The death of eleven-year-old Lyhanna shocks France well beyond the borders of the Gers department. Such crimes regularly provoke horror. But in this case public attention is not focused solely on the suspected perpetrator. Increasingly central is the question of whether state authorities fulfilled their protective function — or whether the crime could even have been prevented.
The very blunt words of Justice Minister Gérald Darmanin mark a notable political moment. When a serving justice minister openly declares that the justice system “was not able to protect this little girl,” it is not the usual crisis communication after a single tragic event. Rather, it is an admission of a possible institutional failure.
An acknowledgement with political significance
In democratic rule-of-law states the judiciary is independent. Governments therefore usually avoid publicly commenting on ongoing proceedings or directly criticizing judges and prosecutors. All the more remarkable is Darmanin’s formulation that from the findings of the ongoing investigation “all consequences” must be drawn.
The phrase recalls political moments when governments realize that an incident can no longer be seen merely as an individual crime, but has become a symbol of structural shortcomings. The public apologies to the family and to the French people indicate that the government now views the case as a failure of the state.
This simultaneously increases political pressure. Because anyone who publicly acknowledges responsibility must ultimately also be able to explain why existing mechanisms did not work.
The central question: why did the system not intervene earlier?
According to the information known so far, the main suspect was by no means unknown to the authorities. Several complaints regarding suspected sexual offenses against minors had already been filed. Especially significant is the fact that a complaint of suspected rape of a minor was apparently still being processed when Lyhanna disappeared.
Legally, a complaint of course does not mean guilt. The rule of law is based on the presumption of innocence. But the actual debate is not about the suspect’s guilt, but about the practices of the institutions.
Why were earlier signals not acted on more quickly? Were risks underestimated? Was there a lack of staff? Were there communication problems between the police, the public prosecutor’s office and the judiciary? Or were existing procedures applied according to the rules, but nevertheless proved inadequate?
It is precisely these questions that the announced investigations will have to answer.
A chronic problem of the French justice system
The case comes at a time when the performance of the judiciary has been debated in France for many years. Associations of judges, prosecutors and bars regularly complain about staff shortages, heavy workloads and lengthy procedures.
Procedures in the area of domestic violence and sexual offences in particular are often under great pressure. The number of reports has risen in recent years, while staffing resources in many places have not expanded at the same pace.
The problem is by no means limited to France. In numerous European countries a similar pattern is visible: society and politics demand tougher action against sexual violence, while investigative services and courts reach their capacity limits.
The Lyhanna case therefore poses an uneasy question: can a rule of law fulfil its duty of protection if warning signs are recorded but not processed in time?
Between individual responsibility and systemic failures
Particularly sensitive is the possibility of disciplinary consequences mentioned by Darmanin. In the public debate, after tragedies there is often a quick desire to identify individual people responsible.
Institutional failure, however, is rarely traceable to a single person. When investigations show that judges, public prosecutors or police officers have violated existing regulations, sanctions are understandable. It becomes more difficult when it appears that those involved acted within an overburdened system.
Then political responsibility emerges in a different form. The focus is not on the individual mistaken decision, but on the question of why a system was created that could not recognise or address risks in time.
The temptation to look for someone to blame is strong. The challenge, however, is to identify the causes that go beyond the single case.
The change in dealing with sexual violence
The case also illustrates a societal change. Just a few decades ago, complaints about sexual violence were often marginalized or not followed up with the necessary urgency. The #MeToo movement and numerous publicly discussed cases have significantly raised awareness of this.
Today the public expects that complaints about sexual violence against women and children are given priority. This expectation is politically legitimate and widely supported by society.
This, however, creates a new challenge: the justice system must not only act in accordance with the rule of law, but also respond quickly enough to prevent potential dangers. A tension arises between procedural diligence and preventive protection that is not always easy to resolve.
The Lyhanna case shows the dramatic consequences when this balance is lost.
France now faces a dual task. The justice system must determine whether concrete mistakes were made and whether those responsible should be held accountable. Politics, in turn, will have to answer whether the existing structures are at all capable of effectively ensuring the protection of particularly vulnerable children.
The words of Gérald Darmanin have raised expectations. If the announced investigation only uncovers individual shortcomings without addressing structural problems, public trust will likely be hardly strengthened. However, if a picture of systemic weaknesses emerges, the government will find it difficult to avoid sweeping reforms.
The death of a child is always a human tragedy. For a constitutional state it becomes a political ordeal when the suspicion arises that the disaster was not inevitable. That is exactly the point at which France finds itself today.
P.T.