The National Assembly’s commission of inquiry into the judicial handling of parental incestuous sexual abuse and the situation of protective parents adopted its report on July 1, 2026, which was made public on July 9 of that year. The findings are exceptionally grave: a mass crime, a derisory criminal justice response, and protective parents treated as suspects. The proposed response is on the same scale, with 49 recommendations addressing substantive criminal law, procedure, and the organization of the judiciary. We analyze the key takeaways from this report, with a particular focus on the overseas territories, and reproduce all of its recommendations in the appendix.

« France Doesn't Love Its Children. » This sentence opens the foreword to Report No. 3005, which was submitted on July 1, 2026, and made public on July 9, 2026.[1]. The wording is harsh. Yet it is commensurate with the findings compiled by the commission of inquiry into the judicial handling of incestuous sexual abuse by parents, established by a unanimous vote of the National Assembly on January 28, 2026, and chaired by Representative Maud Petit[2] and for which Representative Christian Baptiste is the rapporteur[3]. Between February and July 2026, the commission conducted 43 hearings, interviewed 132 people over more than 100 hours, and received nearly two hundred written contributions.

Three figures form the framework of the entire report : 160,000 children are victims of rape or sexual assault each year in France; 81 % of these acts of violence are committed within the family[4] and 380 convictions for incestuous rape were handed down in 2024.

Ten years: that’s how long a proceeding can take—if it isn’t dismissed within a few days. The commission offers a succinct summary: «The essence of this report lies in these three figures: a mass crime, a derisory criminal response, and a judicial process that wears down the victims.»[5].

The question posed to the legal expert goes beyond criminal matters alone. How does an entire judicial system—designed to protect—come to produce what the report calls a institutional abuse ? And what legal instruments can be used to address this? The report proceeds in two stages, which we will follow. It first identifies a systemic crime to which the justice system—which is structurally deficient—fails to respond (I). It then proposes a comprehensive overhaul, ranging from the immediate protection of children to the reform of criminal law and the judicial system (II).

I. AN IRREFUTABLE FACT: A SYSTEMIC CRIME, A FAILING JUSTICE SYSTEM

 The first part of the report methodically debunks the notion that this is a marginal phenomenon. Incest is a widespread crime that is shrouded in social and institutional denial (A). The shortcomings identified then affect every link in the judicial chain, both criminal and civil (B).

A. A Mass Crime Shrouded in Denial

The data is consistent. A child is raped or sexually assaulted every three minutes, that is, the equivalent of three children per class. The family is the primary setting in which sexual violence against minors occurs. The crime is gendered: the perpetrators are predominantly male, and the victims are mostly female. It begins at an early age and is repeated. Its consequences are well-documented: psychotraumatic disorders, addictions, suicidal behavior, and long-term physical health issues. Appearing before another commission of inquiry, Professor Céline Greco summed up the daily lives of child victims with a striking image: they «experience a Bataclan every night»[6]. The report puts it bluntly: incest kills.

Denial is the flip side of acceptance. A veritable system of silence takes hold around the crime, with the passive complicity of those around the perpetrator. Only 5 % of fathers and 6 % of mothers file a complaint when their child reveals certain facts[7] : The protective parent is the exception; denial is the rule. This denial also permeates the judicial system, through long-standing biases regarding the supposed tendency of women and children to lie. In fact, on April 24, 2025, France was found in violation by the European Court of Human Rights for failing to adequately protect three teenage girls who had filed complaints of rape[8]. A year later, the commission notes that these problems persist.

