France

• 2015 - 2016
• France

Identification of the Source

Report MINDB4ACT, 2018

Description

By March 2015 XX1 was arrested for trying to travel to Syria. He was sent back to France, where he was given conditional parole awaiting trial.
In May 2015, XX1 tried to enter Syria again. He was charged and returned to France where he was held in preventive custody for ten months.
While at home, in license, XX1 was able to use Chatogram, an encrypted chat from Telegram, which was not monitored from the surveillance service. Through this application, he came across his accomplice and they planned the attack in a spontaneous manner. They entered a Normandy church with another attacker, where he forced Father Jacques Hamel, 86, to his knees and slit his throat. The attackers were armed with knives, and wore fake bombs and explosive belts. The two attackers were shot dead by police as they emerged from the church.

Type of Crime

Suicide attack made by XX1, a 19-year-old Algerian that grew up in a housing project in France.

Modus Operandi

- Identify possible technologies, which helped in
committing the crime(s)
XX1 spent time in prison, was monitored by French security organizations, and was supposed to be under electronic-ankle bracelet restrictions. The public prosecutor was sure that XX1 was not chastened by the measures. Finally, the case managed to use Chatogram to coordinate the attack and was able to deactivate the electronic tag.
- Identify possible technologies, which helped in preventing to commit the crime(s)
Normal dual-use home tools (knifes, etc.)
- Which tools have been used for passing information; technological tool, networking of people, family etc.
Internet and Chatogram

People involved

XX1, a 19-year-old Algerian that grew up in a housing project in France.
XX2.

Criminal History

XX1 had a relatively comfortable non-religious family background - mother a teacher, an elder sister studying medicine. Media interviews with family and friends indicate a very rapid progress towards radicalization, starting in January 2015.
A psychological examination was carried out between October 2015 and February 2016, outlining his frail psychological state. XX1’s family said he regularly visited hospital since the age of 6, after suffering deep depressions and 'other mental problems', with suicidal tendencies documented in his file.
For this reason, the psychological assessment, carried out in prison, stated that he was not fully compatible with the condition of inmate. Based upon that and the hearing of XX1, who recognized his faults in front of the judge and promised to change, after a careful assessment with XX1’s family, the judge allowed XX1 to go on alternative measures to prison (house arrest), with the 'supervision and support' of his close family, and the support of the local social welfare institutions. The judge investigated also the availability of the family to support the rehabilitation program, (“Confess that they prefer to know their son is incarcerated and alive rather than free and in route to Syria. If they agree to take him, it is because they sincerely believe he knows he is wrong and that he will not try to leave.), as usual in these cases and imposed a mandatory psychological treatment as part of his tailor-made rehabilitation program. The program was quite extensive in the rehabilitative part. For what concerns the security component, the judge ordered XX1 to wear an electronic tag (preventive security measure which implies police surveillance). The tag was deactivated on the day of the attack.
Against the decision of the surveillance judge, there was the opposition of the public prosecutor who considered the judiciary control as "perfectly illusory in view of the context of the case…" "…In these circumstances, and although he admits he made a mistake and asks for a second chance, there is a very high risk of renewal of the facts in case of release."

Influential and/or vulnerable Groups

Vulnerable individual with frail psychological situation.
Response from authorities to XX1 journey towards violence was contradictory, because, from one side, they stopped the fulfilment of his dream to go to Syria; but on the other side, they offered him another chance to return to the old life, he has rejected, thus keeping exit costs relatively low. However, this facilitated XX1 bid to pretend to become a soldier of ISIS, as forgiving measures were ambiguous towards his main motivation – perceived high benefits from joining ISIS and nothing to gain from the alternative offered by the authorities (the old disallowed life). Accepting suicide as a preferred way of action (having suicidal tendencies, wearing fake bombs) eradicates the effectiveness of forgiving measures, as these facilitate the achievement of this outcome.
A proper balance between the necessary rehabilitation measures and corresponding security measures was not in place. The risk reduction strategies needed to be better targeted in relation to the level of the threat, as highlighted by the public prosecutor office in the specific case.