This is an excerpt from the speech given by Françoise Graziani, Serge's mother, read in Poitiers on January 10, 2026, at a public meeting about the repression in Sainte-Soline. The meeting was organized by Bassines non merci! (No to Reservoirs!) and Serge's parents. ---- After two and a half years of "suspense," Public Prosecutor Frédéric Teillet recently dismissed our collective complaint. Faced with the numerous "non-regulation" shots fired by gendarmes, which Mediapart and Libération made public by publishing videos recorded by their body cameras on November 5, Mr. Teillet hesitated for a month. Then the scandal created by these videos and the pressure finally led him to announce the opening of a "judicial inquiry" into these shootings, but he preemptively minimized the possible sanctions against those responsible by only considering the offense of "intentional violence."
We contest these decisions by Frédéric Teillet, as well as his handling of the investigation. Our criticism also extends to Philippe Astruc, his predecessor at the Rennes court, who is in charge of military cases. These two prosecutors have indeed gone to great lengths to erase or conceal the police repression in Sainte-Soline, particularly the illegal acts committed by law enforcement on instructions undoubtedly coming from higher authorities. Mr. Teillet, for example, long claimed to have been unaware of any "direct fire" during this demonstration. In fact, not only were Prosecutors Astruc and Teillet aware of this gunfire, but they chose not to pursue the investigation.
In any case, we will not allow silence to cover up the police violence in Sainte-Soline: we are in the process of filing a new class-action lawsuit with a request to be recognized as a civil party in order to reopen the investigation.
Regarding the IGGN investigation:
In July 2023, in response to our complaint concerning police violence and the obstruction of emergency services in Sainte-Soline, Prosecutor Astruc chose to entrust the investigation to the IGGN (General Inspectorate of the National Gendarmerie). He preferred to assign this investigation to the "gendarmerie's internal affairs unit"-whose investigators are doubly dependent, both on their superiors and on their colleagues-rather than appoint an investigating judge. In doing so, he rendered the proceedings and the progress of the investigation inaccessible to our lawyer and ourselves. Furthermore, the IGGN repeatedly delayed submitting its report on its investigation-the inquiry was only closed on June 5, 2025-and the conclusions of the IGGN report were "both biased and incomplete."
Just days after the demonstration of March 25, 2023, Libération (April 2) and then Le Monde (April 6) published in-depth investigations into the "unauthorized" shots fired by the gendarmes, using LBDs (less-lethal defense launchers) or Cougar grenade launchers. Le Monde had already concluded that one of these shots, fired from a gendarmerie armored vehicle, had "very likely" hit Serge. It is largely thanks to this information that the IGGN (General Inspectorate of the National Gendarmerie) experts were able to determine precisely how he had been injured. However, upon reading the IGGN report, it becomes clear that its experts attempted to downplay the accuracy of the information gathered. For example, it states: "The projectile in question is very likely a tear gas grenade (CM6 or MP7) launched by a Cougar launcher." (CM6 and MP7 are two brands of the same grenade model...) The report also states: "The characteristics of the impact zone[in other words, the location where Serge's skull was struck]suggest that the grenade was fired at a direct angle, contrary to regulations." (This shot was fired at a 10° angle, not the 45° required for using a Cougar grenade launcher.) However, in other parts of the report, the conditional tense and stylistic contortions of the experts disappear, and we find, for example: "A VBRG[armored wheeled vehicle of the gendarmerie]is identified on video as having fired a grenade at a direct angle" towards Serge. A ballistics expert also wrote that, since the grenade struck Serge in the head without "dislodging"-which it apparently would have done if it had been launched "correctly," that is, in an arc-it constituted a "non-compliant shot."
But the IGGN (General Inspectorate of the National Gendarmerie) was not alone in avoiding investigating those responsible for "direct fire": Prosecutors Astruc and Teillet did the same. Contrary to what Mr. Teillet stated on November 5, 2025, after Mediapart and Libération published videos from the body cameras worn by the gendarmes, he had indeed-like Prosecutor Astruc before him-been informed by the IGGN of the existence of "direct fire." It was only a month later that, when questioned by Le Monde, Mr. Teillet finally admitted it. He stated that "information about the existence of direct fire was passed on to his predecessor and was also included in partial summary reports which were sent to him at the same time as the proceedings, at their conclusion."