The report devotes substantial attention to the overseas territories, described as the most stark indicator of systemic failures. The prevalence of intrafamilial sexual violence there is structurally higher than the levels in mainland France. According to the overseas component of INED’s Virage survey, the rate of reported rapes or attempted rapes in Guadeloupe is twice that of mainland France; 4 % of women report incestuous violence in Martinique, and 3 % in Réunion[9]. In French Polynesia, approximately 70 % of rapes of minors are believed to be incestuous. In Mayotte, the rate of incestuous violence is estimated to be one and a half times higher than the national average. French Guiana—for which the rapporteur laments the lack of a dedicated statistical survey—is the department with the highest rate of sexual violence, with 61.1 victims per 100,000 inhabitants during the 2021–2024 period.[10]. In 2024, during prevention initiatives conducted in schools by the French Guiana Victim Assistance Association, 30 % to 40 % of the middle and high school students surveyed reported having already experienced sexual violence.

 Two key lessons should be highlighted. On the one hand, The report firmly rejects the notion of a so-called overseas cultural exception that would encourage incest : This overexposure stems from social dynamics, the weight of colonial and slave-trading history—which disrupted family structures and kinship ties—socioeconomic precariousness, overcrowded housing, and the island’s isolation. On the other hand, This overexposure is compounded by a chronic lack of adequate protective measures : the lowest rate of reports of concern submitted to Snated in the entire country, pediatric reception units for children at risk are either nonexistent or still in the planning stages, particularly in French Guiana—which, however, has recently seen the establishment of a “Mélanie Room” within the forensic medical unit in Cayenne—and there is only one practicing medical examiner in Mayotte[11]. This problem has been well documented for years. The institutional response has never been adequate.

B. Failures at Every Link in the Judicial Chain

 The second part of the report outlines the procedural steps, From Investigation to Judgment. At the preliminary investigation stage, Fewer than 2,000 specialized investigators are dealing with a surge in complaints. Processing times are getting longer, and investigations remain at a standstill. The NICHD protocol—the standard for taking a child’s statement—is not systematically used. There are still not enough specialized interview rooms. The child’s account is still too often called into question. Appearing before the committee on April 8, 2026, Arnaud de Saint-Rémy, chair of the National Bar Council’s Working Group on Children’s Rights, summarized the issue using a phrase that the report adopts as its own: «A case that gets off to a bad start is a case that is likely to end badly.»[12].

At the expert assessment stage, the report highlights an alarming shortage of expert psychiatrists and psychologists, a lack of prerequisites in child psychiatry or child psychology, and excessively varied conditions under which these assessments are conducted. Above all, the specter of parental alienation continues to haunt judicial expert evaluations, even though this concept has been rejected by the World Health Organization and dismissed by public authorities. The influence of these expert evaluations on judicial decisions is described as colossal.

During the prosecution and sentencing phases, the commission notes an overly broad application of the principle of prosecutorial discretion: approximately 41 % of complaints of incestuous rape are dismissed, primarily on evidentiary grounds that the report nevertheless considers surmountable. In 2024, 19,254 incidents of intrafamilial sexual violence against minors were recorded, resulting in 1,406 convictions for incestuous rape or sexual assault.[13]. Near-impunity fosters a deep sense of abandonment, especially since the deterrent effect of a punishment depends more on the likelihood of being prosecuted than on the severity of the penalty.

The third part of the report focuses on the civilian aspect, under a heading that says it all : «When Justice Becomes Abusive». Joint parental authority is described there as a principle that has become a dogma. In practice, maintaining the child’s relationship with the parent in question takes precedence over the child’s best interests, despite the real but limited progress made possible by the law Santiago[14]regarding the suspension and termination of parental authority. The custodial parent—most often the mother—faces a contradictory mandate: the law requires her to protect her child, while the court orders her to hand the child over to the person the child identifies as an abuser. Refusal to comply exposes the parent to prosecution for failure to produce a child—an offense that is established upon the first violation and exploited by certain accused parents as a tool of coercive control. Mothers are arrested, taken into police custody, convicted, and sometimes imprisoned. A protective parent, speaking behind closed doors, put it this way: «Secondary victimization in incest cases is no accident; it is the result of a system that turns suspicion against the parent who raises the alarm, because it is easier to pathologize a mother than to confront the possibility that a father is committing acts of incest against his child.»[15]. We believe that this shift in the burden of suspicion onto the person who raises the alarm constitutes the most serious shortcoming documented in the report.

