UN expert says the state must retain the duty to investigate potentially unlawful killings
United Nations special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions
“Every potentially unlawful death involving law enforcement officials must be investigated through a prompt, thorough, effective, independent, impartial and transparent investigation. The duty to investigate every potentially unlawful killing rests with the State. It cannot be displaced, in law or in practice, by requiring victims or their families to rebut a legal presumption that the use of potentially lethal force was lawful before the facts have been independently established.”
Source and context
Official statement
About this source
UN press release quoting Special Rapporteur Morris Tidball-Binz. He said potentially unlawful deaths involving law enforcement require prompt, effective, independent and transparent investigation, and warned that victims or families should not have to rebut a legal presumption before facts are independently established.
Before the quotation
The UN release described the amended bill as presuming that police officers and gendarmes who fire weapons acted lawfully, necessarily and proportionately unless evidence showed otherwise.
After the quotation
Tidball-Binz warned that influencing the initiation and conduct of investigations could weaken evidence gathering, hinder fact-finding and increase the risk that arbitrary deprivations of life go without accountability.
How this statement is classified
Responding to: A presumption favoring lawful firearm use could weaken the active search for evidence and increase the risk that potentially arbitrary deprivations of life go without accountability.
The label describes this statement’s response within the context above.
Why this label?
Relative to the proposed statutory presumption, Tidball-Binz expressly urges rejection and argues that it threatens independent investigation and accountability. This is direct condemnation of the policy.
- Recorded on
- Published here
Should France presume police and gendarmes acted lawfully when using firearms?
Explore the case context, sources and public responses.
More from this case
Read the full case“Elle crée une présomption de légitime défense qui inverse la charge de la preuve, fondement de notre système judiciaire. Cette proposition de loi ne protège ni les policiers [...] ni nos concitoyens qu’ils sont censés protéger.”Read statement
“Ce ne sera plus à l’auteur du tir d’apporter la preuve qu’il a agi en état de légitime défense, mais à la victime de prouver que ce tir n’était pas conforme à la loi. La France deviendrait dès lors un pays où une mort par tir policier ne donnerait lieu à aucune enquête automatique.”Read statement
“Elle propose une présomption simple, renversable, loin des mensonges répétés depuis des jours. Il est de notre responsabilité de leur garantir un cadre juridique à la fois clair et protecteur.”Read statement