A-Infos (en) France, OCL CA #356 - Sainte-Soline - "The prosecutor closes the investigation? We'll reopen it!" (ca, de, fr, it, pt, tr)[machine translation]

After two and a half years of "suspense," Public Prosecutor Teillet 
dismissed the complaint filed by Alix, Olivier, Mickaël's mother, and 
Serge's parents (Serge and Mickaël were in comas at the time) denouncing 
police violence and obstruction of emergency services during the 
anti-reservoir demonstration on March 25, 2023, in Sainte-Soline. While 
the prosecutor announced the opening of a judicial inquiry into the 
numerous "non-regulation" shots fired that day by gendarmes - the 
release of videos taken by their body cameras forcing him to react[1]- 
he preemptively downplayed the possible sanctions by retaining the 
charge of "intentional violence" rather than "endangering others."

Françoise, Serge's mother,

This section answers some questions about these various events.
- How do you explain the prosecutor's decision to dismiss your 
collective complaint?

- A public prosecutor is placed under the direct authority of the 
Ministry of Justice, and therefore of the executive branch, which makes 
them rather timid if they want to pursue a career; so, they either give 
in to pressure or they censor themselves.
The way in which Prosecutor Philippe Astruc and then his successor 
Frédéric Teillet proceeded at the Rennes court, which is in charge of 
military affairs, is a perfect illustration of this: they went to great 
lengths to conceal or erase the illegal acts committed by law 
enforcement in Sainte-Soline - on instructions that must have come from 
the highest levels, given their number and the nonchalance shown by the 
gendarmes who filmed themselves carrying them out.
When, in July 2023, Astruc referred the matter to the General 
Inspectorate of the National Gendarmerie (IGGN) instead of appointing an 
independent investigating judge to conduct an inquiry, he rendered the 
procedure and the progress of these investigations inaccessible to our 
lawyer and ourselves. Furthermore, the IGGN repeatedly postponed the 
submission of its report on the preliminary investigation: it only did 
so in December 2024, and the conclusions of this report were "both 
biased and incomplete [2]

On November 5, 2025, when questioned about the "problematic" content of 
the police videos published by Mediapart and Libération, Teillet claimed 
he was unaware of them: "The procedure stipulates that the investigating 
service informs the public prosecutor's office. This was not done [3]." 
In reality, the IGGN investigators had reported this "problematic" 
content to Astruc in two interim "summary reports," in March and August 
2024. These reports state, in particular: "The investigations reveal 
that, on the fringes, certain officers[gave]instructions to carry out 
what are commonly referred to as direct fire." However, neither Astruc 
nor Teillet subsequently ordered any further investigations into this 
matter.

- But, concerning Serge in particular, hadn't Libération and then Le 
Monde already provided multiple pieces of information, just a few days 
after the demonstration, about the shot that hit him?

- Ah yes! Their investigations really did the work for the experts 
commissioned by the IGGN, providing them with a wealth of data on this 
shot - which was fired at an angle of 10°, and not the required 45° [4]. 
It is largely thanks to these investigations that they were able to 
precisely establish its point of origin, and what ammunition and weapon 
its perpetrator had used.

But in the report that the IGGN (General Inspectorate of the National 
Gendarmerie) submitted to Teillet on December 20, 2024, they attempted 
to downplay the brutality of the events. For example, it states: "The 
projectile in question is very likely a tear gas grenade (CM6 or MP7) 
launched by a Cougar launcher." Or: "The characteristics of the impact 
zone suggest that the grenade was fired in a direct, non-regulation 
manner." However, in other passages of the report, the conditional tense 
and stylistic contortions disappear, and we find, for example: "A 
VBRG[armored wheeled vehicle of the Gendarmerie]is identified on video 
as having fired a grenade directly" in Serge's direction. A ballistics 
expert also wrote that, since the grenade had hit Serge in the head 
without "depotting" - which it would have apparently done if it had been 
thrown "regularly", i.e. in an arc - it was a "non-compliant shot".

Furthermore, the armored personnel carrier (VBRG) from which the grenade 
was fired was stationed 50 or 60 meters from Serge; the gendarme (known 
as the "radio operator") who fired from there was therefore not acting 
in "self-defense." Nevertheless, the IGGN (General Inspectorate of the 
National Gendarmerie) questioned him as a simple witness, not as a 
suspect-and this was at the prosecutor's request.
The scandal caused by the body camera footage and the pressure from 
certain media outlets and elected officials led Teillet to declare: "A 
decision regarding legal action, for which no option is currently 
favored, will be made soon." He nevertheless waited a month-hoping that 
time would have calmed things down?-before publicly announcing the 
dismissal of our complaint.
In his statement of December 4, Teillet acknowledged the existence of 
"non-regulation" shots fired in the cases of three of the four seriously 
injured individuals, but then cited a "lack of information" and the 
"complexity of the case" to... close the investigation. The Magistrates' 
Union described his "reasoning" as "quite astounding"-which it certainly is!

