What oversight or inquiries were launched into La Santé prison procedures after Brunel’s death?

1. A judicial police probe into the cause of death was opened as standard practice

French authorities publicly said an investigation into Brunel’s death had been opened and entrusted to the judicial police — a step officials described as “systematically done in these cases” — meaning the immediate oversight action was a criminal inquiry into how and why he died while in custody ^{[1] [2] [5]}.

2. The Paris public prosecutor’s office led the initial response, framing it as a search for causes

Spokespeople for the Paris public prosecutor confirmed Brunel was found hanged and repeatedly emphasized that “an investigation in search of the causes of death” had been launched, signaling that the prosecutor’s office was coordinating the fact‑finding rather than announcing an administrative or systemic review of La Santé’s policies ^{[5] [2]}.

3. Union statements and footage queries focused scrutiny on rounds and CCTV coverage

Prison union representatives highlighted La Santé’s internal routines — noting that guards conduct five nightly checks — and said corridor video showed rounds had been made, while also underlining there was no closed‑circuit camera inside Brunel’s cell, which concentrated scrutiny on whether established guard rounds and surveillance practices were adequate or had been followed ^{[3] [6]}.

4. Lawyers and victims demanded broader probes into detention conditions and judicial handling

Brunel’s lawyers publicly demanded investigations into what they described as judicial failings in his detention and the handling of his case; victims and advocacy voices likewise lamented that his death prevented a trial and called for accountability, effectively asking for oversight beyond the immediate cause‑of‑death inquiry ^{[4] [7] [8]}.

5. Media reporting highlighted similarities to Epstein’s death but showed limitations on documented institutional inquiries

Anglo‑American and French outlets repeatedly noted parallels with Jeffrey Epstein’s in‑custody death and reported the opening of the criminal probe, but available reporting does not show a separate, formal administrative review or public audit of La Santé’s systemic procedures (for example staffing, monitoring technology policy, or suicide‑prevention regimes) being announced immediately after Brunel’s death; journalists consistently describe the investigation as focused on the cause rather than an institutional reform inquiry ^{[9] [2] [1]}.

6. Competing narratives: confidence in rounds versus suspicion and calls for transparency

Union spokespeople insisted that mandatory night checks occurred and that corridor cameras confirmed rounds, suggesting internal procedures had been followed ^[3]; by contrast, critics and some associates raised the possibility of foul play and demanded fuller transparency and formal probes into the detention system and judicial decisions that had kept Brunel in custody — an implicit contest between confidence in routine compliance and skepticism driven by the high‑profile nature of the case ^{[5] [10]}.

7. What reporting does not establish — and where oversight questions remain

Public sources uniformly report the opening of a judicial police investigation and public demands for further probes, but they do not document a clear, publicized administrative audit of La Santé’s suicide‑prevention protocols, a ministerial inquiry into prison policy, or the release of internal guard logs or camera footage beyond union assertions; the absence of such reporting means claims about broader institutional reform or confirmed procedural failings cannot be substantiated from the available material ^{[1] [3] [4]}.