Proposition 50K0306

Projet de loi insérant une procédure de comparution immédiate en matière pénale.

Summary ¶

(From the official documents)

Le projet de loi insérant la procédure de comparution immédiate dans le Code pénal concerne des affaires pénales simples qui sont, cependant, assez graves pour justifier la délivrance d’un mandat d’arrêt mais qui ne sont pas assez complexes pour requérir une instruction judiciaire.

C’est au ministère public d’apprécier si la procédure de comparution immédiate est justifiée ou non. Elle est applicable pour des faits punis d’un emprisonnement correctionnel principal d’un an et qui, après correctionnalisation, ne dépasse pas dix ans. En plus, il doit s’agir d’une situation de flagrant délit, ou bien, il faut que les charges réunies dans les trois mois qui suivent la commission de l’infraction, soient suffisantes pour soumettre l’affaire au juge de fond. Le fondement de la procédure réside pour le suspect dans la privation de sa liberté ou en d’autres mesures limitatives de liberté sans qu’une instruction judiciaire ne soit nécessairement menée. Afin de respecter le délai de 24 heures de privation de liberté constitutionnellement imposé, un mandat d’arrêt spécifique sera prévu en vue d’une comparution immédiate.

La comparution devant le tribunal correctionnel aura lieu au plus tôt dans les quatre jours et au plus tard dans les sept jours, à partir de la délivrance du mandat d’arrêt.

Les droits du suspect seront, entre autres, garantis par la mise à disposition immédiate du dossier et l’assistance d’un avocat dès le moment où le parquet demande la délivrance d’un mandat d’arrêt en vue de comparution immédiate. Il est également prévu que le suspect dispose d’un temps suffisant pour lui permettre de s’entretenir avec son conseil. Si le délai de sept jours n’est pas respecté, le détenu sera immédiatement libéré. Enfin, il n’y pas de possibilité de détention pendant la période durant laquelle le juge du fond a postposé l’affaire.

General information ¶

Submitted by

Groen Open Vld Vooruit PS | SP Ecolo MR Verhofstadt Ⅰ

Submission date

Dec. 3, 1999

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

criminal procedure detention before trial

Voting ¶

Voted to reject

Groen Ecolo PS | SP Open Vld MR

Abstained from voting

CD&V N-VA FN VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Alfons Borginon (Open Vld) abstained from voting.

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

⚠️ Possible data error ⚠️

This proposition could possibly include unrelated discussions due to a heuristic extraction bug in propositions prior to 2007. As soon as I've got time to fix it, these will be removed when they're not supposed to be here.

