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.
