REPORTAGE – Since 2014, all members of law enforcement in uniform or wearing armbands must prominently display a number allowing them to be identified, the Identity and Organization Repository (RIO).
However, it would seem that a significant number of civil servants are reluctant to submit to this obligation and that the Ministry of the Interior does not take effective measures to compel them to do so.
From the last quarter of 2022, the Syndicat de la magistrature (SM), the Syndicat des avocats de France (SAF), the League for Human Rights (LDH) Action by Christians for the Abolition of Torture (ACAT ) denounced, in a joint press release, the breaches of this regulatory obligation, in a context “of brutalization of the maintenance of order, based on an authoritarian conception of the management of public order” and seized administrative justice to obtain “an evolution of the regulations on the identification of police officers”.
With the hardening of the social movement following the passage in force of the pension reform, and after the violent clashes in Sainte-Soline, these same organizations believe that there is an urgency to act and that it is not possible to wait for the administrative justice to rule on the merits. They therefore filed an interim order before the Council of State, to request that provisional measures be taken to compel the police to respect the obligation to wear RIO. The hearing was held on Monday, April 3.
From the start of the hearing, the judge recalled the compulsory nature of wearing the RIO, and questioned the extent of the violations of this obligation. The magistrate also asks what are the measures requested by the complainants.
Maître Patrice Spinozi, lawyer for the League for Human Rights and Action by Christians for the Abolition of Torture, explains that the phenomenon is national, with examples all over the country, as noted by the LDH which is considered by case law to be an independent observer.
Maître Paul Mathonnet, lawyer for the Syndicat de la magistrature and the Syndicat des avocats de France adds that the phenomenon has been observed for 5 years, and that the Ministry of the Interior completely minimizes the importance of the question.
Indeed, the representatives of the Ministry of the Interior explain, for their part, that there are always ways of identifying civil servants, even in the event of non-wearing of the RIO.
To which master Patrice Spinozi replies that the ministry therefore considers the law useless, but that it exceeds its rights by not enforcing it.
Maître Paul Mathonnet recalls that among the complaints lodged against members of the police force closed without further action, 30% are closed because they cannot identify the civil servants in question. He believes that this “radicalizes people who feel they are victims of injustice”.
The two lawyers plead for citizens to have the right to be able to individually identify the civil servants in charge of public security, independently of the good will of the administration to search for possible culprits in its ranks, and demand “the effectiveness of a law that already exists”.
They denounce the systematic absence of sanctions against civil servants who fail to fulfill their obligation to wear the RIO. Shortcomings which they describe as “systemic”.
They call for “reinforced means” to identify members of the security forces, and suggest that team leaders, the “n+1”, verify that their subordinates respect their obligations and must be held accountable in the event of breaches.
A proposal considered useless by the representatives of the ministry, who also argue that, even if the non-wearing of the RIO is illegal, it has no impact on individual freedoms. In other words, they question the admissibility of recourse to interim relief in this matter.
Maître Spinozi is finally surprised by “the energy deployed by the Ministry of the Interior so as not to have to compel its civil servants to respect their regulatory and ethical obligations”, while Maître Mathonnet raises the paradox of law enforcement requiring that citizens obey the law while they themselves shirk their legal obligations.
The Council of State will make its decision tomorrow, Wednesday April 5.