Discussion ¶

Feb. 18, 2000 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, the committee discussed the bills, as well as the attached bill, during its meetings of 11 and 26 January and 1, 8, 9, 10 and 14 February 2000. During the meeting of 26 January 2000, the committee heard the following persons: Mr. Nunez, president of the tribunal de grande instance de Lille; Mr. Roussel, procureur de la République près le tribunal de grande instance de Béthune; Mr. Vanderveeren, staff holder of the Ordre franc ̧ais des avocats de Bruxelles; Mr. Lamon, representative of the Association of Flemish balies; Mrs. Dekkers, Attorney General of Antwerp and member of the College of Attorneys General; Mr. Moyersoen, chairman of the Court of First Instance of Antwerp; Mr. Beauthier, chairman of the Ligue des Droits de l'Homme and Mr. Pataer, chairman of the League for Human Rights. Furthermore, the following documents were distributed to the members: a note from the Ordre franc-ais des avocats au barreau de Bruxelles; a protocol between the Ordre des avocats au barreau de Bruxelles and the magistrates of the Tribunal de grande instance de Lille; a opinion from the Ligue des Droits de l'Homme; a note from the League for Human Rights. At the meeting of 10 February 2000, the amended text was submitted to a second reading and the report was adopted at the meeting of 14 February 2000. What is the origin of the design? The applicant, and in particular the minister, has been preparing this bill based on both the Government Agreement, which states that in some criminal cases a quick response from the court is necessary, and on the third pillar of the Octopus Agreement, which discusses a heterosexual procedure. The purpose and content of this bill is to introduce in the criminal procedure law a procedure for immediate appearance before the correctional court, in principle in detention. It includes three types of provisions. First, a new chapter is added to the Code of Criminal Procedure, which contains the fundamental elements of the procedure for immediate appearance in custody. The second aspect concerns the amendment of the provisional detention law. Finally, a number of technical provisions are provided. The draft law aims, on the one hand, to remove the impression of impunity in the perpetrator, which is the result of a slow response from the judiciary, and on the other hand to prevent a double victimization in the victim. After all, the victim gets the feeling that he has not only become the victim of a crime, but equally or ⁇ even more of the slow response of justice. In the explanatory note it was also already pointed out that the already existing form of high-speed law is not sufficient to make a detainee appear quickly before the correctional court. Furthermore, it is not intended to resort to interim detention more now than before, just as it is intended to violate the fundamental procedural guarantees of both parties. The aim towards society as a whole is to demonstrate that the less severe or less organized forms of crime are not tolerated. The guidelines of these drafts are that the public prosecution can soon bring certain offences in which the defendant is in detention or in liberty under bail or conditions before the correctional court. The latter must make a judgment within a period of seven days, which is a minimum period between the offence and possible sentence. It is therefore a new procedural tool that complements the whole of the judicial remedies against crime. This remedy does not constitute a purpose in itself, nor does it constitute a means of distorting the fundamental rules governing the issue of an arrest warrant. A period of seven days shall be deemed to be appropriate in order to ensure the defendant’s defence and yet to satisfy the need to deliver justice quickly. The public prosecutor should determine the appropriate judicial action and judge whether the immediate appearance procedure is appropriate in the particular case. The procedure therefore applies to crimes which can be punished with a correctional main imprisonment of at least one year and up to ten years. It must be cases of harsh act or there must be sufficient objections to initiate a procedure, or within a three-month period as originally stated. However, this period was reduced to one month after amendment. The new procedure is primarily based on the deprivation of liberty or any other measure restricting the suspect’s liberty without initiating a judicial investigation. The draft shall choose a detention title that is valid for a maximum of seven days and shall be issued within twenty-four hours after the first detention. What is the course of the procedure? In the first instance, according to the procedure, if the Prosecutor’s Office has received a detention title, the defendant is summoned to appear before the correctional court. It must take a decision within seven days of the issuance of the arrest warrant or within five days of taking the matter into consideration. If these deadlines are not complied with, the defendant must be released immediately. The court then has three options. First, the defendant can be immediately acquitted or sentenced to a penalty. Secondly, witnesses may be summoned or a social investigation may be carried out. In this case, the court may postpone the case. However, this delay shall not exceed fifteen days from the first session. Third, the file may be returned to the Prosecutor’s Office due to the complexity of the case. Then, in principle, the common law will be applied again. In case of acquittal or conviction, an appeal can of course be applied. In that case, the time limit for appeal according to common law is fifteen days. Within fifteen days after the expiry of the time limit for appeal, the case must be fixed before the court. There is a reduced calling period. The case may be postponed before the court but the postponement period may not exceed fifteen days. The Court has a period of five days from the date of its meeting to make a judgment. This draft also provides for a number of safeguards for the accused. The defendant can immediately view the file and is immediately informed of the manner of appearance. This appearance may occur at the earliest four days after the issue of the arrest warrant. He can also consult his lawyer immediately and has sufficient time to consult with his lawyer. As stated above, the defendant is released if the appearance does not take place within seven days. The draft also focused on compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights. This procedure therefore fully complies with the requirements of the fundamental right to freedom and security, as well as those of a fair trial and the exercise of the rights of defence. The draft law provides for a set of safeguards aimed at complying with the provisions of the Convention. In addition to two bills, a bill was also discussed. In the title of this bill, the term “fast court procedure” was used. The applicant of the bill wishes to let the judiciary know a quick course. An immediate appearance is insufficient because both the suspect and the victim and society should know as quickly as possible where they are. Therefore, according to him, quality standards must be demanded and it must be demonstrated that such a procedure is possible. He added that this bill was already submitted in July 1998 following the violent incidents on the French football fields. Furthermore, he pointed out that high-speed law is already applied in all our neighboring countries. Then we went to the hearings. The following persons were heard in the committee: French magistrates who have communicated their practical experience with such procedure, representatives of the Flemish and French-speaking courts, representatives of the sitting and standing courts and French and Dutch-speaking representatives of the League for Human Rights. The draft was then discussed by the members. The general discussion revealed that many members had comments and concerns about these bills. Often the same criticisms and/or comments came back. I will list the main observations without this listing being considered complete; for this purpose, I refer to the written report. A widely heard criticism concerned the qualification and scope of this new law, often noting that single strokes and injuries cannot be addressed. Other comments concerned included questions for clarification and whether alternative punishments were not possible. Some wondered if the possibility of asking three judges would not complete the procedure and when and how this should be asked. It was also asked whether certain matters were deliberately held outside the scope of this law. It was alluded to the regulation on soft drugs and social conflicts. Other comments were made regarding the exclusion of the possibility of resistance. There were also comments on the appeal procedure and possible remedies in cassation. A number of committee members had comments and questions regarding the available resources in terms of personnel, logistics and the like. They also asked for clarifications on the penalty level and the selection of cases. Some wondered when a matter is simple? It was asked to clarify the concepts of heterdaad and toeri-known evidence. Some committee members also pointed out possible problems in connection with the course of the procedure. Other members raised questions regarding the evaluation of the 1994 fast court procedure and the compatibility between this procedure and the previous one. Attention was also paid to the rights of the defence and the victims. The question was asked whether on the ground it was checked whether one is willing to cooperate with this law. Other members spoke of an opportunity law while others approached this law in a more ethical-philosophical way. The Minister has responded to these comments. He noted that this was ⁇ not an opportunity law. Furthermore, he pointed out that this law was already prepared by the previous government and he also referred to the security loop in the Octopus agreement. Regarding the beats and injuries, he stated that this crime is rarely prosecuted in so far as it concerns single beats and injuries. As regards the simultaneous application with the service, a change was possible and this was therefore achieved through amendments. As regards the appeal to a chamber of three judges, this bill was amended, and more specifically as regards the period in which and the manner in which the request should be formulated. Furthermore, it was pointed out that it was not intended to use speed law following disorder in demonstrations, demonstrations and expressions of social discomfort. It was also noted that possession of drugs would not be prosecuted with the procedure of immediate appearance. As regards the criticism that an objection to an injunction judgment would not be possible, it was pointed out that this criticism is in the meantime obsolete by the case-law of the Court of Justice. This now provides the possibility that the defendant’s lawyer can hold a plea, even if the defendant does not appear. Regarding the concepts of the term and the three-month period, it was pointed out that somewhere a boundary had to be drawn, but that this point was also subject to change. Following the amendment, this period was reduced to one month. Specific rules were established regarding the assistance of a lawyer. This is also included in the final text. Regarding the resources, the Minister pointed out that additional personnel would be recruited, acting in phases. The amounts for additional resources for court buildings and prisons would be established as soon as possible. Regarding the arrest, it was also pointed out that the suspect should not remain in custody: he can also be released under conditions. With regard to the organization of the courts it was established that would be provided for special chambers at the courts for this assignment. I will talk about that. Regarding the overlapping with the procedure of appeal by process-verbal, it was stated that this offered a supplementary possibility which was perceived as useful. Therefore, the Prosecutor’s Office has several options and it will determine which one is most suitable for a particular case. As regards alternative penalties, it was pointed out that the principle of proportionality should always be observed. As regards the minimum limit, where crimes are punished with a main prison sentence of at least one year, it was pointed out that the one-year limit is suitable for the crimes to be brought before the court under this system. Then there is the judicial downturn. The introduction of this new possibility to intervene in criminal matters is not intended to counter the judicial lag. However, an evolution of this procedure and the functioning of the courts is necessary. Civil parties are also not harmed, as civil interests can be retained. Civil parties also have immediate access to the file. It was also pointed out that most neighboring countries have some form of highway law. The future will show whether the application of this procedure will lead to a more efficient justice. On the question of whether the field would like to cooperate, the minister replied that the magistrates were met and that they were all willing to cooperate on the project, provided, of course, that the necessary resources were made available. Then there is a period of seven days. Initially a five-day period was planned. It was extended to seven. This was done after discussions with stakeholders, especially at the request of the seated magistrates and the lawyer’s office. Then a number of members replicated this and in his replica the minister announced that an amendment on behalf of the government would be submitted on the expansion of the staff formation. In short, this covers three loops. The first part concerns the expansion of the staff formation within the framework of the reform-Franchimont. In particular, it concerns two councillors at the courts of appeal, five general lawyers at the courts of appeal, eighteen judges at the courts of first instance, twenty-three substitute prosecutors of the King and fifteen secretaries at the courts of first instance. As for the procedure of immediate appearance, work would be done in two phases. In the first phase, additional judges will be elected for each area of office. This means for Brussels five judges, five judges and five officials, for Antwerp and Luik there are three each and for Gent and Bergen two each. A similar extension would be granted to the parquets and also the number of secretaries and officials would be proportionally increased. In a second phase, 16 judges, 16 magistrates and 16 officials will be added, and the prosecutors will be strengthened with 15 substitutes, 12 secretaries and 18 officials so that a total of 30 magistrates of the Prosecutor’s Office will be charged with the procedure of immediate appearance. In order to make the position of additional magistrate attractive, a betting fee of 105 000 francs was envisaged. Some commissioners had problems with this. They wanted to know for sure whether the extension of the law-Franchimont would not be used for the application of this high-speed law and whether the earlier application of this procedure in certain arrondissements, in others, would not cause problems with the principle of equality and equality. The Minister then clarified and emphasized that the implementation of certain laws has already been progressively worked and that this would ⁇ not give rise to discrimination. Then followed the article discussion and the vote. The first draft law is the draft law no. 306, aimed at introducing a procedure of immediate appearance in the Code of Criminal Procedure. For the sake of completeness, I would like to point out that two articles-by-article discussions were devoted to this bill. As regards the amendments themselves, I expressly refer to the report. I am referring here only to the texts adopted by the committee. Article 1 regulates a matter as referred to in Article 78 of the Constitution. No amendments or comments were submitted and were therefore unanimously adopted. Article 2 is intended by the proposed insertion into the Code of Criminal Procedure to safeguard civil interests. This includes only the introduction of the text. An amendment to Article 216quinquies was submitted, which was adopted unanimously. Article 3 sets out the basis of jurisdiction so that the correctional court can apply the procedure of immediate appearance in first instance. An amendment was submitted and adopted. Article 3a was introduced as an amendment and became Article 4. It was adopted with 13 votes and 3 abstentions and provides for a time limit for appeal by the Prosecutor’s Office. I would like to draw attention to the fact that, despite the second reading, there is apparently still an error in the text mentioned on page 123 of the report. The French-language mention is correct, but apparently the Dutch translation is not exactly correct. Article 5, formerly Article 4, regulates the procedure for appeal against judgments in the context of this procedure issued by the correctional court. There were 9 amendments submitted, of which 2 were rejected, 2 were withdrawn and thus 5 were adopted. A new Article 4a was proposed by amendment, but rejected. Article 6 is the former Article 5. This article introduces a new chapter in the Code of Criminal Procedure, called immediate appearance. Article 216quinquies sets out the arrangements for the initiation of proceedings, the notification to the suspects, the notification to the victims for the protection of civil interests, the manner of making the file available and the deadlines for appearance. This article also stipulates that no objection is possible against the issued judgment. Article 216sexies regulates the case where the correctional court considers that the complexity of the case requires additional examination. It makes it possible to postpone the case, either to hear witnesses or to set up a social investigation. 17 amendments were submitted, of which 6 were rejected, 3 were withdrawn and 8 were accepted. Article 5a was submitted as an amendment, but was rejected. Article 7 is the former article 6 and adds a new chapter to the provisional detention law of 20 July. The relevant article 20bis of the provisional detention law defines a new procedure valid for the detention title in the immediate appearance procedure. This article defines the scope of application. It must, first, be a fact which is punished with a correctional main imprisonment sentence of 1 year, and which, in accordance with the law on mitigating circumstances, does not exceed 10 years, and, secondly, a crime discovered on the hefty act or in which the objections raised within the month following the commission of the crime are sufficient to bring the case before the court. The rights of the defence are also freed, as well as the right to access the documents. Thirty amendments were submitted, 11 of which were rejected and 3 withdrawn. The thus amended article was adopted. Article 6a was also submitted as an amendment and rejected. Article 8, the former article 7, provides that the defendant must be released if within 7 days of the arrest warrant, as recorded in this law, he has not been sentenced to an effective main prison sentence. One amendment was submitted, which was accepted. Article 9, originally submitted as an amendment to Article 7a, provides for amendments to the law on suspension, probation and postponement. This amendment includes the removal of the obligation of the social survey and the summary information report in the case of alternative penalties. This article, submitted as an amendment, was adopted. Article 10 was originally submitted as Article 7b and is fully consistent with the previous one. It was also submitted as an amendment and adopted. The last article stipulates the entry into force of the law. Subsequently, the discussion of the draft law no. and 307. Article 1 regulates a matter, as referred to in Article 77 of the Constitution, and as such regulates the constitutional basis. I would like to note that the bill, after discussion in the committee, received a new title, in particular the bill amending the judicial organization as a result of the introduction of an immediate appearance procedure. Article 2 is a supplement to Article 76 of the Judicial Code, which provides for the establishment of an additional chamber in the correctional court. This additional chamber regulates the new procedure of immediate appearance. 5 amendments and 2 sub-amendments were submitted. 2 amendments were repealed, 1 amendment and 2 sub-amendments were unanimously adopted. Article 2a, in the draft article 3 under voting, was submitted and adopted as an amendment. Article 3 is a new article. This article amends Article 26bis, paragraph 1, of the Judicial Code, which deals with the number of added judges per jurisdiction. While this was previously limited to 1/10 of the number of magistrates of the jurisdiction, this is now increased to 1/8. Article 4, originally Article 3, amends Article 91 of the Judicial Code, allowing the procedure for immediate appearance before the correctional court to be dealt with by a chamber of 1 judge, or a chamber of 3 judges. More specifically, it sets out a period within which the defendant must express this request, in particular at the latest before his first hearing on the merits. 6 amendments were submitted, of which 4 were rejected, 1 was withdrawn and 1 was accepted. Article 3a was submitted as an amendment, but rejected. Article 4 regulated the establishment of a special correctional chamber at the level of appeal, in accordance with Articles 101 and 109bis of the Judicial Code. Two amendments were submitted, one of which was aimed at deleting this article, so that the second amendment automatically expires. Article 4a, submitted as an amendment, became Article 5 and was adopted. It is the wager bonus awarded to the added judges and the added substitutes. The amendment submitted as Article 4ter, now Article 6, was adopted. It is a provision amending the Law on the Legal Institution. The existing column is replaced by the new list as shown on page 6, which lists the addition of the King’s Deputy Prosecutors by jurisdiction. The original Article 5, now Article 7, determines the date of entry into force of this draft law. In accordance with the Rules of Procedure, the amended texts were submitted to a second reading at the meeting of 10 February, which included a number of textual and technical adjustments. In conclusion, I can inform you that the committee adopted the amended and improved bill with 9 votes in favour and 6 abstentions. Added Bill No. Therefore, 40 was declared invalid. Amended and Improved Bill No. 2 was also adopted with 9 votes for and 6 abstentions. The report was approved by 9 votes for and 5 abstentions.

I thank the rapporteur for his proper report. The full report from yesterday’s plenary session with summary in the other language was distributed across all banks. Dames in heren, u weet wellicht dat momentel wordt gewerkt aan een snellere verschijning van de Handelingen. From day na de vergadering, you can dispose of a proefdruk. Collega's, voor de algemene bespreking van vandaag werden twenty-five sprekers ingeschreven. Twenty-five members participated in the general debate. As always, I make a proposal for the first ten. The sprekerslijst will be roundgedeeld. We’re starting a first series with which I don’t think we’ve finished this morning. I give the word to Mr. Van Parys, representative of the main opposition.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, it will be ⁇ difficult to respect the 30-minute speech time. I wonder if there are limits to this.