- There would be no suspects, and therefore no culprits?

- No, according to Teillet. He explains that he is not pursuing our 
complaint for three reasons. Either because the injuries were caused by 
a shot he considers "compliant" - the GM2L grenade that hit Olivier, but 
the compliance of this shot is highly questionable [5]. Or because the 
"non-compliant" shots (against Serge, Mickaël, and Alix) could be 
justified by the "ultra-violent context" of the demonstration - the 
gendarmes who filmed themselves, however, displayed far more 
satisfaction at firing on the demonstrators than any stress or fear 
caused by their "violence." Or because the perpetrators could not be 
identified - which is false in Serge's case...

The slow pace of the investigation allowed the gendarmes questioned to 
prepare their defense. When the "radio operator/gunner" from the armored 
vehicle identified as having fired directly at Serge was questioned by 
the IGGN (General Inspectorate of the National Gendarmerie), he stated: 
"I had no reference points because it was the first time I had fired a 
grenade launcher (sic!)"; then he explained that a radio operator/gunner 
"doesn't see very well (sic!)", and that it was his superior who "gave 
him instructions to adjust[his]shots based on where he saw the grenade 
coming from," because he himself "didn't have time to do it (sic!)". He 
said that, "in[his]recollection," he was mainly firing GM2L grenades at 
the time Serge was hit by a CM6 or MP7 grenade, and that he was then out 
of DPR grenades at 200 meters [6]. Like his two colleagues in the 
armored vehicle, he took refuge behind the fact that gendarmes on foot 
were standing next to their vehicle, also firing Cougar grenade 
launchers, and were therefore likely to have hit Serge. He added that he 
wasn't sure he had "checked the accuracy of each shot," but that 
everyone in his chain of command "seemed satisfied with the shots we 
were firing." Etc.

And the IGGN, for its part, did not submit the statements of this 
gendarme to its ballistics expert so that he could examine their 
consistency in light of the information already collected.

- The prosecutor also dismissed your complaint for "failure to assist a 
person in danger" during the demonstration. Can you comment on his decision?

According to Teillet's press release, all the heads of the SDIS 
(Departmental Fire and Rescue Service, the fire department's command 
center) and the SAMU (Emergency Medical Service) interviewed "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 operational 
principle and without any obstruction from law enforcement."
Many demonstrators, as well as the LDH (Human Rights League) report, 
attest to the contrary. Moreover, there is a stark contrast between the 
government's choice of large numbers of personnel and weapons that pose 
a danger to the gendarmes, and a medical response system that 
established a PRV (Victim Assembly Point) 12 kilometers from the 
demonstration and prohibited medical personnel from intervening in 
emergencies without police escort and authorization.

For their part, while asserting that there had been no "loss of 
opportunity" for the four seriously injured despite their delayed 
evacuation, the IGGN investigators mentioned that nothing had been 
planned in the emergency response organization "for the extraction and 
care of victims in a controlled area WITH a life-threatening emergency." 
They also reported "dysfunctions" in this organization. For example, the 
SDIS's failure to respond to calls from the SAMU (Emergency Medical 
Service). Or the "inexplicable" time taken by the gendarmerie's 
motorcycle officers to arrive and escort the ambulance that was supposed 
to evacuate Serge - their delay "may suggest an obstruction to the 
implementation of emergency services," they wrote. And they noted that 
these same motorcyclists had abandoned the ambulance en route, forcing 
its occupants to disregard the prohibition on traveling without an 
escort to rescue a person in a life-threatening emergency... But the 
IGGN investigators concluded that their mission was not to rule on these 
issues.

- The release of videos taken by police body cameras has nonetheless 
forced the prosecutor to launch new investigations into the direct 
shootings...

- Indeed. Teillet said he would "open a judicial inquiry before an 
investigating judge" regarding these shootings. He specified that they 
could "constitute the offense of intentional violence," for example, if 
they were not justified by self-defense. But the offense of "intentional 
violence" is more restrictive than that of "endangering others" since, 
to be established, it is necessary both to identify victims and to prove 
the existence of intentional violence.

