Tried for failure to assist a person in danger after the suicide of an inmate at the Fresnes women's remand center in 2020, the man who was head of detention at the time must hear his deliberations this Friday, November 15.
Karima Takhedmit was 22 years old when she ended her life in October 2020, while she was incarcerated at the Fresnes women's remand center. Last September, the Créteil public prosecutor's office (Val-de-Marne) requested a 10-month suspended prison sentence for the head of Fresnes detention at the time, tried for failure to assist a person in danger. He must hear his decision this Friday, November 15.
The prosecution considered that this experienced officer, aged 54, had not taken the necessary measures to protect the detainee. At the time, Karima Takhedmit was placed in a disciplinary unit for having kicked the officer in question.
She had been sentenced to thirty days of “mitard”, the maximum possible. An “extremely rare” sentence according to the public prosecutor specializing in the execution of sentences, whose comments are reported by Le Parisien.
The investigation revealed that the young woman showed significant signs of distress before taking her own life. Stopping eating, she asked the supervisors for help, in tears. She particularly feared that the incident with the head of detention would deprive her of her semi-release regime.
The agents then informed their superior who herself alerted the head of detention three times. The man remained unresponsive and Karima Takhedmit was found hanged in her cell.
“Keywords” deemed missing
During his judgment last September, the officer defended himself by explaining that his subordinate should have said the “key words” “acute suicidal risk” which, according to him, are necessary to trigger an intervention with the detainee concerned. However, he ended up recognizing the existence of a “medium-term suicidal risk” concerning Karima Takhedmit.
The fifty-year-old is accused of never having informed his superiors but also of not having strengthened surveillance. He had the possibility of setting up the passage of an agent every half hour in front of the cell, instead of every two hours. But he didn't do it.
The prosecution considered that “the line between ethical breach and criminal misconduct is very thin” and did not wish to charge the defendant further. To the ten months suspended prison sentence required, no additional sentence, such as a ban on working in the prison administration, was added.