In principle, Mr Van Parys.

Then I will start immediately, Mr. Speaker, because my time is beginning to run. First and foremost, I would like to thank the rapporteur for the report he had to prepare in difficult circumstances. I would also like to express my gratitude to the services that have contributed significantly to the smooth progress of the work. It was not easy to work and later in my argument, Mr. Minister, I will return to the difficult circumstances in which this important draft had to be addressed. The CVP Chamber Faction is a convinced advocate of highway law. Indeed, we need to create an effective tool to tackle street crime because a large proportion of the population has a sense of impunity in relation to street crime. This impression of impunity undermines public confidence in the institutions in general and in the judiciary in particular, threatening to create a breach of confidence between the citizen and the government. People are getting more and more the impression that there is no response to street crime and that creates an intense impact on the social event. In this regard, it is sufficient – and it has been done in recent times – to speak to victims of all kinds of street crime, such as as assaults, vandalism, violent acts, theft and the like. We strongly support highway law as a response to street crime. We do not share the analysis of some magistrates and lawyers, who stated that in this way a certain form of crime is stigmatized. We believe it is important to prioritize investments in people and resources to tackle this street crime. In this way, we must be able to remove that impression of impunity. We were therefore very convinced supporters of the inclusion of highway law in the Octopus Agreement. We agreed on the basis of that agreement. We found it an important element, after the White March, to restore public opinion confidence in government and the rule of law. Mr. Minister, we are very surprised and disappointed that you did not invite us, within the framework of the Octopus Agreement, to participate in the discussions in preparation of the draft highway law. We have not received any invitation for this. You left us on the left. We regret this, Mr. Minister, ⁇ in the light of what was said yesterday in connection with the Octopus consultation. You have excluded us in this matter, Mr. Minister. You did not invite us, while you knew perfectly that the CVP faction could be an ally of you for the development of an efficient and effective highway law. You have lost an ally. We have often offered you in the various stages that led to the creation of this draft law. We deeply regret this. Through cooperation, we could have reached a broad consensus on an effective high-speed justice that would have actually denounced street crime. I now want to analyze the design as it presents today. Unfortunately, the design will not allow us to tackle street crime in an efficient way. Therefore, we are so sorry that you did not give us the opportunity to do this during the preparation of the design. At that point we already wanted to tell you that the current draft of highway law unfortunately does not allow a quick approach to street crime. This has mainly two causes. First, this speed law will not be applicable to violent crimes against persons. After all, it has been opted for a speed court with deprivation of liberty; this means that it is applicable to crimes with imprisonment sentences of more than 1 year. Therefore, the main violent crimes against persons, in particular the intentional beating and injury, will not fall within the scope of application of this law. Deliberate beats and injuries are punishable with a prison sentence of 6 months. This means that we will not be able to use this highway law when violent acts against persons occur. I think of attacked elderly people or people who are injured as a result of football violence, the people of the order services, for example. This is ⁇ regrettable because the design of the present draft is intended to combat precisely this type of crime.

Mr. Speaker, it is completely unacceptable for a former Minister of Justice to declare from the tribune that these forms of violence do not fall under the procedure of immediate appeal. Strikes and injuries inflicted by hooligans on police officers are equated to resistance and always fall under the application of the immediate appearance. As regards single strokes and injuries, it is correct that they do not fall within the scope of the immediate appearance procedure. They can be dealt with in the procedure on process-verbal. I challenge the former Minister of Justice from me to show how many of those cases are handled by the prosecutors. All these matters are systematically examined and never fall into a procedure of immediate appearance.

Mr. Speaker, if intentional beats and injuries are not prosecuted, we are facing a fundamental problem. Mr. Minister, you know perfectly well that from the evaluation that was made of the appearance on process-verbal it has been shown that 12% of cases fall under the current highway law. Your claim is completely false and is contradicted by the evaluation. I remind you of Article 398 concerning intentional beating and injury punishable by imprisonment from 1 month to 1 year. Anyone who attacks an old man or woman on the street at night and at night and at night will not be prosecuted by the procedure of the highway court.

I am not a former minister and ⁇ not a future minister of justice. I am just an ordinary lawyer. I have always been taught that night and storm are an aggravating circumstance and the prison sentence is more than one year. This is important because any aggravating circumstance causes violence to be prosecuted with its immediate appearance.

I repeat that intentional strikes and injuries do not fall within the scope of highway law. Injuries inflicted under any circumstances will not be able to be tackled with the highway right. A second important argument why the highway law will not be able to be applied to street crime in general, relates to the limitation of the application of this law to football cities. The Minister of Justice has opted for a phasing and has only made people and resources available for the application of the highway law in those places where Euro 2000 takes place. This means that street crime will only be able to be punished by high-speed justice in places where Euro 2000 takes place. If certain incidents occur in Gent or Kortrijk, we will not be able to have the instrument of high-speed law. Even with regard to football violence, it is clear that it is not necessary in football cities that incidents occur. If one is on the way from Germany to the competition in Charleroi and if one induces incidents on the train in Aarlen, it is sufficient to establish that there is no room for high-speed law in that district. The high speed law will not be applied there. The same problem arises if there are incidents with English supporters at the station of Gent-Sint-Pieters. There will also be no high-speed law. It is ⁇ regrettable that one has opted for a high-speed right that is exclusively focused on football violence and Euro 2000. The high-speed law state is therefore not intended to combat street crime in general. The Minister of Justice has failed to make resources available in places where no food balls will be made. This is a fundamental criticism, Mr. Minister, which I would like to hear you refute. However, the text of the law does not allow you to do so.

Colleague Van Parys, I have also formally denied this in the work of the Justice Committee. It is a phased completion. This does not mean that the other judicial districts cannot use it. During the one-month period during which the football party takes place, everyone in the police and judicial world will have to be stand-by. So one will ⁇ be able to act based on the procedure of immediate appearance. In addition, you know very well that, on the basis of the elements I have put forward, it is the Government’s opinion to complete the second phase as well. The government has allocated funds to complete this second phase. However, it also wants to evaluate the interim state in the five districts that are served first. This is not the first time that it has been done in phases. You also provided for phases in the Franchimont legislation. Therefore, you cannot say that this has not been introduced in all judicial districts.

Mr. Speaker, I fully support what colleague Van Parys says about the intention to effectively tackle street crime. One of the disadvantages of the design is that the lower limit is laid to one year of main imprisonment. You can then discuss aggravating circumstances. Colleague Van Parys, you say that it is an opportunity law, which in the first phase focuses only on football violence. You are asking whether we shouldn’t have started this much earlier. I asked you about this in 1998. At that time, you still believed that there was no need for a broader legal arsenal. The United Nations was the first to address this problem. We have submitted a bill on this subject. On March 8, 1999, you answered me literally that a broader legal arsenal did not seem necessary to you. I am pleased that you and your group are now convinced of the need. I agree with your criticism of the funds. Mr. Minister, when we hear that in this procedure assis procedures and appearances under detention should be addressed as little as possible, I wonder where we are going. Should the whole court be subordinated to what is called a football party? You are here too late and the resources will no longer be available on time for the intended football party. I agree with the criticism of colleague Van Parys when he says that phased work is not efficient. You cannot introduce a law that applies only to certain parts of the territory.

Colleagues, Mr Van Parys still has the word. If anyone wants to ask a question to the Minister, he will of course answer it.