In any case, our group of four seriously injured individuals will file a 
new complaint in mid-January, joining the proceedings as a civil party, 
because this procedure automatically triggers the appointment of an 
investigating judge who will decide on further investigations - but the 
inquiry will essentially start from scratch. Furthermore, for the 
criminal justice system, those responsible for offenses are necessarily 
individuals, not institutions [7]or even the military hierarchy... 
whereas those responsible for police violence in Sainte-Soline were not 
simply shooters who "couldn't see very well," or even the superiors who 
indicated the targets: these individuals are far above them!

ILLUSTRATIONS:

Banners placed in front of the Poitiers courthouse on December 3, 2025, 
the day of the appeal trial of four activists accused of having 
organised the anti-reservoir demonstrations in Sainte-Soline in 2022. 
Judgment delivered on February 2, 2026.

Further to the CA article, here are the results of the public meeting 
held on January 10th in Poitiers :

SAINTE-SOLINE. The prosecutor closes the investigation? We'll reopen it!
Statement from Françoise Graziani, Serge's mother:

The full text below is in PDF format.

I will speak on behalf of a group that filed a complaint shortly after 
the Sainte-Soline demonstration to denounce police violence and the 
deliberate obstruction of the arrival of emergency services during the 
demonstration.

This group includes Serge, Mickaël, Alix, and Olivier (four people who 
were seriously injured by law enforcement). But it also includes 
relatives of Serge and Mickaël because, as they were both in a coma at 
the time, it was Nathalie, Mickaël's mother (who is here with him), and 
we, Jean-Pierre and I, Serge's parents, who filed the complaint on their 
behalf.

After two and a half years of "suspense", Public Prosecutor Frédéric 
Teillet recently dismissed our collective complaint.

Faced with the numerous instances of "unregulated" police shootings, 
which Mediapart and Libération made public by publishing body camera 
footage on November 5th, Mr. Teillet hesitated for a month. Then the 
scandal created by these videos and pressure from certain media outlets 
and elected officials finally led him to announce the opening of a 
"judicial inquiry" into these shootings, but he preemptively downplayed 
the potential sanctions against those responsible, only considering the 
offense of "intentional violence." I will return to this point later...

We contest these decisions by Frédéric Teillet.

We also contest the way he proceeded in handling the investigation into 
Sainte-Soline - and our criticism applies to Philippe Astruc, his 
predecessor at the Rennes court who is in charge of military affairs.

These two prosecutors have indeed gone to great lengths to erase or 
conceal the police repression in Sainte-Soline. In particular, the 
illegal acts committed by law enforcement, which must have come from 
higher authorities, given the number of these acts, the nonchalance 
shown by the gendarmes carrying them out, and the orders that can be 
heard from their superiors in the body camera videos.

Mr. Teillet thus claimed for a long time not to have been aware of any 
"direct fire" during this demonstration - and, similarly, ministers 
downplayed the number of these shots (Interior Minister Laurent Nuñez 
thus referred to "acts of violence that may not have been proportionate")...

In fact, not only did prosecutors Astruc and Teillet know about the 
existence of these shots, but they chose not to pursue the 
investigations into them - as with other issues that were embarrassing 
for the government.

The attitude of Messrs. Astruc and Teillet clearly illustrates the lack 
of autonomy of public prosecutors in relation to the executive branch. 
Being placed under the direct authority of the Ministry of Justice makes 
these prosecutors rather hesitant when it comes to career advancement: 
they either yield to pressure or tend to censor themselves - as the 
newspaper Le Monde recently pointed out when noting their "lack of zeal" 
regarding Sainte-Soline.

But, whatever the case may be, we will not let silence cover up police 
violence in Sainte-Soline: we are in the process of filing a new 
collective complaint with civil action so that the investigation can be 
reopened.

I will now return to the course of the investigation conducted by the 
IGGN (the General Inspectorate of the National Gendarmerie), and then I 
will address the announcements made on December 4th by Mr. Teillet:
Regarding the IGGN investigation

* In July 2023, in response to our complaint regarding 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 the submission of its report on 
its investigations - the investigation was only closed on June 5, 2025 - 
and the conclusions of the IGGN report were "both biased and 
incomplete", as we pointed out in our last statement.

Just days after the March 25, 2023 demonstration, 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) and Cougar grenade launchers. Le Monde had already 
concluded that one of these shots, fired from a gendarmerie armored 
vehicle, had "very likely" hit Serge. The newspaper also revealed that 
another demonstrator had been seriously injured by a "direct shot" from 
a Cougar grenade launcher.

