Masked RIO, unpunished violence: formal complaint against the Ministry of the Interior and its prefects

N. Rochat — Genève, Suisse — 2026-10-25

The RIO, and why it exists

The RIO — Référentiel des Identités et de l'Organisation (Referential of Identities and Organisation) — is a seven-digit number that every police officer must wear, legibly, on their uniform. It exists for one precise reason: so that an officer who abuses, who strikes, who kills can be identified. Without that number, a violent police officer is nothing but an anonymous silhouette in a crowd — impossible to prosecute, impossible to convict. The RIO is the minimal condition of accountability. That is why the law makes it mandatory, in the Internal Security Code.

The reality: the number that disappears

And in the street? The number disappears. During demonstrations, one sees police officers without a RIO, RIOs masked with adhesive tape, officers "in plainclothes, masked, armed, without an armband or a RIO" — it is the Observatory of the Human Rights League (LDH) that documents this. During the blockade of the high schools, in October 2026, the absence of the RIO had once again become, according to 20 Minutes, "an enormous problem". The Council of State itself, in October 2023, had to call the Minister of the Interior to order. We are therefore far from "all is well": it is the supreme judicial institution that finds that the law is not being applied.

The complicity: a ministry and prefects who punish nothing

Now, whose job is it to enforce this obligation? The Ministry of the Interior, and the prefects, who authorise the public-order operations. They know. They see the images. They receive the reports. And they do nothing. A police officer without a RIO is not suspended, not punished, not even reprimanded. This tolerance has only one explanation: it suits them. An officer who cannot be identified is an officer who cannot be prosecuted. And an officer who cannot be prosecuted is an officer who can strike without fear. Hiding the RIO is organising impunity in advance.

The complaint, formal

We therefore file a complaint — symbolically, through this article — against the Ministry of the Interior and its prefects, for complicity in the concealment of police violence. Not because they would have ordered the RIO to be hidden, but because they allow, knowingly, a legal obligation to be trampled at every demonstration. Letting something happen, when one has the power to stop it, is a choice. And the Ministry of the Interior has chosen: it prefers anonymous police officers to punished violence.

The conclusion

As long as the RIO remains masked, no violent police officer will be found, none will be tried, none will pay. That is exactly what the system wants: blows without a face, deaths without a culprit, victims without justice. The question is not "why do police officers hide their RIO?". The question is: why does a State that calls itself a State of law tolerate its agents erasing themselves the better to strike? The answer, we know it: because impunity is the policy, and the mask is its uniform.

📚 BIBLIOGRAPHY (rule n°19)

1. Council of State, "Identification of police officers: the Council of State calls Gérald Darmanin to order", 11 October 2023 — https://www.alternativepn.fr/medias/article/13274-identification-des-policiers-le-conseil-etat-rappelle-ordre-gerald-darmanin.pdf

2. 20 Minutes, "'An enormous problem': the absence of the RIO on police officers is debated once again", 1 October 2026 — https://www.20minutes.fr/societe/4250510-20261001-blocus-lycees-probleme-enorme-absence-rio-policiers-fait-nouveau-debat

3. LDH / Observatory, "Intervention by plainclothes police officers, masked, armed, without armband or RIO" — https://www.ldh-france.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/observatoire.pdf

4. National Assembly, Commission of inquiry into the maintenance of public order — report on the wearing of the RIO — https://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/dyn/15/rapports/ceordre/l15b3786_rapport-enquete.pdf

⚠️ Published reservations. (1) The RIO obligation and its documented non-wearing are established facts (Council of State, 20 Minutes, LDH). (2) The "complicity" of the ministry and the prefects is an editorial qualification — the complaint is symbolic, not a real judicial proceeding. (3) The article denounces a policy, not named individuals.