A dozen associations and unions, including Human Rights Watch and the UNEF, denounced Wednesday in an open letter controls and verbalizations "discriminatory" on the part of the police in the context of containment. The signatory organizations ask the authorities in particular "for concrete measures to put an end to these unacceptable practices", following "racist behavior on the part of the police" and "abusive and discriminatory controls".
Read also: Containment: deputies from lower-income neighborhoods challenge the government
In this open letter sent to the Prime Minister, the Keeper of the Seals and the Minister of the Interior, the signatories mention in particular the racist remarks uttered by the police during an arrest at Ile-Saint-Denis (Seine-Saint -Denis) end of April.
The organizations also question the rate of verbalization in this department, which is "three times higher than the national average", according to them. On April 22, 220,000 inspections had been carried out in Seine-Saint-Denis, said Christophe Castaner.
Data "revealing discriminatory police practices already preexisting", believe the signatories including Action rights of Muslims (ADM) or the Syndicate of the lawyers of France (SAF), while asking Beauvau the publication of these data by police station and by sector.
A "tinkered" crime
In addition, according to the organizations, "it is particularly difficult for a person charged to prove that the fine was unjustified" and "any appeal against a fine perceived as unjustified risks entailing a significant increase".
They are also alarmed by the "disproportionate nature" of the offense of reiterating a breach of confinement, providing for a penalty of up to 6 months' imprisonment and a fine of 3,750 euros. They request the Ministry of Justice to publish data relating to prosecutions and sanctions for the offense of breach of confinement.
This offense, denounced as “tinkered with” and infringing fundamental rights, will be examined by the Constitutional Council. The Court of Cassation ruled Wednesday that this device was "likely to infringe the principle of legality of crimes and the resulting penalties" and "principle of the presumption of innocence".