On Europe 1, the vice-president of the commission of inquiry into the attack on the Paris Prefecture of Police Marie Guevenoux acknowledged on Wednesday the dysfunctions that led to the tragic attack on the Paris prefecture, which caused 4 died on October 3.

INTERVIEW

It aligns with the opinion of Eric Ciotti. Just like the chairman of the commission of inquiry into the attack on the prefecture of Paris, which left 4 dead on October 3, Marie Guevenoux, the LREM vice-president of this same entity said this Wednesday at the microphone of Europe 1 that "certain signals [of Mickaël Harpon's radicalization] should have been taken into account".

Failures at key stages

Guest of the Grand Newspaper of the evening while this commission reports on a first point of stage, the deputy of Essonne estimates that "there was a difficulty on the part of the intelligence services of the prefecture of Paris ( DRPP) to understand that the threat could strike from the inside. " "We are dumbfounded during the investigation hearings," she added. However, a "number of dysfunctions" also emerged from these interviews.

"By retracing the journey of Mickaël Harpon, we learn that his marriage does not cause an investigation into his spouse, but the intelligence services must know if the environment [of an agent] is changing," she points out. A defect that will be repeated several times: during the conversion to Islam, when he will no longer want to kiss his female colleagues to say hello, or when he leaves "clearly to think" that the victims of Charlie Hebdo have deserved their fate.

>> Find all the political interviews of your big evening newspaper in replay and in podcast here

Two solutions considered

A series of shortcomings testifying to flaws which do not exist in other services according to the deputy, who even affirms that "the vulnerability profile of Mickaël Harpon would not have allowed his recruitment in other intelligence services".

As for what the commission of inquiry will recommend when submitting her report, scheduled for early April, Marie Guevenoux explains that "two paths are emerging": the first consists of implementing various procedures to arrive "at same level of security "as the DGSI or the DGSE, and the second in the integration of the DRPP with the DGSI. "But we are not there yet," she recalls, insisting on the fact that "neither of the two options is decided".