Indeed, while the IGGN (General Inspectorate of the National Gendarmerie) merely mentioned the existence of "non-compliant" shots in its investigation conclusions, it had alerted Prosecutor Astruc, in two interim "summary reports" issued in March and August 2024, to the "problematic" content of the videos. Furthermore, these interim reports state: "The investigations reveal that, on the fringes, certain officers[gave]instructions to carry out shots commonly referred to as direct fire." However, neither Prosecutor Astruc nor Prosecutor Teillet requested a new hearing with the high-ranking officers who had assured IGGN investigators that no direct fire occurred during the demonstration.
Even more remarkably, it was AT THE REQUEST of Prosecutor Teillet that the IGGN (General Inspectorate of the National Gendarmerie) interviewed, on February 17, 2025, as a SIMPLE WITNESS, and not as a suspect, the gendarme (known as the "radio operator") who fired from the armored vehicle from which a grenade was launched seconds before Serge collapsed. The IGGN had not deemed it necessary to submit this gendarme's statements to the ballistics expert who had participated in its investigation, so that he could examine their consistency with the information already gathered about the shot that struck Serge. But Prosecutor Teillet made no attempt to obtain this expert's opinion either...
And yet, the statements of this "radio operator" deserve closer examination. He notably said: "I had no reference points because it was the first time I'd fired a grenade launcher." He explained that a "radio operator/gunner" "doesn't see very well," and that it was his SUPERIOR who "gave him instructions to adjust his shots based on where he saw the grenade coming"... because he himself "didn't have the time to do it." He admitted that he wasn't "sure" he had "checked the accuracy of his shots every time."
These statements are quite appalling, but this armored vehicle's "radio operator/gunner" added: "Everyone seemed satisfied with the shots we were firing." The slowness of the investigation has undoubtedly allowed him and other gendarmes questioned to prepare their defense.
Regarding the dismissal of our complaint about police violence:
In his statement of December 4th, Prosecutor Teillet acknowledged the existence of "non-regulation" shots fired at Serge, Mickaël, and Alix, but then cited a "lack of information" and the "complexity of the case" to... CLOSE THE INVESTIGATION. However, Prosecutor Teillet's decisions always serve the same purpose: to prevent those responsible for police repression in Sainte-Soline from being identified.
This prosecutor explained that he was not pursuing our complaint for three reasons:
1. Either because the injuries were caused by a shot he deemed "compliant"-here, he was referring to the GM2L grenade that hit Olivier in the foot. In reality, the compliance of this shot is highly questionable.
2. Or because the "non-compliant" shots (against Serge, Mickaël, and Alix) could be justified by the "ultra-violent context" of the demonstration. Yet, the gendarmes who filmed themselves (who CHOSE to do so) displayed far more satisfaction at firing on the demonstrators than any stress or fear caused by their "ultra-violence." As for the gendarme who was in the armored vehicle parked 50 or 60 meters from Serge, his shots can hardly be justified by invoking "self-defense"...
3. Either because the shooters could not be identified-which is FALSE concerning Serge, since there was indeed a shooter in the armored vehicle from which the shot that hit him was fired... and that shooter was firing!
Regarding the dismissal of our complaint for "failure to assist a person in danger,"
in his press release of December 4, 2025, Prosecutor Teillet states that there was no obstruction to the arrival of emergency services. According to him, all the heads of the SDIS (the fire department's command center) and all the heads of the SAMU (emergency medical service) who were interviewed by the IGGN (General Inspectorate of the National Gendarmerie) "assure us that each alert was taken into account, and that teams were dispatched to the scene as soon as possible, in accordance with this principle of action and without any obstruction from law enforcement." However, many protesters, medics, and LDH observers testify to the contrary.