II. A SYSTEMIC OVERHAUL: PROTECTING CHILDREN, STRENGTHENING THE JUSTICE SYSTEM

The fourth part of the report makes its ambition clear right from the title: «The abolition of incest as a goal». The 49 recommendations[16], reproduced in full As outlined in the appendix to this article, there are two main areas of focus. The first concerns the immediate protection of the child and the rehabilitation of the custodial parent (A). The second involves reforms to substantive criminal law, criminal procedure, and the judicial system (B).

A. Immediate Protection of the Child and Rehabilitation of the Guardian Parent

The key measure is the child protection order, which the committee wants to see adopted without delay : a measure to ensure immediate safety as soon as incestuous abuse is reported (Recommendation No. 28). This is accompanied by a new guiding principle: when the parents are not separated, protective measures must prioritize removing the alleged perpetrator from the family home, rather than relocating the child victim and the protective parent (No. 29). The child’s refusal to see a parent must be taken into account, regardless of the child’s age, unless there is a specifically justified decision to the contrary (No. 27). Supervised visits in cases of suspected abuse must also be specifically justified (No. 30).

 This ordinance fills a gap in our current law. The protection order under Articles 515-9 et seq. of the Civil Code was designed for spouses who are victims of domestic violence. Law No. 2024-536 of June 13, 2024, strengthened this system and established the provisional immediate protection order, which must be issued within twenty-four hours.[17]. However, the child is addressed only indirectly, as a member of the household exposed to domestic violence. Currently, there is no standalone legal instrument that allows for the child’s immediate protection when the allegations directly involve the child. Recommendation No. 28 therefore extends a proven procedural technique to children. We believe it is legally sound and likely to be swiftly enacted into law. We draw attention to the difficulties involved in the practical implementation of the protection order in certain regions where access to legal instruments remains limited.

The opinion of the Economic, Social, and Environmental Council, approved by its Executive Board on July 16, 2026, sheds light on the future of this recommendation. Having been presented by the Speaker of the National Assembly with the bill aimed at comprehensively combating gender-based and sexual violence, the Council notes that the bill on child protection, currently under review, already introduces a child safety order to be issued by the family court judge, modeled after the immediate protection order. It therefore concludes that the corresponding provision in the proposed law will be «presumably satisfied»[18]. Recommendation No. 28 offers a twofold lesson: the instrument is on the verge of being adopted, but it is being pursued through several competing channels. The legislature must ensure that this fragmentation does not delay the immediate protection of children.

Procedural support for minors is being strengthened : systematic appointment of a director ad hoc a single system, covering both criminal and civil matters, with a clear legal framework (Nos. 23 and 24); systematic appointment of an attorney upon filing a complaint, with legal aid coverage extended to victims of sexual assault (Nos. 25 and 26), and adjustments to criminal proceedings to avoid any confrontation between the child and the abuser (No. 32).

These recommendations are in line with the position advocated by the Economic, Social, and Environmental Council. In its opinion of October 8, 2024, adopted following a referral from the Senate, the CESE warns that child protection is at risk. It recommends «systematic representation of the child by a specialized attorney appointed by the president of the bar association» and the creation of a formal status for directors ad hoc, along with mandatory training and a certificate of proficiency[19]. We note that the commission of inquiry has adopted these two requirements. We believe this convergence of views should carry weight in the upcoming legislative debate.

This convergence has just been strongly confirmed. In its opinion adopted on July 16, 2026, on the comprehensive bill, the Council reiterates its recommendation for a statute governing directors ad hoc, accompanied by mandatory training and a certificate of competence, and calls for the bill to be amended to include a provision that legally establishes this status[20]. The 2024 ruling thus becomes a legal requirement addressed to the legislature. The official opinion also provides an important piece of information: a system for systematically appointing a lawyer for children placed in the care of child welfare services, as part of educational assistance, was definitively adopted by the National Assembly on July 1, 2026, and is set to take effect in early 2027[21]. The establishment of the role of the child’s attorney—which the commission of inquiry recommends for both criminal and civil cases—is therefore already underway.