I have no problem being interrupted from time to time. It can only benefit the debate. It is important that we gain insight. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, one cannot deny that the highway law, as it is proposed here, does not apply to strokes and injuries. Also, in the absence of the necessary people, it can not be applied in the places where no football is played. Mr. Minister, you are of course right that in theory the highway law can also be applied elsewhere. This will be at the expense of other matters and will lead to unequal treatment. In the one district, which will have a Chamber of Highway Justice because there is accidentally played football, victims of street crime will be able to get their case processed fairly quickly. In the other district, where football is not played, this will not be possible because there will not be established Chambers for High Court, unless this is at the expense of the normal handling of the files, which will increase the judicial lag there. However, this is completely irresponsible. By the way, it is very irrelevant, because there is an unequal treatment. The question arises whether this element of the law would resist the review of the principle of equality. I am not convinced of it, and that will be revealed at some point. In a spirit of constructive opposition – despite the rejection of my party from the Octopus discussion on highway law – the CVP has submitted an amendment to enable highway law on violent crimes against persons, in other words on the crime intentional beats and injuries. The underlying intent is to allow the high-speed law through this amendment in other arrondissements than where there is food ball. This amendment provides for the incorporation of the current high-speed law, with its appearance in the minutes of proceedings, in the current draft, precisely with the intention of obtaining the short trial period set out in the draft also for crimes with a sentence of imprisonment of less than one year. This amendment enables the criminal offence of intentional strikes and injuries to be dealt with within a period of 15 days. This amendment had the advantage that in this way the high-speed justice can be disconnected from the deprivation of liberty, allowing us to quickly process not only for crimes with a sentence of imprisonment of less than one year, but also creating the possibility to allow for crimes with a sentence of imprisonment of more than one year the instrument to appear on trial verbal. This would have meant that in this way the prosecutor’s office and the prosecutor’s office were provided with a wide range of opportunities to respond to street crime, due to the social relevance and the social disadvantage that the facts brought about. I think this is a very important instrument. In this way we respond to the criticism that has been expressed by many about the design. Furthermore, we have found in the committee that this amendment has gained broad consensus. Both Mr Coveliers and the Minister themselves felt that the amendment was an added value for the draft. To our great surprise, however, we had to conclude that they did not want to talk about it now because there is now no room for it. It was proposed that we should submit a bill on this subject. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, this is how this draft should be discussed in the Chamber’s Justice Committee. Imagine that when we discuss an amendment to an important draft, we are told that it is not the right time to talk about it and that we should do it at another time. When should a draft law be debated? When should the views be confronted if this is not possible at the time the bill is being discussed in the committee? That was the problem in dealing with this bill: under the influence of the government, it was chased by the Parliament at a great speed, making any discussion practically impossible. In addition, we were already banned from the Octopus discussion so that we were not present at the origin of the text. The way in which the Conference of Presidents has imposed a pace on the committee is not proper and was primarily motivated by the interests of the majority to approve this draft as soon as possible from fear that a long discussion would bring light to the discussions within the majority. A second reason why our amendment, which also aimed at resolving the violent crimes against persons subject to a quick court procedure, was denied, is the veto of the Socialist Party. Mr Giet’s observation that his group did not agree with this amendment was sufficient for the Minister of Justice to withdraw his support for the amendment. This is the red thread throughout the discussion of this bill: only what was tolerated by the PS was allowed. This is also demonstrated by the incident surrounding the security plan. The Minister had said that he would propose that plan in the Justice Committee. Apparently, this plan can be debated everywhere except in Parliament and this only and only because the chairman of the Socialist Party considers that this cannot be done. In this way, the discussion of this draft should be concluded. In the course of the discussions, we were confronted with a new dictatorship of the PS, which will possibly cause the highway right to fail on the ground. Under the present text, the defendant’s attorney at the hearing only has to request that the case be sent to a three-judge chamber in order to escape the high court. Concretely, this means the following. The facts show up. After seven days, the case must be dealt with by the court. The defendant’s lawyer asks for a reference to a chamber of three judges. This requires the case to be postponed. This means that the suspect must be released and the normal procedural deadlines begin to run. We pointed out to the Minister that a simple lawyer center was sufficient to make high-speed law impossible. He obviously understood this. We then submitted an amendment that stipulated that the question of getting the case to be dealt with by a three-judge chamber must be submitted in advance, whether or not to the prosecutor, at the moment when the accused is to be heard by the investigation judge. This could prevent the delay. That was interesting because in this way the trick of the lawyer asking for the treatment with three judges became impossible. What happened then, because history repeats itself and I fear it will repeat itself many times. Mr. Giet stated that he did not agree with this. A single fingercut was sufficient to encourage the Minister to withdraw the amendment he had submitted in this regard on behalf of the Government. In the spirit of constructive opposition, we submitted that amendment again. However, we had to conclude that the same amendment, which previously ⁇ the support of the government, was now rejected by the majority by the influence of Mr. Giet. The underlying purpose was to make fast-track law impossible. Mr. Giet, who is himself a lawyer, knows, of course, also that in the Wallish region it will be sufficient to request at the hearing a chamber of three judges in order to obtain that the defendant is released and that the normal deadlines will play, instead of the short deadlines included in the high court. Thus, the highway law can be bypassed in a simple way and the minister knew that. I understand, of course, that we will have a high-speed law that will not be applicable in practice and I understand why the PS can eventually agree to it. They are well aware of the possibilities. They undermined the essence of high-speed law. We discovered another problem in the fallrope. There has even been an attempt to evade highway justice from drug crimes, social conflicts and disorder. The government planned to make high-speed law unconstitutionally impossible for drug crimes and disturbance of public order. She did it in a double way. In the light of the preceding, the new procedure is not a legal remedy that can be usefully used to take a position in the context of public demonstrations or of disturbances of order due to social discomfort. In such situations, in fact, it lacks the necessary serenity to look in the right perspective at crimes which may be committed in connection with the exercise of the constitutional freedoms guaranteed. As a result, the Highway Law would not apply to public demonstrations and disturbances of order due to social discomfort. I invite you to think about the scope of this qualification. Any form of hooliganism can be qualified as a disorder due to social discomfort. The highway law, for example, will therefore also not apply to facts attributed to the surroundings of d’Orazio. These crimes were attempted to withdraw from the application of the high-speed law. Not only through the memorandum of explanation, but also through the reporting of the Council of Ministers, attempts have been made to change the scope of the law. During the discussion in Parliament, the Minister of Justice will specify that, in consultation with the College of Attorneys-General, he will issue the necessary directives to exclude social conflicts and matters related to the use of soft drugs from the scope of the preliminary draft. We have pointed out to the Minister of Justice that the scope of the law should not be changed by means of a memorandum of explanation or a report of the Council of Ministers. A Minister of Justice must be the guardian of the rule of law, le garde des seaux, he must ensure that law and law prevail. Fortunately, the Minister realized this. He has therefore stated that only the law applies and not what is stated in the memorandum of explanation or in the report of the Council of Ministers.

Mr. Van Parys says lawyers are wise people. I assume that he himself belongs to this category of people. I do not want to comment on this, but I must point out that the things here are completely misrepresented. Furthermore, Mr Van Parys bases his claims on a notification from the Council of Ministers. This finding proves that the loyalty of some bodies receiving notifications in their possession should be questioned. Of course, I am not talking about the Council of Ministers, but about other bodies. Of course, one likes to quote from such documents to make a claim. I have always emphasized clearly that it is the law that counts. A memorandum of explanation or a notification by the Council of Ministers has no force of law until further order. I come to the essence of the two comments. Mr Van Parys quotes incomplete. What is in between, he does not mention. In the note, there are conflicts that are an expression of social discomfort. According to Mr Van Parys, this is hooliganism. The text reads: for example, in the context of social or trade union conflicts. This note was added to the text because the Council of State has held that in certain circumstances it is constitutionally guaranteed rights, where serenity is often sought. My response to the second comment is even more fundamental and shows the perversity of the comment. It is intended to demonstrate that the drug offences fall outside the application of the procedure of immediate appearance. These crimes are now dealt with under a directive issued in 1998 by Mr. Van Parys while he was Minister of Justice. Although we believe that the Drug Directive needs to be evaluated and adapted, it remains provisional. This is fully in accordance with Article 146ter of the Judicial Code, which deals with criminal policy. Of course, it is not our intention, Mr. Speaker, to let those who commit drug crimes or distribute drugs escape the immediate appearance. This is what the Parliament is now trying to keep. This is completely wrong, and I have also said this to colleague Van Parys. I can, however, assume that in a public assembly one tries, by this manner of representation, to remove the present draft from its essence.

Mr Van Parys has the word. Due to the many interruptions, you will be given five minutes extra speaking time, Mr Van Parys, but I still urge you to terminate your presentation.

I am obliged to respond to what the Minister has said. I am very surprised, Mr. Minister, that you draw here to the fact that we are in possession of a report from the Council of Ministers. I thought that in the context of the transparency that this government and the purple-green majority preach with so many words, it was obvious that we could have an official document! I challenge you, members of the Chamber, to oppose me in this. Is this an official document, especially the report of the Council of Ministers? What is the problem here? Is it a problem that the CVP group is in possession of an official document or is it a problem, Mr. Minister, that in a report of the Council of Ministers, one tries to change the scope of the law? You are referring to the Softdrugs Directive. This is not about setting priorities. You say and I quote issues related to the use of soft drugs to exclude from the scope of the pre-design. It was therefore intended, and I would like to accuse it here in all cases, on the one hand, through the memorandum of explanation and, on the other hand, through a report of the Council of Ministers, to change the scope of the law. Mr. Minister, when you use the word perversity, I should replicate it, but I do not like to take these words in my mouth at all and I refuse to do so. What is the reason of existence, colleagues, of this memorandum of explanation and of the report of the Council of Ministers? They represented the guarantee requested by the PS and the Greens to agree to this draft, because it had been said that this bill would not apply to social conflicts and disorders of order. We have already heard this during the discussion of the draft law on the criminal organizations, where the Greens had asked not to apply the highway law to the use of soft drugs, nor to matters related to it. This is the reason for the introduction of this provision and one has gone so far that, by means of political compromise, through the memorandum of explanation and through the report of the Council of Ministers, one has attempted to amend the law. We are delighted that we, with the CVP faction, have broken through this construction and thus have been able to prevent a violation of the basis of legal norms. The PS and the Greens have been informed. The Minister has once again confirmed it is the law, and only the law that counts. The Chairman of the Committee has confirmed this, which is evident. This means, therefore, that when the PS, Agalev and Ecolo approve this bill, they know or should know that the highway law will apply to all matters related to the use of drugs and soft drugs and that the highway law will also apply in case of disorder and social conflicts. We are delighted with this, but they will probably not be so delighted with it.

Mr. Van Parys, can I ask you to finish? I gave you about ten minutes extra speech time for the interesting interruptions.

It is not just about the interruptions in themselves. They also require an interruption of reasoning and a reaction. In the committee, we did not have the opportunity to debate this draft law thoroughly. This has been refused to us. You yourself assume a certain responsibility for this by imposing a pace in which we could only correct the many negligences. You will not deny me the right to say at this occasion what we are doing.

Of course not. If your group chairman says that other speakers of your group will hold a little shorter, I have no problem with this.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Creyf tells me that she is willing to give a part of her speech time to Mr. Van Parys.

Ladies and gentlemen, I follow your thinking. Mr. Van Parys, however, I note that excess is harmful, in any case, and therefore also in terms of time.