These journalistic investigations provided the experts commissioned by 
the IGGN with a wealth of important data - particularly regarding the 
shot that struck Serge. It was largely thanks to this data that the IGGN 
experts were able to establish precisely how he had been wounded - not 
only where the shot had come from, but also what ammunition and weapon 
had been used.

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 passages 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 being responsible for a direct grenade shot" towards Serge.

A ballistics expert also wrote that, since the grenade had hit Serge in 
the head without "depotting" - which it would have apparently done if it 
had been thrown "regularly", i.e. in an arc - it was a "non-compliant shot".

* But the IGGN is not alone in having avoided looking for the 
perpetrators of "direct shots": 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 (General Inspectorate of the National Gendarmerie) of the 
existence of "direct fire." It was only a month later that, when 
questioned by Le Monde (see its December 4 edition), Mr. Teillet finally 
acknowledged this. He stated that "the information regarding the 
existence of direct fire had been passed on to[his]predecessor and also 
appeared in partial summary reports that[had]been sent to[him]at the 
same time as the investigation, upon its 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 to the 
"problematic" content of the videos in two interim "summary reports" 
issued in March and August 2024. Furthermore, these interim reports 
state: "The investigations reveal that, in isolated cases, certain 
officers gave instructions to carry out shots commonly referred to as 
direct fire."

But neither Prosecutor Astruc nor Prosecutor Teillet requested a new 
hearing of the high-ranking officers who had told IGGN investigators 
that there were no direct shots fired during the demonstration.

* Better still, it was AT THE REQUEST of Prosecutor Teillet that the 
IGGN interviewed, on February 17, 2025, as a SIMPLE WITNESS, and not as 
a suspect, the gendarme (called "radio-shooter") who was firing from the 
armored vehicle from which a grenade was launched a few seconds before 
Serge collapsed.

The IGGN (General Inspectorate of the National Gendarmerie) did not deem 
it necessary to submit the 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 hit Serge. But Prosecutor Teillet also made no attempt to 
obtain the expert's opinion.

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 had fired a 
grenade launcher" - and he added that it was also the first time he had 
fired from an armored vehicle;

- He explained that a "radio operator" "doesn't see very well", and that 
it was his SUPERIOR who "gave him instructions to adjust his shots 
according to where he saw the grenade coming"... because he himself 
"didn't have time to do it".

- He admitted that he was "not sure" he had "checked every time" the 
accuracy of his shots. Etc.

* These statements are quite appalling, but this "radio operator" from 
the armored vehicle added: "Everyone seemed satisfied with the shots we 
were firing"...

The slowness of the investigation has undoubtedly allowed him and other 
gendarmes who were questioned to prepare a defense.

The gunman of the armored vehicle, for example, said that, 
"in[his]recollection", he was mainly firing GM2L grenades at the time 
when Serge was hit by a CM6 or MP7 grenade.

He also said that he was out of DPR 200 meters at the time. The DPR is 
the "time-delay propulsion device" that is attached to a grenade 
depending on the desired firing distance - and it was a DPR 200 meters 
that shattered Serge's skull.

Finally, although the armored vehicle was identified as the point of 
origin for the grenade that struck Serge, its radio operator suggested 
that gendarmes on foot stationed near the vehicle could have hit 
Serge-and therefore be suspects-because they were also firing Cougar 
grenade launchers.
Regarding the dismissal of our complaint about police violence...

In his statement of December 4th, Prosecutor Teillet acknowledged the 
existence of "non-regulatory" shots fired at Serge, Mickaël, and Alix, 
but then cited a "lack of information" and the "complexity of the case" 
to... CLOSE THE INVESTIGATION. The Magistrates' Union described his 
"reasoning" as "quite astounding"-which it certainly is!

But 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: this "GM2L" landed IN THE MIDDLE of the demonstrators, 
contrary to the conditions of use required for this type of grenade.

2. Either because the "non-compliant" shots (against Serge, Mickaël and 
Alix) could be justified by the "ultra-violent context" of the 
demonstration.

However, the police officers who filmed themselves (who CHOSE to do so) 
displayed much more satisfaction at shooting at the protesters than 
stress or fear caused by their "ultraviolence".

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 
in Serge's case, 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"

The LDH will talk about it in the second part of this meeting, but I'll 
say a few words about it here:

* In his statement of December 4, 2025, Prosecutor Teillet asserts that 
there was no obstruction to the arrival of emergency services. According 
to him, all the heads of the SDIS (Departmental Fire and Rescue Service, 
in other words, the fire department's command post) and all the heads of 
the SAMU (Emergency Medical Service) who were interviewed by the IGGN 
(General Inspectorate of the National Gendarmerie) "assure that each of 
the alerts 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.