The plight of protective parents calls for more radical responses. The commission proposes to decriminalize the failure to present a child in court (No. 34) and to begin exploring the concept of a “protective parent” status (No. 35). Above all, it recommends the creation of a national commission to review cases of incestuous violence, in order to reopen cases in which the alleged perpetrator currently retains full or partial parental authority (No. 36). This last proposal is based on a logic of domestic transitional justice: it is no longer simply a matter of ensuring better judgments in the future, but to correct the decisions made in the past that keep children in danger.

Recommendation No. 36 will, however, have to overcome a constitutional obstacle that the report does not address. Grant a national commission the authority to overturn court decisions directly conflicts with the separation of powers guaranteed by Article 16 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of August 26, 1789, and the independence of the judiciary enshrined in Article 64 of the Constitution : «Whereas it follows from the provisions of Article 64 of the Constitution regarding the judiciary and from the fundamental principles recognized by the laws of the Republic—with respect to administrative courts, since the Act of May 24, 1872— administrative jurisdiction, that the independence of the courts is guaranteed, as is the specific nature of their functions, which neither the legislature nor the Government may encroach upon; that, accordingly, it is not within the authority of either the legislature or the Government to censor the decisions of the courts, to issue orders to them, or to substitute themselves for them in the adjudication of disputes falling within their jurisdiction;»[22]. The Constitutional Council has consistently held that it is not the role of either the legislature or the government to censor the decisions of the courts, to issue orders to them or to act in their stead in adjudicating disputes within their jurisdiction[23], a prohibition that primarily protects decisions that have become final and binding. The review of final criminal convictions is itself permitted only for the benefit of the convicted person and remains the purview of a court. However, this obstacle is not insurmountable. Decisions regarding the exercise of parental authority are never irrevocable: Article 373-2-13 of the Civil Code allows a judge to modify or supplement them at any time, at the request of a parent or the public prosecutor’s office. It therefore seems to us that the constitutionally viable approach is to establish a commission designed not as a judicial body, but as a body responsible for identifying and referring cases : Identify cases in which the alleged perpetrator retains parental authority and initiate a review of those cases by a judge, if necessary through the public prosecutor’s office. With its scope limited in this way, the review commission would avoid the constitutional challenge without losing any of its effectiveness.

 The decriminalization of failure to present a child in court calls for a different kind of reservation.The offense set forth in Article 227-5 of the Penal Code does not merely protect the parent who is the subject of the proceedings. It also protects, in the absence of any context of violence, the parent who is the victim of an unjustified denial of visitation rights. Its outright repeal would deprive that parent of any criminal recourse and undermine the enforcement of family court decisions. We believe a middle ground is preferable : maintain the criminal charge, but to recognize a valid justification in favor of the parent who refuses to hand over the child based on allegations of abuse or a probable danger, It is his responsibility to bring the matter before the judge as soon as possible. This would ensure the protection of the parent who reports the abuse without leaving the parent who is the victim of wrongful detention defenseless.

The EESC’s opinion of July 16, 2026, supports this middle ground. The Council notes that as early as 2021, CIIVISE recommended suspending criminal proceedings against the custodial parent for failure to present a child to court for the duration of the investigation, and that the decree of November 23, 2021—which was intended to address this recommendation—has, in its view, remained «clearly ineffective»[24]. He further advocates for comprehensive support—psychological, social, and economic—for the protective parent. Between outright repeal and maintaining the status quo, a regulated suspension of legal proceedings, backed by effective support, therefore appears to align with all perspectives.