I leave the appreciation to you. When, in the course of the discussions, it turned out that the Minister of Justice's faulty attempts to bypass the law with a report from the Council of Ministers and the explanatory memory failed, it turned out that Ecolo-Agalev and the PS were in trouble. That is why we read today in La Libre Belgique that this draft, according to Deputy Prime Minister Onkelinx, is registered on the passive side of the functioning of this government. We still have a while to wait if we know that they have already succeeded in obtaining through the procedure that the speed right will not be able to be applied in reality. They have already obtained that, and now they say again c ̧a s'inscrit au passif du gouverne-ment. That is the unity in diversity in relation to this design due to the majority. For the sake of Ecolo-Agalev, I would like to refer to how Eddy Boutmans thinks about highway law. When he was not yet in the government but a very active lawyer at the bar in Antwerp appeared in the newsletter of the League for Human Rights an article under the title Eddy Boutmans: Fast law is a right, fast law smells of injustice. I would like to point out the vision of Ecolo-Agalev on this bill. Mr. Minister, that is reflected in this bill that has been stripped of its essence. It will not give us the opportunity to do what we want and should do, namely fight street crime. Due to the arrangement of the work, we were not able to discuss our amendment. We have amended our amendment to two fundamental comments of the Minister. Even then, at the moment it met his insights, one did not want to discuss it. What have we done? We have had to remove more than a hundred negligences from the text. I would like to pay tribute to the Chairman of the Committee on Justice, who has made sure that today we should not blush for the sake of the text. The Chairman of the Justice Committee has assumed the capacity of Cabinet Chief of the Minister of Justice. He has permanently jumped into the breeze and he has completely rewritten one bill and made 47 corrections to the other bill. I would like to pay tribute to the Chairman of the Commission because I am convinced that we need to make good legislative texts. It is unheard of that only in the committee we were given the opportunity to remove the negligence from the text. It involved more than 100 negligences, amendments, adjustments and amendments on thirteen articles. We have evaluated the Franchimont law and it has shown that this law works excellently. The Minister has even said that there is no need for additional people and resources. All this to give you a picture of the quality of this legislation. Some members of the opposition at the time were, by the way, not really disliked by this bill. It is thanks to the pace imposed by the chairman of the committee that we were able to complete our work so quickly. But even that was not enough. During the reading of the report, we must have found that there is at least a clear inconsistency in the text. This is the result of the way we have worked. Colleagues of the majority, you must take your responsibility for this clear inconsistency. You will have to approve an amendment if you want to remove this inconsistency unless you do not give a glance at the quality of the legislation. If you approve this amendment in the plenary session, it means that the final vote will not be possible today, tomorrow or aftermorrow. I repeat, 100 negligences and then we must read in the policy note of the Minister of Justice that we need to improve the legal quality of our legislation! This speed will be a failure. This speed is a flop. First, it will not be able to be applied to various forms of street crime. Second, the highway law will not be able to be applied to football violence that takes place outside the football cities. Finally, the highway law will also not be able to be applied to punish the crime intentional strikes and injuries if those strikes and injuries are committed to, for example, an elderly person or members of the law enforcement services. For all these reasons, the CVP will not approve these bills. However, we will not vote against it because we want to give a clear signal once again that we remain a principled supporter of the high-right. But then there is a high-speed law that is able to curb street crime. What will happen to this type of high-speed law? It will give people the illusion that we can deal with street crime in this way, but the cat will be big. Mr. Minister, this bill will come back like a bumerang in your face. The disappointment will be great and people will again lose their trust in the rule of law, the Parliament and the government. This will again be the reason for voting out on extreme parties. We advocate for a highway law that effectively solves the problems that arise in the cities, in the streets, in the neighborhoods and in the neighborhoods. It is especially regrettable that this high-speed law will not provide this solution. Nevertheless, at many times we were very strong and very willing to make our positive contribution to make the highway law efficient. However, this was not wanted.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Ladies and Gentlemen, first of all, I would like to allow me to comment not on the immediate appearance procedure but on the adopted parliamentary procedure. Indeed, it was too hasty, incomplete and uncertain. First, this procedure has been hastened: when one touches a text of procedure - repeatedly, our colleague Giet cited Professor Franchimont who said that criminal law is the right of the bandits; the right of procedure is the right of honest people, which is an obvious reality - it is appropriate to take time for consultations, hearings and reflection. Now, I find that auditions have been limited, that academic opinions have been deprived, that the positions of specialists have been completely swept away – I recall the holding of a colloquium of the ULB which has been called a colloquium of intellectuals, but fortunately that there is one to reflect on the law – and, on this plan, we have missed the opportunity to touch such texts only with the necessary prudence. The opinion of the future permanent audit body, which has just been established, has not even been requested; however, it would have been a good first for the Higher Council of Justice to be able to give an opinion on what will have an impact on the functioning of justice. Parliamentary process was incomplete. For me, a mystery remains: within the commission, in 1994, during a first attempt to develop a law on the procedure for immediate appearance, a few senators accompanied the minister in Paris. Curiously, it was said that as a result of this visit, it was considered, minister included, that the procedure in question was not ideal, that it brought nothing. In reality, the partisans, all confused groups, were stunned by the way this justice was performed, and the minister removed this part of his project. One question I still ask myself and to which no clear answer has been given is whether, between 1994 and 2000, the rights of defence were considered as accessories in our democratic society and whether what was frightening in 1994 became ordinary in 2000. In any case, I find that we did not want to supplement the information with a new visit. Finally, the procedure was uncertain: I remain convinced that, on the technical level, there are still a lot of questions. A simple example: the Court of Appeal has the right to return a file to the Attorney General; if the Attorney General does not respond within fifteen days to the request to apply or not to apply the new procedure, there is no clear answer. The situation will be difficult because, if the court does not pronounce itself, it will leave pending, in a conflict that becomes a settlement of judges or a conflict of competence, a judicial decision of which appeal has been made.

Mr. Viseur, if you analyze the texts, you have to do it correctly. The procedure used by the Court of Appeal is the one used generally. If it continues the proceedings initiated, the Court must observe certain deadlines. On the other hand, if the Court returns the file to the Attorney General for information, it is no longer bound by the scheduled deadlines. The Court of Appeal has no other obligation than to place the file within the stipulated time limits, namely fifteen days and a situation period of two days. He must give his sentence within these deadlines. If, on the other hand, it considers that the file is incomplete, it sends it back to the Attorney General. Then follow the normal procedure. If the detainee is sentenced in first instance to a fixed prison, he has the possibility of requesting his release to the Court, as provided for in the normal procedure. If he does not, he remains in custody. If it is free, it remains and the procedure continues. Gender should not be confused.

Mr. Erdman, we have long debated all this in the committee. My conviction remains the same with the State Council as regards the general principles. I was told that the double degree of jurisdiction was not a general principle. France has just given us a good indication in this regard since it has aligned itself with the obligations of all European countries and has instituted the double degree of jurisdiction at the level of the Court of Assises. But I remain convinced that if we really want to establish the double degree of jurisdiction, we must give the Court of Appeal exactly the same power as the court of first instance and that the Court of Appeal may consider that there is no matter to apply the procedure of immediate appearance. In this case, if there is no annulment of the judgment, you claim that we will find ourselves in the normal situation. This is not my opinion since a judgment provided that this procedure was applicable. The Court of Appeal cannot in your thesis have the same role as that assigned to the court of first instance, namely the referral to the prosecutor’s office, not for further instruction, but because the court considers that this procedure is not applicable. Jurisprudence will ⁇ divide us, but the questions that remain on this plan lead to an uncertain parliamentary procedure. After receiving the opinion of the State Council, we could have asked experts, in particular Mr. Franchimont, who in recent years has been involved in reforming the entire criminal procedure, what was the correct interpretation in this regard. You never take enough precautions when it comes to people’s freedom. Now to the content of the project. I don’t want to fall into the trap of circumstances. We are told that everything must be accelerated and the State Council is shaken like we want to shake the parliament because in reality, this law first responds to the requirements of Euro 2000 and the need of citizens for quick and accelerated justice. Anyone who opposes this rhythm and denounces the vices of this approach is automatically taxed with laxism. He is accused of hindering the smooth run of Euro 2000 and of favouring the maintenance of excessively long deadlines in the processing of files. I would like to say from the beginning that we will not fall into this trap. We are all - this was also one of the conclusions of the Octopus on justice supporters of quick, equitable justice, of a social response to a number of facts that disturb society. One of the duties of democracy is to give this response within a reasonable time. That said, the project as submitted does not aim at that. We are in the presence of a law of circumstance and, whenever we do so, circumstances pass and the law is used for other purposes. It has been avoided to examine a fundamental question that has been asked several times in history: is immediate justice a good justice, is it part of our body of democratic texts, or is it a derivative, with the consequences that must be attached to this word? I would like to quote in this regard a philosopher of law who said, speaking of the procedure, I quote: The procedure is the institutionalization of prudence, the establishment of a truce, the time of reflection that gives its chances to doubt. Another said: The procedure, in a democratic society, is a machine to slow down the response time, to cool the impulses and emotions. This is the civilizational role of law in a democracy. I think that the problem posed from the beginning and eventually considered by you as an acquired data calling no answer is whether immediate justice – I’m not talking about quick justice – is, in our democratic society – and I suppose we are here many who want to defend it – an adequate answer? I will begin with a general reflection, but with an afflicting banality. We are in a system that will organize around a response of society that, whether we like it or not, goes sociologically and due to the little time that magistrates have at their disposal, to be essentially a response that will be prison. While prison is sometimes a necessary response, it often remains a solution in deceiving the eye. No modern society can organize itself without prison, but – and we have all seen it in commission – the prison universe is not a place of healing, it does not put an end to criminality or violence. On the contrary, it is well known that the latter is developing there. Let me take an example that has been cited, that is the United States. There are currently 1.8 million prisoners, or more than 450 prisoners per 100,000 inhabitants. Belgium, which has 8,500 prisoners, has a proportion more than five times lower. Are American cities safer? I think the answer is obvious: American cities don’t seem safer than ours. As a Canadian professor recently showed, criminologists attribute the first cause of such a prison rate to a twist in public opinion and repressive discourse. Nevertheless, a turn around history shows in reality that daily violence has always been numerous and always poses big problems. What has changed is that people feel them harder. This phenomenon must be taken into account. Surveys show that more and more Americans are thinking that crime has thus become the major problem and, automatically, that penalties are not severe enough. The American political world understands the message that some learn at their own expense that the safest way to lose the election is to give an impression of not reacting abruptly to situations like this. Gradually, the language becomes muscular, it becomes more and more muscular, it incites the magistrates to request most often prison sentences, to depart from those alternative sentences of which we talk so much, and the judges to pronounce prison sentences. So this situation, which is a reality in the United States that has accompanied a typical slide of this immediate will for justice, shows that it is important to ring the alarm. Justice is not simply the answer to the feeling of insecurity. By accelerating procedures, which become so fast that they become immediate, paradoxically, this sense of insecurity is reinforced and the more prisoners there are, the more the will is to expand the repression. In this case, we are in the presence of a justice that will necessarily be a two-speed justice. Why Why ? Because the judicial backwardness is still very real and a procedure is being launched, equipped, of course, with new means for magistrates, but not for the entire criminal chain, which will very quickly cause a clutter. We have 8,500 prisoners for 7,600 seats. In this case, one must remain consistent with oneself, acknowledging that one goes much further and that one is oriented towards a system, where repression by prison measures prevails over accompanying. I would also like to refer to this article, signed by Michel Vandekerckhove, which was distributed to us at the beginning of the review, article on the acceleration of criminal justice and the processing in real time, and remind that at all stages of the development of the law, the problem has systematically arisen: are they resorting to immediate or immanent justice or are they managing time to result in progress in the field of justice: to fulfill the objectives of criminal law, ⁇ in two major functions, namely to give the victim the place and the reparations to which it is entitled and, on the other hand, to move towards a treatment that corrects, which reinserts the person, since this is the goal of correctional justice since the beginning of the modern era? I will not give you the full text. According to ancient thought, a certain period of time is needed before justice can be rendered. The author quotes Socrates as an example of this Greek philosophy which consisted in saying that there should not be immediate justice. According to Montesquieu, the codes of the law never obey better than when they go step by step. The lengths of justice are the price each citizen pays for his freedom. So it is too simple to evacuate the debate, while it has existed since the dawn of civilization and from this debate come the answers, the least of which one can say is that they are nuanced. The authors I quote are still authors who weigh on the reflection and on the development of our democracy. When the same Montesquieu says When a man becomes more absolute, the first thing he thinks of is to simplify the laws so that they are applied more directly, he thus translates one of the underlying dangers of your project. According to modern doctrine, every criminal case takes a certain time. The work of decanting evidence requires time for the truth to emerge and for the rights of defence and freedom to be respected. Precipitation, in procedure as elsewhere, is a wicked defect. The accelerated procedure in criminal matters presents the permanent risk of infringement of the rights of defence and the risk of overobjectivation, i.e. the determination of the measure of the penalty to give excessive importance to the fact committed, at the expense of the examination of the defendant’s personality. This is one of the major differences between French law and Anglo-Saxon law. The latter objective.

