Sexual violence against minors: Gérald Darmanin reveals the review of nearly 88,000 ongoing complaints

On June 30, 2026, Gérald Darmanin made public a figure that is dizzying, even for parents who think they have already “heard it all”: nearly 88,000 complaints related to sexual violence against minors are under review by investigative services. The announcement, made in an interview granted to the newspaper Le Monde, fits into a sequence triggered after the Lyhanna case, a teenager killed while the main suspect was already the subject of several complaints for sexual abuse of minors. The point is not only statistical: it describes a stock of procedures, therefore lives on hold, families in an administrative tunnel, and a judicial system that must prove it knows how to detect its failures before they become tragedies.

This review must result in a precise situation report by July 14. The idea is simple on paper and much less pleasant in practice: to verify that complaints were properly processed, that essential actions were taken at the right time, and that monitoring errors have not turned a procedure into a ghost file. In the same sequence, the minister mentions a lack of resources and the need to speed up criminal justice, with a bill defended in the National Assembly notably aiming to extend the use of departmental criminal courts. In short, the state promises a major sorting, a large catch-up, and justice that arrives before the ambulance.

Review of complaints for sexual violence against minors: what the figure of 88,000 covers

Saying “88,000 complaints” can sound like an abstract mountain. Yet, in the language of the judicial system, a complaint is not a simple form: it is a gateway to an investigation, hearings, expertises, sometimes an indictment, sometimes a dismissal, sometimes years of waiting. The announced review aims to go over recorded procedures again, to verify their trajectory and, above all, to identify those that were not handled as they should have been. The increase compared to the 70,000 files initially mentioned also illustrates a very concrete phenomenon: when you dig seriously, you find more than expected, including duplicates, misfiled cases, or procedures filed in the wrong digital drawer.

This review is not a “retrial” before the trial. It is an operational functioning audit: who did what, when, with which actions, and with what follow-up. A complaint for sexual abuse of minors can be filed at a police station, a gendarmerie, sent to the prosecutor, or reported via circuits that then switch to a procedure. The pathways vary depending on territory, workload, specialties, and complexity of facts. This diversity complicates the objective: to harmonize without erasing local realities, and especially to identify recurring dysfunctions.

In a sorting logic, services can distinguish cases requiring immediate action from those already on track. The presence of a presumed identified perpetrator, repeated offenses, the victim’s vulnerability, or multiple complaints are signals which, if poorly managed, become explosive. However, the administrative mechanism tends to treat all cases as mere files, whereas families experience them as urgencies. It is precisely this gap that the review promises to reduce, at least on paper.

To understand what the figure covers, it is also necessary to look at the minimal expected steps in an investigation: reliable registration, routing to the right unit, priority actions (hearings, findings, digital processing if needed), referral to experts, and on the prosecution side, motivated and logged decisions. When a procedure “sleeps,” it is not always a deliberate scandal: it can be a circuit bug, a poorly determined jurisdiction, an unissued summons, or a postponed hearing until it disappears from radars. The aim of the review is precisely to identify these spots where a case of sexual violence against minors can quietly get stuck.

From a child protection perspective, the sensitive point is time. Memories fade, digital evidence is lost, witnesses change phones and lives, and children grow up with a procedure hanging over them. By reviewing thousands of complaints, the state seeks to avoid risky files staying in the “pending” stage, especially when warning signs already existed. The promise here is measured by something very concrete: will investigative actions be relaunched quickly where gaps occurred?

7,452 procedures with presumed identified perpetrator: operational priority and risk of “dragging files”

Among the 88,000 complaints, 7,452 concern crimes for which a presumed perpetrator is identified. This detail changes the reading because it puts immediate action at the center: when a person is identified, justice is no longer abstract. There is a name, an environment, sometimes access to other minors, sometimes prior records, sometimes multiple procedures. The review therefore takes on a risk management dimension, with a direct consequence: identifying what should have triggered a hearing, a summons, a control measure, or at least a tighter coordination between investigators and prosecution.

In the Lyhanna case, the inspection cited in the ministerial account highlighted a chilling point: the main suspect was supposedly never heard or summoned despite several complaints. Such a failure is not simply a “delay,” it is a security hole. In situations where a presumed perpetrator is identified, tracking must be traceable and managed. The judicial system knows how to do this: it has procedural tools, prioritization, and communication between services. The issue is execution, especially when services are saturated and the volume of procedures grows.