The role of guardian ad litem bears the hallmarks of the legal profession. The rapporteur is calling for the establishment of a genuine built environment status «based on the model presented by Arnaud de Saint-Rémy», chair of the Children's Rights Working Group of the National Bar Council[25]. The profession’s national body has reaffirmed this commitment. In a resolution adopted by its general assembly, which met in Nîmes on June 12, 2026, the National Bar Council condemns «a large backlog of unresolved complaints—some of which have been pending for several years—including those involving serious incidents» and calls for the «strengthening the human and material resources of the justice system», by increasing the number of judges, court clerks, and investigators; developing specialized units; and strengthening expert capabilities[26]. This assessment is, in every respect, consistent with that of the commission of inquiry.

B. The Transformation of Criminal Law and the Judicial System

 In the field of substantive criminal law, Four proposals have caught the criminal law expert's attention. The absence of a statute of limitations for crimes committed against minors, particularly incestuous crimes (No. 5), would break with the summa divisio the traditional approach, which reserves the absence of a statute of limitations for crimes against humanity; the report endorses this, on the grounds that the harm caused by incest is not subject to a statute of limitations. The penalty for incestuous rape of a minor would be increased to thirty years’ imprisonment (No. 4), accompanied by a mandatory minimum term (No. 7) and an aggravating circumstance of intoxication or voluntary use of narcotics (No. 8). The structure of the Penal Code would be clarified by a separate section dedicated to incestuous offenses, for which the definition of “family” would be expanded (No. 6). Finally, two new criminal offenses are under consideration: an offense of incestuous conduct, addressing the incestuous atmosphere regardless of whether a sexual act actually took place (No. 46), and a separate offense of coercive control (No. 47), in line with recent developments in case law.

The legal profession is approaching these innovations with caution. In January 2025, when presented with related provisions included in the bill aimed at strengthening efforts to combat violence against women and children, the National Bar Council had reiterated that the absence of a statute of limitations «currently applies only to crimes against humanity», had opposed the extension of the rolling statute of limitations in the name of legal certainty and equality before criminal law, and had deemed the creation of a separate offense of coercive surveillance to be premature in light of the requirements of legality and clarity of the law[27].

The legislature will therefore have to reconcile the report’s protective aims with these fundamental safeguards, whose lawyer is the natural guardian.

From a constitutional standpoint, however, the absence of a statute of limitations does not conflict with any fundamental prohibition. The Constitutional Council holds, on the basis of Articles 8 and 16 of the Declaration of 1789, that it is incumbent upon the legislature, in order to take into account the consequences of the passage of time, to establish rules regarding the statute of limitations for criminal proceedings that are not «clearly disproportionate to the nature or severity of the offenses»[28]. Therefore, no constitutional provision mandates a statute of limitations for criminal proceedings. The obstacle is less legal than symbolic : limit the principle of non-statute of limitations to crimes against humanity, It means preserving the unique status of these crimes at the top of the criminal justice hierarchy.. The legislature will have to resolve this conflict over symbols. It cannot hide behind the argument that it is constitutionally impossible.

The legislature reached a decision sooner than expected. On July 16, 2026, the National Assembly adopted, during the first reading of the bill on child protection, an amendment proposed by Representative Arnaud Bonnet establishing that crimes committed against minors are not subject to a statute of limitations, by a vote of 93 to 51, with 8 abstentions[29]. The vote brought together the Common Base groups and the Socialist deputies, with the support of the Minister of Justice. Recommendation No. 5 of the report thus receives its first legislative implementation fifteen days after the report was submitted. Caution is still warranted, however. The bill must still pass Senate review. And the reservations expressed by the National Bar Council regarding the termination of the summa divisio will remain fully relevant for the rest of the shuttle program.

On the issues of evidence and procedure, the report proposes recognizing the assessment of psychotraumatic disorders as forensic evidence in its own right (No. 9), authorizing brain imaging for victims (No. 16), requiring that key investigative steps be completed within three months (No. 11), to roll out the NICHD protocol nationwide within one year (No. 13), and to establish guidelines for cases dismissed without further action by requiring detailed justifications and a less definitive designation (Nos. 21 and 22). The expert assessment system would be overhauled by raising training requirements and establishing a committee of experts tasked with determining the state of the art (Nos. 18–20).