The comments of Mr. Viseurs are wise, especially when he quotes great authors. But, Mr. Viseur, you feel, like me, in this context the respect of the judge. Keep in mind that the entire system traced in this project has three filters; it may have been too little emphasized. First, there is the public prosecutor, who chooses his path in the procedure. Then, the investigation judge allows him to continue on this path or not. Finally, there is the judge of the bottom. Now, you affirm that once a procedure has been put in place that just allows to go faster – and under reservation since we still have to see what it means to go faster – there will be no more substantial judgment; if you allow me a game of words: there will be no more jugeote of the judge. The law gives him the opportunity to use this power. As soon as he finds that there is a need to hear witnesses, he will return the case. Moreover, if the case is complex, it can stop the process. You seem to consider that at that time this judgment will inevitably lead to repression. On the other hand – and I join the philosophical background of your thesis – I would like to admit that the word immediate sounds bad. However, this is not the term that should have been used; I will return to it in my speech. The title of the project was wrongly chosen. But given the slowness we know, we can still say that this is a reasonable timeframe. However, it is always said that the affairs must be handled within a reasonable time. Unfortunately, in Europe, what was meant as reasonable has not been defined.

Mr. Erdman, I see well the logic that leads the great jurist that you are to consider that the judge is that man who, cut off from any consideration other than respect for the law, pronounces his decision. I hardly dare to say it to you: I wonder if you should not read Marx again. For if there is someone who has demonstrated the difference between the formal text and the reality of law and autonomy – very relative to the wills and behaviors – it is Marx. One can say that Marx is dead, but I would not dare to commit this crime against the left of this assembly. For example, the justice of the nineteenth century, for which I have unlimited admiration, rested on texts where individual freedom found exceptional protection. And you and I will agree that, in a number of cases, the sociological weight that weighed on the judges led the latter to make decisions that encouraged authors – and not all of the Marxists – to consider that the justice of the nineteenth century was a justice where the autonomy of wills and behaviors was very relative. History is important, Mr. Minister. It teaches us that many times we have wanted immediate justice and every time we have repented. Nevertheless, I really think that your project is imposed on paper as an obvious. And I even believe that in a number of cases, judges, members of the Prosecutor’s Office, judges of instruction, judges of the bottom, will happily apply the filter they are equipped with, in order to avoid many excesses. But I also believe that social pressure — as soon as this new mode of procedure exists — can only be exercised against a certain social class. This is also the great lesson that our French hosts gave us and it is ⁇ also the lesson that you were able to learn from your trip to Paris in 1994, as well as the one faced by all those who attended procedures of immediate appearance abroad. Indeed, a gap is necessarily created, at a certain moment, between the beauty and purity of law, on the one hand, and the social reality, on the other hand, a gap that — and you will still excuse me to refer to this author — Marx had rightly denounced. Regarding the second point, I would confess my full agreement on the fact that slowness accompanied by some impunity remains an obviously shocking reality. In this regard, I allow myself once again to address the left of this assembly to remind them that humanism has very often generated a very great shyness with regard to the need to accelerate this type of procedures. However, as we have said in the committee, and as I have repeatedly recalled, there are already texts, methods for achieving this acceleration, and some courts – when their frameworks are complete and when their size allows it – are already able to deliver justice in a fair manner and in a quick and reasonable timeframe. I will conclude on this aspect by quoting Michel Vandekerckhove again: It is necessary that the virtues of deepening the notion of reasonable deadlines return - in both directions, for example. The confrontation of the main arguments invoked throughout history, respectively in favor of slowness and speed, suggests that the temporality proper to criminal justice is not a simple temporality, i.e., reducable to a single dimension, whether that of an endless duration or that of pure instantaneity. It is, on the contrary, a necessarily complex temporality, giving righteousness to the divergent demands between which a permanent dialectical tension seems inevitable. To the question of how much time must pass between the commission of the criminal offence and the judicial response it will be the subject of, one can only answer in the manner of the famous French humorist: a certain time or a certain duration. Without being able to assign him an invariable time, this certain duration can only be situated between precipitation and tergiversation, between prematurity and tardivity. In this regard, I believe that we already have in our law the instruments that allow us to position ourselves exactly between prematurity and tardivity. I think here, with this new bill, we find ourselves in prematurity. Certainly, it is necessary to avoid delay, and this for the reasons we have mentioned; but in my opinion, your text, Mr. Minister, does not respond to it. Before going back to the consequences of the Euro 2000, I would like to explain to you the fundamental reasons for our objections. The first is the fact that the new procedure is so broad that its adoption gives a white-seek to the prosecutor’s office, the King’s Prosecutor and the College of General Prosecutors. It is true that your project is part of an evolutionary framework and that it is only a point or outcome or development. Nevertheless, I remain convinced that this bill – because of its width of application and because of the fact that it wishes to apply to punishable acts from a correctional imprisonment of a minimum of one year to a maximum of ten years – actually recognizes to the prosecutors general and to the prosecutors a power that you have also called a filter. For my part, I do not want to forget the long debates during which the need to guarantee the equality of the parties before the judge was reminded: how many times have we, indeed, you and I, denounced the fact that the physical preeminence of the prosecutor’s office does not correspond to its role? The prosecution is a continuing part as the defence is a defending part. It is the judge who is above the plaintiffs, not the prosecutor. Here we are witnessing a real shift. This, of course, has not escaped the State Council which indicates that the true scope of the proposed law will eventually be drawn by the College of Prosecutors General and the Minister of Justice. It is not anodin at all. This is an exceptional procedure, depriving of liberty and derogating from common law, which will be applicable tomorrow to virtually any criminal act. The State Council adds that leaving such power to the Prosecutor’s Office is not in accordance with the principle of Article 12 of the Constitution which provides that no one can be prosecuted except in the cases provided by the law and in the form prescribed by it. The legality of the law of the criminal procedure is the duration of the legality of the criminal law. The legislature has the monopoly of creating the rules of criminal procedure. As the Council of State says, this principle consists in particular in reserving to the legislative power the rules of repression, in investing the parliament of the exclusive competence to determine the offences or penalties, as well as the forms in which the prosecution must take place. And the State Council recalled that it is up to the Parliament, and only to the Parliament, to establish the distinctions necessary to fix at least the essential lines of the criteria allowing to bring together, from the point of view of the substance, different categories of offences in order to submit them to a prompt procedure while safeguarding the individual freedom. It is therefore a choice between, on the one hand, the principle of the list and, on the other hand, the extension aiming only at the penalty. I sincerely believe that on this level we are going too far and that we are undermining the rights of the Parliament and this essential role of the legislator. Ministers pass, prosecutors remain, but they may sometimes have priorities, ⁇ legitimate, but that are not the priorities that democracy gives parliament. One of the major deviations of this text is that it has expanded and has not followed the principle of the list recommended by the State Council. I will return a little about Euro 2000 – we have long discussed it in the committee – simply saying: beware of deception. Most of the infringements concerned will be accompanied by aggravating circumstances provided for in Article 400, requiring a period of more than seven days. This was clearly indicated through the reaction to beats and injuries. I come to the second major objection. Like France, the bill under discussion will be mainly applied to a certain type of audience, namely the excluded and the marginal, in short, the most fragile. It is a targeting of the public that will result in a justice of the poor – in France, we talk pudiently of criteria of sociability – who will find themselves in a state of revolt and not of correction. I think this is a serious regression. I do not believe that in France, despite the locks that have been installed, we are witnessing on this plan to a true fair justice. By reducing the deadlines to their simplest expression, the law will not respect neither the rights of the victim nor those of the defence. The rights of the victim in the first place, because if the text provides for the assistance of a lawyer, the preservation of civil interests and the immediate communication of the arrangements relating to the appearance, the time left to the victim to organize adequately in order to defend its rights during the procedure is too limited. This aspect is not obvious. The same problem arises in France where the answer is the mobilization of a whole series of elements, whether it is forensic doctors 24 hours a day or special tasks given to the police. This will not be the case here. In this way, the rights of defence will also be achieved in the victim’s head. Second element, the French had estimated that one of the essential locks was the three-judge chamber. It is possible, but it is not mandatory and I regret it. Indeed, systematically planning college rooms is really acknowledging that we are in an exceptional procedure and that is important. The real problem behind all this is that of the too long deadline currently due to the judicial delay. How can one make me believe that this is the problem that we want to solve when, according to the latest statistics, a fifth of the vacant positions at the prosecutor’s office are not occupied and that in Brussels – which is the ideal place for a procedure of this type – 30% of the positions of magistrates are not occupied? Only a coherent and comprehensive approach to judicial backwardness and methods to use to reduce it would be a true answer. For this, it is not necessary to overturn the general principles of law, it is enough to provide, where it is necessary - ⁇ in Brussels - the vacancies.