The review can serve to distinguish several scenarios, which do not require the same responses. There are cases where the presumed perpetrator is identified but the elements are insufficient, others where the investigation was started but stalled, and yet others where acts were not carried out although they seemed essential (hearings of relatives, exploitation of digital elements, merging of procedures). In sexual abuse cases, evidence is often indirect, and the coherence of the file depends on speed and method.

In families, the perception is much simpler: when a name circulates and nothing moves, the feeling of abandonment arrives quickly. For child protection, this segment of 7,452 procedures weighs heavily because it crystallizes the idea that a suspect can remain “at large” while the administration knows he exists. This is not about announcing guilt, but about recalling a principle of caution: the identification of a presumed perpetrator requires a tighter tempo, even if law strictly governs the possible measures.

Practically, a useful review must produce actions, not just charts. Examples of expected measures: follow-up on pending acts, checking dismissal decisions and their motivations, merging procedures concerning the same person, or requalification when facts were badly classified. All must remain compatible with fundamental guarantees, but the stated objective is to track dysfunctions. This July 14 announced as a milestone is therefore a management date: the issue will be whether thousands of files will be “put back in motion” with assumed priorities.

To keep ideas clear, here are concrete criteria often used to prioritize an investigation when the workload explodes, especially in cases of sexual violence involving minors:

• Age of the victim at the time of the events and vulnerability (disability, coercion, isolation).
• Existence of a presumed identified perpetrator and the person’s accessibility to children (family, neighborhood, activity supervision).
• Multiple complaints or converging reports on the same suspect.
• Presence of perishable material evidence (messages, photos, online content, geolocation data).
• Immediate risks of recurrence according to the elements already in the file.

This prioritization is not a gadget: it determines the speed of hearings and the preservation of evidence, two essential ingredients in sexual abuse procedures where time rarely works in favor of the victim.

Lack of resources and “individual errors”: the political diagnosis and its concrete effects on justice

In his interview with Le Monde on June 30, 2026, Gérald Darmanin acknowledges a structural lack of resources while also mentioning failures related to individual errors. This double reading is typical in public crises: there is the system, and there are human decisions within the system. For families, the distinction is secondary: what matters is that the complaint does not remain blocked, that the voice is heard and the investigation progresses. For the institution, the nuance is essential because it conditions the responses: recruit and equip on one side, control and sanction on the other.

The lack of resources translates into invisible waiting lines. In sexual violence cases, investigative acts are time-consuming: long hearings, rereadings, confrontations, coordination with doctors, psychologists, digital experts. When investigative services and prosecutors are under pressure, simple cases already get delayed; complex cases pile up. The risk is not only slowness: it is the loss of information along transmissions, multiplication of stakeholders, and organizational fatigue that favors errors.

“Individual errors” refer to clearer failures: a summons never sent, a complaint misdirected, a forgotten act, a failure to link two procedures. In a case like Lyhanna’s, the absence of suspect hearing despite prior complaints, as mentioned in the ministerial account, illustrates this type of flaw. The announced review therefore has an immediate interest: to identify files where an obvious act was not done and to trigger a rapid correction. Consequently, success will not be measured by the volume “reviewed” but by the number of files actually relaunched with a clear roadmap.

The comparison made by the minister between mobilization against violence against women and consideration of violence committed against children says something else: the public agenda has its priorities, and mechanisms ramp up when society demands it. On child protection, the social demand is massive, but the treatment chain remains uneven depending on territories. Parents witness this very concretely: depending on the municipality, access to a specialized unit, the speed of an appointment, or the availability of a doctor can make all the difference.

Another concrete effect concerns institutional communication. When a minister announces a figure like 88,000, he places the administration facing an obligation of results. Monitoring, transparency, and the ability to explain why some files take time become an issue of public trust. In a society where families document everything, and exchanges leave traces, complaint management can no longer resemble an opaque labyrinth. The review is also a promise of readability: who manages, who decides, and according to what criteria.

Criminal justice reform: departmental criminal courts and acceleration of rape cases

Alongside the complaint review, Gérald Darmanin is defending in the National Assembly a bill dedicated to criminal justice. The text notably promotes the expansion of the use of departmental criminal courts, competent to judge some criminal cases, including rapes. The stated goal is to speed up case processing and relieve court congestion, with the announced creation of about 60 additional jurisdictions nationwide. In the context of sexual violence against minors, this promise targets a precise point: reducing delays that turn a procedure into an endless wait.

For the general public, the jargon “departmental criminal courts” may sound technical. In practice, the issue is judgment capacity: the more formations able to handle certain crimes, the more the calendar can breathe. Rape cases, whether involving adults or minors, require heavy organization: preparation, expertises, hearings, coordination of parties. If the judging tool is lacking, even a completed investigation remains in a queue. The reform thus aims to act on the downstream, while the review acts more on the upstream.