 The EESC opinion of July 16, 2026, extends this trial period. The Council reaches the same conclusion as the commission: there are too few experts, they are underpaid, and their training and analytical perspectives vary widely. It supports strengthening the framework governing experts’ practice as provided for in the comprehensive bill and recommends that all courts establish lists of experts specifically trained in gender-based and sexual violence, with the use of videoconferencing for remote areas or those lacking experts.[30]. It also reiterates its recommendations calling for the large-scale recruitment of child psychiatrists and the establishment of quotas for psychiatrists and psychologists under the national health insurance system in rural and overseas territories. These proposals are directly in line with recommendations 18 through 20 and address the lack of resources in overseas territories highlighted above.

In the area of judicial organization, The commission is outlining a structural reform : consideration of a family court judge combining the responsibilities of the family court judge and the juvenile court judge (No. 42), a prosecutor specializing in child protection in each court (No. 41), expanding the VIF centers to address intrafamilial sexual violence against children (No. 39), consolidated hearings for civil and criminal proceedings (No. 40), and mandatory training for judges (No. 38). Prevention and care round out the framework: national campaigns, strengthening the STOP program, and psychotrauma treatment pathways covered under national solidarity (Nos. 3, 45, and 48). In this regard, the report draws on the work of the Economic, Social, and Environmental Council: Citing its opinion of September 10, 2024, on education in emotional, relational, and sexual matters, it notes that in Sweden, where such programs have been in place for a long time, the rate of sexual violence is reportedly six times lower today than in France[31]. Prevention is not just an afterthought. It is a protection policy in its own right.

For overseas territories, The report’s first recommendation calls for the creation of an observatory on sexual violence against minors in each overseas territory (No. 1), following the Polynesian model: you can only effectively combat what you measure. On this point, we refer to the report submitted on November 25, 2024, to the Minister for Overseas Territories by Justine Bénin, who at the time served as the interministerial coordinator responsible for combating violence against women in the overseas territories: its 44 proposals, although focused on female victims, were already shaping a region-specific policy to combat domestic violence, which, in our view, has not been sufficiently mobilized[32].

 The EESC opinion of July 16, 2026, provides a novel legal formulation for this territorialization. Noting that the full text of the proposed law contains no provisions applicable to overseas territories, the The Council proposes adding four additional articles : a regional cooperation component by ocean basin, the’Incorporating the protection of women and children into reconstruction policies post-disaster, a multi-year funding linked to convergence and transformation agreements as well as to the European funds, and a Article on the applicability of the law to French Polynesia, Wallis and Futuna and the New Caledonia[33]. The Council rightly points out that, under the principle of legislative specificity, the law would not apply in this case in the absence of an express provision. It further notes that’«A training program designed for mainland France misses the mark in the overseas territories», due to language barriers, cultural norms, and the region’s insularity. We fully endorse this territorial approach, which we advocate in our numerous studies and publications[34]. It also aligns with the overseas monitoring body recommended by the commission of inquiry and the proposals in the Bénin report mentioned above.

In conclusion, this report is not just another report. Given its scope, the precision of its findings, and the coherence of its 49 recommendations, it constitutes an immediately actionable legislative framework, parts of which could be incorporated into the bill aimed at comprehensively combating gender-based and sexual violence, which was introduced in December 2025.[35]. In fact, the process is already underway: the decision to make the statute of limitations inapplicable, passed on July 16, 2026, is the first proof of this. Its success, however, hinges on a condition that the commission itself sets forth in its latest recommendation: budgetary resources commensurate with the identified needs (No. 49). Without resources, the documented diagnosis will go unaddressed by the institutions, as all stakeholders have been pointing out for years.