If it’s as easy as you say, why haven’t you done it in the last twelve years?

We did this during a part of this period. Faced with the problem, you have appointed a commission, composed on a linguistic level, which has given you a simple solution to resolve the judicial backdrop in Brussels. You did not use this opportunity. Do not blame us for what you are unable to do. When you are in government, it is, in principle, to do better than the previous ones. The same goes for criminal proceedings, they are supposed to improve what was done before. You are supposed to improve what the previous government has done, but I find that you are unable to unlock the situation, despite the simple solutions that are offered to you. I would like to point out a last point, namely the overpopulation of prisons. This is an ideal ground for recurrence and for the development of crime. I will conclude by saying that this project is extremely curious in its treatment. This morning, I read, like all of you, what Vice Prime Minister, Ms. Onkelinx, says about this bill: the immediate appearance will be put to the passive of the government. This is an example of a new political culture where, while one can prevent an act that is said to be passive, one merely says it. Communication may be good, but it is from non-assistance to law in danger to say that it is bad and then to refrain from acting. In the general revision of the Criminal Code, we should ⁇ include this new offence: non-assistance to law in danger! I measured, during the general discussion, the extent to which a number of political groups expressed what I pudiently would call a discomfort. This was true of the liberals (not of the VLD but of the PRL), of the ecologists, with some nuances of the SP, ⁇ of the PS. The conclusion is again very clear, it is a passive. What you ask us is to add to the passive, and therefore to vote a passive text in what seems to be an active social state. Finally, on the judicial level, we come to a passive social state, and in any case to negative elements. I really think we are here in the presence of pure and simple exchange. It is clear, and it was announced yesterday, that the VLD needs this text to assert itself against the Vlaams Blok in Flanders. This concern, which has nothing to do with improved justice or a more just society, leads to what cannot even be called a compromise. In fact, a compromise is attacking a text by trying to make it pass a number of nuances, keys, locks that allow two extreme positions to find themselves on a common position. This logic of compromise, very healthy in democracy, even if it requires some effort, is replaced by the logic of exchange, which is profoundly detrimental since in the end, it succeeds in multiplying the passive. Obviously, a part of the majority will probably say that compensation for this must also be included in the government’s liability. Finally, it will no longer be a question of putting in balance the asset and the liability but the different liabilities that each has added. To be serious, I return to what, however, constitutes the freedom of the individual and the will of society, according to which the essential mission of justice is to remind the right, to make it known, to remind the norm and to make known what is commonly accepted by the national community, while being aware of the barriers proper to certain behaviors. I now come to the second fundamental task of criminal law and criminal procedure. This mission consists in restoring the rights of the victim by taking into account its situation, its peculiarities and taking care not to hurt it. Indeed, if this is not the case, she will not have the time, for example, to choose a lawyer and will have to settle with a lawyer committed by office. It will also not be able to gather all the evidence and there will be prosecution of cause, i.e. additional costs. The third mission of justice, to which we are ⁇ attached as Democrats, lies in the attempt to analyze personalities, to seek, through these personalities, the best path for the reparation of the damage and the reintegration of the person into society. Whoever manages to complete this mission in four, five, six, or seven days will be a magician or will have given only one answer. We will face a flagrant crime with evidence that will have been gathered in a short time. We will find ourselves in the presence of a rebellious person completely unable to accept the law and to bow to it. Whatever is said, one of the major functions of the instruction procedure is, in particular, to create this time of reflection. This is the reason why, behind the arrest warrant, one often finds a pedagogical virtue in the time needed to make the perpetrator accept the reality of the crime committed, his responsibility in the facts and examine his situation. All this will be swept for a certain category of people. As the newspaper Le Soir summarized, after the hearing of foreign specialists and magistrates, we will find ourselves in the presence of an unnecessary, impractical and dangerous law. So I agree to say that this constitutes passive but I will add that, in my opinion, it is a serious passive in a democracy. That is why we do not agree to this text.

I would like to tell Mr. Seeing that Ms. Onkelinx is not the master of thinking of the liberals and that, as far as we are concerned, this project will be put to the asset and not to the passive of the government.

Mr. Viser, I would like to point out that I have let you overflow your speech time because Mr. Viser. Smets promised to be brief.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to express my dissatisfaction with the progress in this House. We must have found that the members of the majority parties carry out their functions in a manner all but impartial. I am speaking in the first place about the hopelessly incompetent PRL-er D'hondt, the deputy chairman of the Committee on Home Affairs, who on Tuesday deprived the Flemish Bloc of its democratic right of speech.

Mr. Laeremans, I would like such issues to be addressed in the Conference of Presidents. I repeat for the last time that 150 Chamber Members sit here.

Of course, Mr. Speaker, but my next statement was addressed to you. I find it intolerable that you yesterday deprived me of the democratic right to interrogate the Prime Minister here about the rejection of Minister Verwilghen, although my question was submitted in a regulatory manner and in a timely manner. You have thus entered the Rules of Procedure. I never expected this from you. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, I will now talk about the highway law or, as we call it in townhouse language, the immediate appearance. I must admit that we have had a lot of pleasure in this debate. The fact in itself that this debate is being conducted we consider as a victory. The link was continuously linked to the insecurity in the cities and the response to it, in particular the unstoppable progress of the Flemish Bloc. The demand for a much faster response to crime and a radical approach to urban criminals comes indeed from the Flemish Bloc. It is therefore not a coincidence that someone like Tony Van Parys continually referred to the upcoming municipal elections and to the great need to introduce the highway law, as a response to urban crime, as a means to give people hope and as a means to pull the wind out of the sails from the extreme right. After all, Tony Van Parys fears that the CVP in the Arteveldestad will not be able to climb out of the deep valley due to a new victory of the Flemish Block and will be referred to the opposition banks for the third time. The most fierce opponents were, of course, on the other side of the political spectrum. In the first place we find them back on the Wall side, where almost unanimously a storm of protest rose against the yet very modest plans of the Minister of Justice. Once again, it has been shown that the real conservatives of this country are located mostly south of the language boundary and the will to change there is extremely minimal. Then there were also the French-speaking and Flemish leagues that called themselves with quite a pretension as the leagues for the Rights of Man. I would like to stop for a moment, not because I find those organizations so high-ranking or because I wake up from those people, on the contrary, but because it was once again necessary to bring those so-called experts to Parliament for hearings, while these people, and more specifically the tragicomic duo Beauthier and Pataer, speak merely on their own behalf and have in no way added anything meaningful to the debate. What do these leagues offer? What are they more than small clubs of extreme-left individuals, absolute margins, a whole bunch of frustrated politicians or former politicians of the battle of Frans Lozie, Lode Van Outryve or Paul Pataer, who have long been taken seriously in their parties. Again, they come up with their late story about class justice, about the fact that street criminals – and therefore quite a few foreigners – would from now on be more likely to be punished, what they naturally call an unacceptable discrimination. It even became extraordinarily hilarious when the fanatical Beauthier accused that the people without papers - without legal residence here - who commit criminal acts would now be more likely to disappear behind the rails out of fear that otherwise they would hide. This is also a discrimination, according to the League. These so-called Human Rights Leagues have not yet understood today that the right to safety is also a human right, and that the immediate release of gangsters and criminals is therefore more against human rights than putting them behind locks in time and long enough. The leagues have apparently still not understood that they themselves, together with their representatives, such as Lode Van Outryve and Eddy Boutmans in the past, are significantly responsible for the total chaos in the inner cities that occurs today. By repeatedly breaking down our criminal justice system and our prison system, by massive early release and repeatedly demanding collective grace, they have undermined and ridiculed our entire criminal justice system. Together with the weak ministers of justice of the last two decades, both liberals, socialists and Christian Democrats – you also belong to that, colleague Van Parys – they have laid the foundation for the extreme laxity and for the policy of the fluffy gloves towards the criminals. The successive ministers of justice have not had the courage to resist the lobbying and the crazy demands of these world strangers. They have always found new methods to prevent criminals from having to punish them or to execute their punishments with little or no effect. In 1980, almost 75% of the prisoners had completed their sentences. Today it is only 2%. That is an evolution to counter you! Mr. Minister, through the fanatical struggle against the prison system, by demanding that every prisoner be released as soon as possible is exactly the opposite of what should have happened. Instead of investing in the prison system and releasing additional people and resources, modernizing and humanizing it, as has happened in the Netherlands, the system has been neglected over and over. This leaves us many years behind compared to our northern neighbors. As an illustration, I would like to emphasize that Agalev previously, following the League by the way, proclaimed that prison sentences should never last more than six years, because otherwise they would be harmful to the detainee. Then there was Renaat Landuyt, who, as a member of the SP Chamber and then as a representative of that League in this Parliament, has argued that the prisons ultimately simply had to be abolished. To this day, we see that this aversion to the prison sentence continues. Both the policy note and the security plan of the Minister, which we have not yet been allowed to discuss here, demonstrate a manifest aversion to this punishment, which from now on must become the great exception and the alternative punishment the rule. This does not exist anywhere in the civilized world, but if it is up to the minister, it will become a law with us in the foreseeable time because we must apparently maintain our reputation as the most child-friendly country in Europe. The population no longer accepts this and revolts in the voting box. The CVP also noticed this. Mr. Tony Van Parys underlined this in an appalling way, both here and in the committee, by saying indignantly that the man in the street no longer understands it all and cannot accept that there is such a tinting with the highway right. It was apparently ⁇ long ago that Mr. Van Parys had spoken to the ordinary man, for he has said it for a very long time. When the CVP is now going to tell the ordinary Gentenaar that they are for the real high-speed right and not for the decoction of Minister Verwilghen, that sober rope wearer - you may not know that I am also a rope wearer - will ask themselves the following questions.

