the Schengen space was a complex issue.

There was a doctrine for the use of medium weapons which allowed gradual and proportionate use. Recent changes allowed France to address the risk of wounds with these weapons. Law enforcement officers needed to be clearly trained on each type of weapon on a regular basis. There was a proposal to replace grenades with non-lethal “flash-bangs”. Random visits were undertaken to police and gendarmerie stations as a form of auditing. Efforts were made to identify the amount of time weapons were used.

Closing Remarks

ISABELLE ROME, Ambassador for Human Rights of France and head of the delegation, thanked the Committee for the dialogue. France was deeply attached to the rule of law and was a living democracy; the Committee’s recommendations would be scrupulously considered. France would continue to progress with an open-minded spirit, in partnership with civil society and the national human rights institution. The country was committed to renewing dialogue with the territory of New Caledonia and its inhabitants.

TANIA MARÍA ABDO ROCHOLL, Committee Chairperson, thanked the delegation for the dialogue, which had covered a wide range of subjects under the Covenant. The Committee aimed to ensure the highest level of implementation of the Covenant in France.

___________

Produced by the United Nations Information Service in Geneva for use of the information media; not an official record.
English and French versions of our releases are different as they are the product of two separate coverage teams that work independently.