For example:
- The designated meeting point for victims was located 12 or 13 kilometers from the demonstration.
- Medical personnel were prohibited from intervening in emergencies without police escort and authorization.
The IGGN investigators themselves noted that NOTHING HAD BEEN PROVIDED in the emergency response plan to evacuate victims in LIFE-THREATENING EMERGENCIES. And, while asserting that there had been no "loss of opportunity" for Mickaël, Serge, Alix, and Olivier despite their late evacuation, these IGGN investigators reported "dysfunctions" in the emergency response organization.
For example:
- The fire department's command center failed to respond to calls from the emergency medical services (a fact reported by several medical personnel).
- The "inexplicable" time taken by the gendarmerie motorcyclists to escort the ambulance that was supposed to evacuate Serge.
The IGGN investigators wrote that the "delay" (of twenty minutes) of these motorcyclists "may suggest an obstruction to the implementation of the rescue operation." And they noted that these same motorcyclists had abandoned the ambulance along the way.
Regarding the "judicial inquiry" into the direct fire announced by Prosecutor
Mr. Teillet, he stated that he would open this "judicial inquiry before an investigating judge," specifying that the "non-regulation" firing could "constitute the offense of intentional violence," for example, if it were not justified by self-defense. This prosecutor refused to consider "endangering the lives of others" as an offense, arguing that "to characterize this offense, one must violate a safety rule duly established by regulation," and that no such rule had been violated by the gendarmes in Sainte-Soline. But this is again FALSE, because there is, for example, an instruction manual for the Cougar grenade launcher dating from 2017, intended for the police and the gendarmerie, which states that "direct fire is strictly prohibited." But it's easy to understand why Mr. Teillet chose to pursue the charge of "intentional violence" rather than "endangering others": the charge of "intentional violence" requires both the identification of victims AND proof of intentional violence. However, while the gendarmes in the videos openly boast of having shot X number of protesters, and while it may be easy to identify them from their body cameras, it's far from certain that the people who were victims of their long-range shooting can be found.
IN CONCLUSION:
Faced with the shortcomings of the investigation conducted by the IGGN and the decisions made by the prosecutor, our lawyer is filing a new complaint with a civil claim, as this procedure automatically triggers the appointment of an investigating judge who will fully reopen the investigation into March 25, 2023. We made this choice knowing that, for criminal justice, those responsible for offenses are necessarily individuals, not institutions or the military hierarchy... whereas those responsible for police violence in Sainte-Soline are far above the shooters who "didn't see very well."
The statements of the gendarme who fired from one of the armored vehicles show-as do the body camera videos-that the "non-regulation" shots were not "just" blunders by ordinary gendarmes. The statements of the high-ranking officers who denied firing the shots also demonstrate this. And then there's Mr. Nuñez's announcement that he was tasking the IGGN (General Inspectorate of the National Gendarmerie) with an "administrative inquiry" into the shooting. Following this announced administrative inquiry or "judicial investigation," a few "bad apples" identified from the videos may one day be prosecuted for their "misconduct." On the other hand, it is unlikely that Major General Samuel Dubuis, who was the head of the command at Sainte-Soline, will ever be held accountable. The police violence used to defend an empty pit at Sainte-Soline constitutes state violence. These actions were ordered and covered up by those in charge, and they are part of the repressive arsenal the State uses to defend the established order when it is challenged.
In recent years, law enforcement in France has increasingly cracked down on social and environmental protests. Ordering or inciting people to fire at head level on demonstrators, as well as preventing the wounded from receiving medical care, demonstrates an intent to seriously injure, if not to KILL. Our new collective complaint therefore aims to obtain answers to our questions, but also to denounce once again the numerous violations committed by law enforcement and to affirm our refusal to be paralyzed by terror.
https://monde-libertaire.net/?articlen=8800
_________________________________________
Link: (en) France, Monde Libertaire - SAINTE-SOLINE The prosecutor closes the investigation? We'll reopen it! (ca, de, fr, it, pt, tr)[machine translation]
Source: A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten