The death of 11-year-old girl Lihanna shook France, far beyond the borders of the Gers department. Crimes of this kind often provoke shock. But in this case the public focus is not only on the alleged perpetrator. The central question increasingly revolves around whether state institutions fulfilled their duty to protect, or whether this crime could have been prevented.
The unusually blunt words of Justice Minister Gérald Darmanin mark a significant political moment. When a serving justice minister publicly declares that the justice system “failed to protect this little girl,” it is not merely routine crisis communication after a tragic case but an acknowledgement of possible systemic failure.
An admission with heavy political weight
In democratic rule-of-law states, the judiciary is independent. Governments usually avoid publicly commenting on ongoing cases or directly criticizing judges and prosecutors. That is why Darmanin’s promise to “draw all lessons” from the ongoing investigation is particularly striking.
The remark brings to mind political moments when the government realises an event is no longer just an individual crime but a symbol of structural flaws. A public apology to the victim’s family and to the French people implies the government now views the case as a state failing.
This also increases political pressure. Those who publicly accept responsibility will ultimately have to explain why existing mechanisms did not work.
The core question: why did the system not intervene earlier?
According to currently known information, the main suspect was not unknown to the authorities. There had previously been multiple complaints of alleged sexual offences against minors. Particularly serious is that a case alleging the rape of an underage girl appeared to still be pending when Lihanna disappeared.
Of course, a complaint is not the same as guilt under the law. The rule of law is based on the presumption of innocence. But the real debate is not about the suspect’s guilt but about how institutions operate.
Why were earlier leads not acted on more quickly? Were risks underestimated? Was there a lack of personnel? Were there communication problems between the police, the prosecution and the judiciary? Or were existing procedures followed correctly yet simply insufficient?
These are precisely the questions the announced inquiry will answer.
Longstanding problems of the French justice system
The case comes at a moment when France has for years been debating the effectiveness of its justice system. Judges’ associations, prosecutors and bar associations frequently complain about staff shortages, heavy workloads and lengthy proceedings.
There is especially intense pressure in handling domestic violence and sexual assault cases. The number of reports has increased in recent years, but staffing has not increased at the same pace.
This problem is by no means unique to France. Many European countries show a similar pattern: society and politics demand tougher responses to sexual violence while law enforcement and judicial bodies face capacity limits.
Thus the Lihanna case raises an unsettling question: when warning signs are detected but not dealt with in time, can a rule-of-law state still fulfil its duty to protect?
Between personal responsibility and systemic failure
Particularly sensitive is Darmanin’s mention of possible disciplinary measures. After a tragedy, public opinion often quickly seeks to name individuals responsible.
However, systemic failures are rarely attributable to a single person. If the investigation finds that judges, prosecutors or police officers violated rules, sanctions are appropriate. But if it finds that those involved were operating within an overloaded system, the matter is more complex.
In that case, the forms of political responsibility will differ. The core question will no longer be individual wrong decisions but why a system evolved that could not identify or manage risks in time.
The impulse to single out individuals for blame exists, but the challenge is to find root causes that go beyond individual cases.
A shift in attitudes toward sexual violence
The case also reflects changing social attitudes. Decades ago, reports of sexual assault were often marginalised or not dealt with urgently. The #MeToo movement and many publicly discussed cases have greatly increased public sensitivity.
Today the public expects complaints of sexual violence against women and children to be prioritised. This expectation has political legitimacy and is widely rooted in society.
But it creates a new challenge: the judiciary must not only act according to the law but also respond quickly enough to prevent potential danger. There is a tension between legal rigour and preventive protection that is difficult to balance.
The Lihanna case shows the painful consequences when that balance is lost.
France now faces a dual task. The judiciary must determine whether specific errors occurred and whether individuals should be held accountable. Politically, the question is whether existing structures are sufficient to effectively protect especially vulnerable children.
Gérald Darmanin’s remarks have raised public expectations. If the announced inquiry only points to individual failures without addressing structural problems, public trust is unlikely to improve. Conversely, if systemic weaknesses are revealed, the government will find it hard to avoid more comprehensive reform.
The death of a child is always a human tragedy. For a rule-of-law state, if people suspect this disaster was not inevitable, it becomes a political test. That is France’s situation today.
P.T.