French lawyers to sue interior minister over 'mutilation' of young protesters

At least 18 injured people are represented by lawyers planning a complaint against Interior Minister Laurent Nuñez. About 20 serious injuries have been recorded since mid-September. They include lost hands and eyes, facial fractures, and deep shrapnel wounds during demonstrations by students and people protesting the cost of living.

The lawyers argue that Nuñez ordered police to use rubber-bullet launchers and grenades despite knowing they could cause permanent harm. They say such weapons should not be used to control demonstrations. One 16-year-old lost sight in one eye, and a 17-year-old lost his right hand after a grenade explosion.

The proposed complaint would go to France’s Court of Justice of the Republic within three weeks. Lawyers say possible charges include intentional violence resulting in mutilation or complicity by instigation. Around 10 clients had agreed to sign, while investigations into police conduct were still continuing.

The protests have produced a serious toll. French news agency AFP counted around 20 serious injuries since mid-September. The victims included people who lost hands or eyes, suffered facial fractures, or received deep shrapnel wounds from police weapons.

The police figure is separate but connected. By 30 October, police had opened 52 internal investigations relating to the student protests. Forty-eight of those investigations concerned violence on 17 and 18 October, when the demonstrations led to more than 1,300 arrests and several convictions.

These figures show both the scale of the alleged harm and the official scrutiny that followed. They do not establish that every injury resulted from unlawful conduct or that every investigation will lead to discipline or prosecution. The lawyers are seeking further investigative steps to identify responsibility across the chain of command.

France’s Court of Justice of the Republic, or CJR, is the body identified in the article as having jurisdiction over alleged offences committed by government ministers in the course of their duties. It is therefore the proposed destination for the lawyers’ collective complaint.

The complaint concerns decisions connected to Nuñez’s ministerial responsibilities, rather than only the actions of individual officers. Lawyers say they want to examine whether he ordered or encouraged the use of weapons that allegedly caused permanent injuries. They plan to submit the complaint within three weeks.

The CJR’s involvement would begin a legal process, not prove wrongdoing. The article says possible allegations could include intentional violence resulting in mutilation or complicity by instigation. Lawyers also want investigative steps to trace responsibility, while police internal investigations address conduct linked to the protests.

The article identifies rubber-bullet launchers and grenades as the main weapons linked to the reported injuries. It describes lost hands and eyes, facial fractures, and deep shrapnel wounds, especially during protests on 17 October.

The mechanism is direct physical trauma. A projectile fired from a launcher can strike the eye, face, or jaw, causing blindness, fractures, or lasting disfigurement. The article reports that a 16-year-old’s eye injury was consistent with a rubber-bullet launcher, while a 14-year-old suffered a serious jaw injury after being hit at close range. An exploding grenade can produce fragments, pressure, and severe limb damage.

These injuries can become permanent when vital tissue, nerves, bones, or eyes are destroyed. The article reports that one teenager permanently lost sight in one eye and another lost his right hand. It does not establish the legal responsibility for each injury.

If investigators find that Nuñez ordered or encouraged the use of weapons despite knowing their risks, he could face allegations connected to the injuries. The lawyers specifically mentioned intentional violence resulting in mutilation and complicity by instigation as possible charges.

The key issue would be the link between ministerial decisions and individual injuries. Investigators would need to examine orders, weapon policies, operational instructions, and reports about what officers did. They would also need to assess whether the weapons caused the injuries and whether Nuñez’s conduct met the elements of any offence.

A complaint would trigger a legal process, not automatically produce a conviction. The lawyers said they would ask for investigative steps to trace responsibility. The CJR is the proposed forum because it handles alleged offences by ministers committed in the course of their duties. The article does not report a finding against Nuñez.

Tracing responsibility means identifying how a decision moved through the system. Investigators can compare officers’ accounts with operational orders, weapon instructions, command records, injury evidence, and reports from the demonstrations. They can then ask who authorized the weapons, who relayed the instructions, and who knew about the risks.

The article gives one concrete starting point: lawyers will request investigative steps to trace the chain of responsibility. They represent people injured in different places, including a 14-year-old hurt outside a school and teenagers injured in Tours and Saint-Étienne. Police had also opened 52 internal investigations by 30 October.

The process can connect individual conduct with supervisory or ministerial decisions, but it must still establish evidence and intent. The lawyers have not yet proved that Nuñez directed any particular shooting or grenade use. The proposed CJR complaint would seek to examine that responsibility.

When police control a public demonstration, force should be used only when necessary for a legitimate safety purpose. It should be proportionate to the threat, targeted rather than indiscriminate, and stopped when the danger ends. Officers should also take precautions to reduce foreseeable harm and preserve evidence for later review.

These limits matter because the article describes weapons capable of causing permanent injuries. A projectile fired at close range injured a 14-year-old’s jaw, another projectile was linked to blindness in a 16-year-old, and a grenade explosion caused a 17-year-old to lose his hand. Such outcomes make weapon choice, distance, warnings, and command decisions important questions.

The article does not set out France’s detailed legal standards. It reports that lawyers say some weapons should not be used to police demonstrations, and that 52 internal investigations were opened. Any final judgment would require examining the facts, orders, risks, and actions in each case.