Moreover, there is a stark contrast between the government's decision to 
deploy large numbers of officers and use dangerous weapons against 
protesters and the medical support system that was put in place for the 
demonstration. For example:

- The PRV (victims' assembly point) had been established 12 or 13 
kilometers from the demonstration.

- Healthcare workers were prohibited from intervening in emergencies 
without accompaniment and authorization from law enforcement.

* The IGGN investigators themselves noted that NOTHING HAD BEEN PLANNED 
in the organization of the rescue efforts to evacuate victims IN 
LIFE-THREATENING EMERGENCY.

And, while asserting that there had been no "loss of opportunity" for 
Mickaël, Serge, Alix, and Olivier despite their late evacuation, these 
investigators from the IGGN (National Gendarmerie Inspectorate) reported 
"dysfunctions" in the organization of the rescue efforts. For example:

- The lack of response from the fire department's command post to calls 
from the emergency medical services (a fact that has been reported by 
several healthcare workers).

- The "inexplicable" time taken by the gendarmerie motorcyclists to 
arrive and 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 emergency response." 
They also noted that these same motorcyclists had abandoned the 
ambulance en route, which forced its occupants to disregard the 
prohibition against traveling without an escort in order to rescue a 
person in critical condition...

However, the IGGN investigators concluded that their mission was not to 
rule on these questions.
Regarding the "judicial inquiry" into the direct fire announced by the 
prosecutor

* Mr. Teillet said he was opening this "judicial investigation before an 
investigating judge" specifying that the "non-regulatory" shots could 
"constitute the offense of intentional violence" for example if they 
were not justified by self-defense.

This prosecutor refused to consider "endangering the lives of others" as 
an offense, arguing that "to constitute this offense, a safety rule duly 
established by regulation must be violated," and that no such rule had 
been violated by the gendarmes in Sainte-Soline. But this is again 
FALSE, because there is, for example, a 2017 instruction manual for the 
Cougar grenade launcher, intended for the police and 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 is 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 taken by the prosecutor, our lawyer is filing a new 
complaint with a civil action, because this procedure automatically 
triggers the appointment of an investigating judge who will completely 
resume 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 even the army hierarchy... whereas those responsible for police 
violence in Sainte-Soline are far above shooters who "didn't see very 
well", or even superiors who, on the ground, pointed out demonstrators 
to them as targets!

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 shootings.

Following this announced administrative inquiry or "judicial 
investigation," a few "bad apples" identified from the videos may one 
day be prosecuted for their "misconduct." However, it is unlikely that 
Major General Samuel Dubuis, who was the head of the command at 
Sainte-Soline, will ever be held accountable: in November 2024, he 
became Inspector General of the Armed Forces for the Gendarmerie at the 
suggestion of a Minister of the Armed Forces who was then named... 
Sébastien Lecornu.

The police violence used to defend an empty hole in Sainte-Soline is 
state violence. It was ordered and covered up by those in power, and it 
is 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 been increasingly cracking down on social and 
environmental protests. (This will be discussed in the third part of 
this meeting...)

Ordering or inciting people to fire at head height on protesters, as 
well as preventing the wounded from receiving care, demonstrates an 
intention 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 offences 
committed by law enforcement and to affirm a refusal to be paralyzed by 
terror.
*********************

For your information:

the reports of the League of Human Rights (LDH) on Sainte-Soline

The NR article about the evening dedicated to Poitiers and "the 
repression in Sainte-Soline"
The France Info article

Notes
[1] See Alternating Current No. 355 (December 2025) .

[2] Read, in particular on oclibertaire.lautre.net, the press release " 
It is important to shed light on police violence in Sainte-Soline and 
elsewhere  ".

[3] He finally admitted, a month later, that "information about the 
existence of direct fire had been passed on to[his]predecessor" (see Le 
Monde of December 4)

[4] Le Monde also demonstrated at the time that another protester had 
been seriously injured by a "direct shot" from a Cougar grenade launcher.

[5] The GM2L fell in the middle of the protesters, contrary to the 
conditions of use required for this grenade.

[6] The "time-delay propulsion device" attached to the grenade depends 
on the firing distance. It was a 200-meter DPR that shattered Serge's skull.

[7] The State can only be prosecuted and convicted in the administrative 
court - the body which judges disputes between individuals and 
administrations.

https://oclibertaire.lautre.net/spip.php?article4609
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S  N E W S  S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Subscribe/Unsubscribe https://ainfos.ca/mailman/listinfo/a-infos-en
Archive: http://ainfos.ca/en