 The opinion adopted by the EESC on July 16, 2026, regarding this proposed law reinforces this observation in similar terms. The Council welcomes a «first major legislative step», but regrets that the funding does not measure up to the challenges at hand—a limitation inherent in a bill that, under Article 40 of the Constitution, cannot include costly measures. It recommends an interministerial action plan with dedicated funding in future finance and social security financing bills, accompanied by multi-year commitments, and reiterates that combating gender-based and sexual violence requires at least three billion euros per year[36]. Finally, the Council announced that it will closely monitor the findings of the commission of inquiry, which, in its view, could guide the discussion on the creation of a specific incest offense. The report under review, the CESE’s opinion, and the full text of the bill now form a triptych that lawmakers will not be able to separate.

For overseas territories, this report serves as both a warning and a roadmap. It has been established that there is excessive exposure to violence there. There is a chronic shortage of protective equipment there. The combination of these two factors leads to the most serious situations in the Republic.

The report’s preface states this in a phrase that should serve as a guide for both lawmakers and judges: « A state governed by the rule of law is judged by the the way it protects the most vulnerable : when he fails to do so, It is his credibility that is wavering. »[37]

[1] National Assembly, Report No. 3005 prepared on behalf of the Commission of Inquiry on the Judicial Handling of Incestuous Sexual Abuse Committed by Parents Against Children and the Situation of Protective Parents, Particularly Protective Mothers, Ms. Maud Petit, Chair; Mr. Christian Baptiste, Rapporteur; 17th Legislature; registered with the Office of the Speaker of the National Assembly on July 1, 2026; Volume I.

[2] Maud Petit is a member of the National Assembly representing Val-de-Marne (4^e (constituency), a member of the Les Démocrates political group.

[3] Christian Baptiste is a member of the National Assembly from Guadeloupe (2^e (constituency), affiliated with the Socialists and Allies group.

[4] Ciivise, « Sexual Abuse of Children: We Believe You », November 2023, cited in Report No. 3005, page 19.

[5] Report No. 3005, cited above, introduction, page 19.

[6] Testimony by Professor Céline Greco, head of the Department of Pain and Palliative Medicine at Necker-Enfants Malades Hospital, before the National Assembly’s commission of inquiry into failures in public policies on child protection, May 21, 2024.

[7] Ipsos on behalf of the organization Face à l’inceste, « Supportive Parent, Protective Parent », October 2022, cited in Report No. 3005, page 20.

[8] ECHR, April 24, 2025, case L. et al. v. France, No. 46949/21 (attached requests No.^bones46949/21, 24989/22, and 39759/22, with the violation of Article 14 found only in respect of the first application): France was found in violation on the basis of Articles 3, 8, and 14 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, cited in Report No. 3005, page 20.

[9] INED, Virage Survey, overseas territories component conducted in 2018 in Réunion, Guadeloupe, and Martinique among nearly 9,000 people, as discussed in Report No. 3005, pages 44 and following.

[10] SSMSI, statistical databases of victims recorded by the police and the gendarmerie between 2021 and 2024, cited in Report No. 3005, page 47.

[11] Report No. 3005, cited above, page 53.

[12] Report No. 3005, cited above, page 97.

[13] Report No. 3005, cited above, page 21.

[14] Law No. 2024-233 of March 18, 2024, aimed at better protecting and supporting children who are victims and co-victims of domestic violence, known as «Santiago Act».

[15] Testimony of a protective parent heard in closed session, Report No. 3005, page 22.

[16] Report No. 3005, cited above, list of recommendations, pages 265–267.

[17] Law No. 2024-536 of June 13, 2024, Strengthening the Protection Order and Establishing the Provisional Order for Immediate Protection, issued by the family court judge within twenty-four hours of the case being referred to him or her.

[18] Economic, Social, and Environmental Council, opinion on the proposed law aimed at comprehensively combating gender-based and sexual violence against women and children (No. 2169), drafted jointly by the Delegation for Women’s Rights and Equality and the Delegation for Children’s Rights at the request of the President of the National Assembly; rapporteurs: Pierre-Alain Sarthou and Manon Rousselot-Pailley; Opinion No. 2026-002, a draft adopted unanimously by both delegations on July 8, 2026, and approved by the CESE Bureau on July 16, 2026, review of Article 26.