There is a risk of misunderstanding: speeding up does not mean rushing. In sexual abuse cases, trial quality depends on case strength, fine understanding of facts, and taking trauma into account. A chain that is too fast without means can shift the problem instead of resolving it. What is expected is a reduction of delays without diluting the listening to minor victims. The judicial system already has specific practices (adapted hearings, protected environment, support), but their implementation varies.

In families, the issue of delays is not only psychological: it can be material. Waiting for a trial can sometimes mean dealing with constraints of schooling, custody, distance, care. Parents find themselves juggling medical appointments, therapy follow-up, administrative procedures, and summonses. Judicial processing becomes part of daily life, with its share of letters, dates, and vocabulary that no one asked to learn. A reform promising to speed up must therefore be evaluated against this lived experience: fewer cancellations, more stable dates, understandable progress.

Here is a reference table to visualize the announced figures and deadlines, strictly based on what was communicated in this sequence.

On the ground, the reform will be judged by simple indicators: hearings set faster, fewer postponements, decisions rendered within deadlines compatible with child protection. The review of complaints and acceleration of criminal justice respond to each other: one looks for files that derailed, the other tries to avoid bottlenecks at the exit.

Child protection and reporting: what families can expect (and demand) from the investigation

When a minister talks about a review, the risk is to make people believe that everything will be solved at the central level, as if a software update were enough. In reality, child protection depends on a chain where each link matters: listening to the voice, complaint registration, routing, investigation, then prosecution decisions and the trial. Families do not ask for an abstract performance; they want a comprehensible trajectory, with identifiable steps and reachable contacts.

In sexual violence against minors, the issue of reception is crucial. Filing a complaint can be a logistical and emotional ordeal, with difficult words to say in front of unknown adults. Good reception does not mean “believe without verifying,” but taking seriously and working properly. Parents often manage the child’s daily life while being drawn into a procedure. An adapted response starts with clear information: what actions are planned, what deadlines are realistic, what documents to keep, and how to report a new element.

To avoid the “disappearing file” effect, families can rely on very concrete practices, without turning the house into a registry annex. Keeping a chronology of events, saving relevant exchanges, noting appointment dates, and asking for procedure references when they exist facilitate follow-up. In short, this is not overkill: it is a way to limit information loss when several services intervene. This organization also helps communicate with health and support professionals, who need factual elements to adapt follow-up.

The issue of sexual abuse committed in a close setting (family, circle, supervised activities) adds specific difficulties: pressure, loyalty conflicts, psychological retaliation risks. Child protection may then require distancing measures, custody adaptations, or coordinated educational and judicial decisions. These decisions do not only fall under criminal law, and understanding the pathway is often where families get lost. A massive review of complaints should also help identify files where coordination was insufficient.

On the social level, the treatment of sexual violence against minors accompanies a cultural evolution: more complaints, more reports, and increased attention to listening mechanisms. This progress has an operational cost. If complaint volume increases without sufficient reinforcement, delays lengthen and errors become more likely. The implicit message of the figure 88,000 is therefore double: yes, voices are rising, and no, the machine does not always keep pace. For families, a reasonable expectation is a more robust administrative response, with assumed priorities and stronger traceability.

What exactly does the “review” of complaints in these cases mean?

It involves going over already recorded procedures again to verify their monitoring: routing to the correct service, investigative actions performed, prosecution decisions logged, and spotting files left pending. The review is not a pre-judgment but an operational check aimed at detecting dysfunctions and restarting actions if necessary.

Why did the number increase from 70,000 to 88,000 complaints?

The initial volume corresponded to an estimate at the launch of the national review. As the census and verifications proceeded, more procedures were integrated, which may include misclassified files, procedures found in other circuits, or updated counts. The key point is that the scope of the work expanded.

What does the fact that a presumed perpetrator is identified in 7,452 procedures imply?

When a presumed perpetrator is identified, prioritization becomes more urgent because the investigation may involve concrete actions: hearing, confrontation, linking with other complaints, and verifying risks of repetition according to the case elements. This does not imply guilt but requires a tighter management of the schedule and tracking.

Can departmental criminal courts speed up rape trials?

The goal is to increase judgment capacity on some criminal cases, including rape files, to reduce delays and relieve courts. Effectiveness will depend on the actual implementation of the announced new formations and coordination with investigations, as more available courts alone do not solve investigation delays or missing acts.