[19] Economic, Social, and Environmental Council, Opinion No. 2024-15 of October 8, 2024, « Child Protection Is at Risk: Recommendations from the EESC », rapporteurs Josiane Bigot and Élisabeth Tomé-Gertheinrichs, adopted following a parliamentary referral by the Senate, recommendations Nos. 13 and 14.

[20] EESC Opinion of July 16, 2026, cited above.

[21] Opinion No. 2026-002, cited above, chapter on the protection of child victims.

[22] Constitutional Council, Decision No. 80-119 DC of July 22, 1980, Act Validating Legal Acts administrative. See also Article 64, paragraph 1, of the Constitution: «The President of the Republic is the guarantor of the independence of the judiciary.».

[23] Constitutional Council, Decision No. 80-119 DC of July 22, 1980, Act Validating Administrative Acts. Appeals in criminal matters are governed by Articles 622 et seq. of the Code of Criminal Procedure and fall under the jurisdiction of the Court of Review and Reexamination.

[24] EESC Opinion of July 16, 2026, cited above, analysis of Article 24; CIIVISE, opinion «Incest: Protecting Children – About Mothers in the Struggle», October 27, 2021 ; Decree No. 2021-1516 of November 23, 2021, aimed at strengthening the enforcement of the rights of victims of crimes committed within intimate partnerships or families, in Article 6, which addresses situations where a child fails to appear.

[25] Report No. 3005, cited above, page 238.

[26] National Bar Council, « Resolution on the Judicial Handling of Violence Against Children and the Resources of the Justice System », adopted by the general meeting held in Nîmes on June 12, 2026.

[27] National Bar Council, resolution regarding the proposed law aimed at strengthening efforts to combat violence against women and children, adopted by the General Assembly on January 17, 2025.

[28] Constitutional Council, Decision No. 2019-785 QPC of May 24, 2019, Mr. Mario S. (Starting point of the statute of limitations for criminal prosecution), paragraph 7.

[29] National Assembly, bill on child protection, first reading, Amendment No. 362 by Mr. Arnaud Bonnet adding a new section after Section 11, adopted at the first session on July 16, 2026, public vote No. 8308.

[30] EESC Opinion of July 16, 2026, cited above; analysis of Articles 4 and 21.

[31] Report No. 3005, cited above, page 254. This figure is the one used in the report, which is based on the opinion of the Economic, Social, and Environmental Council « Education on Emotional, Relational, and Sexual Life » September 10, 2024; rapporteurs: Cécile Gondard-Lalanne and Evanne Jeanne-Rose.

[32] Justine Bénin, « Diagnostic Report by Region – «Believing the Accounts of Women Victims of Violence in the Overseas Territories” » ; « Summary Report – «Combating Violence Against Women in the Overseas Territories” », June 2024, submitted to the Minister for Overseas Territories on November 25, 2024, 44 proposals. See our commentary: P. Lingibé, « Overseas Territories: 44 Proposals to Combat Violence Against Women », Actu-Juridique, December 13, 2024.

[33] EESC Opinion of July 16, 2026, cited above; proposed additional Articles 80 through 83 for the overseas territories.

[34] Patrick Lingibé, « The Law and the Unique Characteristics of Overseas Territories: The Need for a Tailored Policy », Gazette du Palais, April 2, 2024.

[35] Bill aimed at comprehensively combating gender-based and sexual violence against women and children, introduced on December 2, 2025, by Ms. Céline THIÉBAULT-MARTINEZ, a member of the National Assembly, as mentioned in Report No. 3005, pages 22 and 23.

[36] EESC Opinion of July 16, 2026, cited above, preamble and analysis of Article 30.

[37] Report No. 3005, cited above, foreword by Chairwoman Maud Petit, page 18.