Mr. Van den Eynde, you are a Brusselsman of origin.

I am a Gentleman of origin and am still proud of it. That Gentenaar, that rope wearer will wonder whether it was not the same Tony Van Parys who, in his capacity as Minister of Justice, did nothing to solve the problems and carried out and continued the same policy of laxity as his predecessor. Your party, Mr. Van Parys, is therefore not credible when it comes to security. The credibility of your party on security and crime has become null by your own action, even though you are now conducting a zero-tolerance campaign in Gent and try to imitate the Flemish Bloc. On one point you are right. This law is not effective and is not the highway law that will impress the city criminals. It can be feared that this law primarily has a symbolic function, to clean up our image abroad during Euro 2000 and to make the voter believe that something important would have been realized. This law thus threatens primarily to become a fetish in order to make people somewhat wise but will in practice put a few soden on the dive. The civilians and police officers are not upset by the fact that they are not sentenced quickly and within a week, but by the fact that thieves, rapists, assailants, criminals are rushing freely again and several hours after their arrest are again face to face with the victims and the police officers who arrested them. All this because our provisional detention law is so bad, so archaic and so extremely stringent that the prosecutors are obliged to release the criminals almost immediately after their arrest. This is precisely why criminals feel so untouchable in our cities. It is our legislation itself that is at the basis of the ever-increasing crime and the ever-increasing number of recidivists. I give an example. A few days ago, according to an article from yesterday in the Gazet of Antwerp, the 35-year-old man from Molenbeek was arrested for stealing a jacket. It was the 83rd time that the man was arrested for theft and released again. This is possible in this country; it has even become the most ordinary thing in the world here. And of course there are more multirecidivists like Abdelkhaled. The 1990 provisional detention law is a misleading in all meanings of the word and the worst thing is that the highway law is based precisely on this legislation. It is clear from the explanations attached to this draft law that it is in no way intended to attach a different meaning to the provisional detention law, nor to apply it in any other way. The detainees will be released as quickly as it is now. This is not the pessimistic assumption of a black-eyed, but it is literally derived from the so-called security and detention plan that we were not allowed to discuss. Indeed, it expressly stipulates that in the future the use of the law will be allowed to be even less and that it will be attempted to ⁇ this by imposing regional quotas for the criminal judge, no matter how crazy this may sound. Indeed, a greater extraction of the power of the criminal judge is hardly conceivable. In practice, colleagues, therefore, those who are released today immediately will also be released immediately in the future. Through the high-speed court, one will primarily seek to reduce the detention of the other prisoners. Therefore, through amendments, we sought to broaden the scope of this law and at the same time to amend the illicit law on interim detention, not randomly with the wet finger, but based on the Swiss legislation that rightly provides the possibility of much more flexible use of interim detention, resulting in much lower criminal rates. In our proposal, we also give the judge the possibility to have the provisional detention issued for acts that are punished with less than one year of imprisonment, so that the crime beatings and injuries – one of the typical manifestations of urban crime – would also fall under the highway court. But it could not be! The CVP also persisted convincingly behind the ⁇ lax law on the provisional detention. However, at the same time, through our amendment, the 2nd paragraph of Article 16 of this law, which stipulates that provisional detention may not take place for the purpose of immediate punishment, could be reached. This paragraph, of which the discussion showed that it was introduced at the time on the initiative of nobody less than Commission Chairman Erdman, is one of the biggest errors in this law. Nevertheless, this provision remains, although it clearly contradicts the new law of immediate appearance and consequently gives it a strange absurdity. I cannot decide, Mr. Speaker, before paying attention to the role of the Greens in the committee discussions. The Greens who voted so divided in the committee are now unfortunately absent. With an extended face and an extremely naive appearance, Vincent Decroly tried to persuade the coalition partners to take this bill out in such a way that ultimately nothing left of it. Fortunately for the government, it could just be avoided that some members of the majority parties rose up in real rage. We are already curious about the current voting behavior of the Greens and wonder whether Ms. Talhaoui will again behave as schizophrenic by not accepting the amendments she signed herself, at least if they are submitted again, which I also doubt. The Flemish Bloc has considered to approve this bill, should the Greens continue to resist to show the sky-wide difference between them and the VLD. Fortunately, we did not eventually pass this law, because it is by no means a good law. First, the art and flight work that has been blotted together very quickly, with the blow of the sweep attached to link the vote on this draft to the vote on the naturalizations in the Senate. I cannot find any other explanation for the absolute need to vote on this law today. Second, as has already been stated in detail, the scope of application is far too limited. Violent crimes, one of the main forms of urban crime, fall outside the scope of this law. The usual strikes and injuries fall outside the scope of application. That is an important part of the urban crime that you claim to want to fight. Third, a week of interim detention becomes the absolute ceiling. A week is absolutely too short. I will give you an example. If a judge can be persuaded to summon a witness, in practice the person concerned must be released. This does not hold steak. If the procedure provided for in that article is applied, the detained person shall in any case be released after seven days. The total unrealistic seven-day deadline is the absolute maximum. I have asked for this, and it is also stated in the report. Fourth, one will never be able to install sufficient supplementary judges, officers and court judges in a timely manner. There is already a huge shortage of judges and ⁇ of parquet magistrates. It is impossible to fill the frameworks for the existing vacancies. Now we have a number of new vacancies. No people will be found for it. This design was submitted to the Chamber too late. Fifth, the application of this bill is limited to adults. Youth crime, which is common in the cities, remains completely out of control.

But this procedure was recently introduced!

Mr Erdman, we still have to wait for the big bill. The high-speed right is of a different category and has hardly any effectiveness here. Despite all the points of criticism, we acknowledge that this bill brings some progress. The principle is acquired - and that is important -that the dish should be able to respond much faster. To a real large cleaning operation in the big cities, the design will absolutely not lead. Therefore, I dare predict that within two years there will be fundamental changes to this bill. Since we cannot approve or reject the bill for these reasons, the Flemish Bloc will reasonably abstain.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, in my turn, I would like to thank the rapporteur and the services of this Chamber for the hard work they have done over the past days and nights. Mr. Minister, you will meanwhile have already understood that the Greens are not really in love with the bill on the immediate appearance, a bill that has banned us for several days. The Greens have welcomed and approached the design as a cool lover. However, let us understand each other well. The Greens are in favor of efficient and efficient justice. The Greens want to reduce the judicial lag as soon as possible. We are neither angry nor blind to the dissatisfaction and frustration of the victims and the loss of faith in the justice of so many law seekers whose cause are the unreasonably long terms within which cases are handled and the repeatedly delayed cases. The Greens acknowledge this problem and want to work with you to find solutions to remedy this evil and to ⁇ a better functioning of the court. Justice is also justice. Justice is rather the respect for the rights of defence of both perpetrators and victims than the resorting of mediative effects or the arousing of certain false expectations in the population that cannot be subsequently redeemed. The proposed draft law aims to eliminate the impunity that exists in respect of certain crimes and thus regain the citizen’s sense of security that has recently gained a considerable impact. The design of immediate appearance has undergone a number of changes since the preliminary design. The State Council’s most striking remarks were addressed, among other things, through changes made by the government and during the discussion in the competent committee. The issuance of an arrest warrant by an investigative judge, the possibility to appeal to a three-judge chamber, the reduction of the period from 3 months to 1 month for the collection of sufficient objections for the application of the quick court procedure were necessary improvements to safeguard the constitutional guarantees of the person with regard to his freedom and the protection against arbitrariness. The Greens would have liked to see it differently. We would have preferred more guarantees for the exercise of the rights of defence for both perpetrators and victims. As far as the perpetrator is concerned, it ultimately involves the application of a procedure allowing punishments up to 10 years, a fairly heavy penalty as the upper limit to which the perpetrator must have the necessary time to properly build up his defence. It is also important for the victim and the civil party to have sufficient time to safeguard their rights to compensation for the damage. Combating impunity also means giving the victim of the crime the necessary attention. Criminal mediation seemed to us to be an interesting means of resolving the procedure through the confrontation between the perpetrator and the victim to the satisfaction of both. It is positive that from the discussions it became clear that with the introduction of the quick court procedure the government does not intend to hinder the development of alternative mechanisms such as mediation in criminal matters or alternative penalties. I think of the service, for example. I would like to go deeper into the alternative penalties that, by the way, are also included in the government agreement. The penitentiary system, the prison sentence, has proven its limitations for a long time. Numerous studies at home and abroad have pointed out the inefficiency and often meaningless nature of the prison sentence. Most penalties are for perpetrators who do not pose too much danger to society. For small crime, imprisonment often does not provide a solution. For small offenders, a stay in prison even appears to be counterproductive in the light of ensuring the safety of the citizen. Furthermore, it should not be overlooked that small crime is often driven by socio-economic factors such as disadvantage and unemployment. Therefore, the question arises whether justice or repression are the right methods to remedy these aberrations.

Mrs. You are touching an interesting point here. You are, of course, right when you say that there are often socio-economic and cultural factors behind street crime. The conclusion you draw from that, for example, that you are a cool lover of this design, I never understood well. If one does not react vigorously, even with respect to those whose socio-economic factors can rightly be cited, then you give a huge discouragement to those who live in the same socio-economic and cultural conditions, but do everything to avoid falling into crime. They are, on the contrary, engaged in a often difficult process of emancipation. This is not a question of repression or prevention. They are both extremely important. The continuous undertone in your reasoning seems to me to be fundamentally unfair with respect to fate-mates in the same circumstances who do their best to stay on the right path. I read yesterday in Vrij Nederland an article from the chairman of Forum, the social cultural agency for migrant work in the Netherlands. He says from the same reasoning that a harsh approach to young people who go out of the curve is very important for their integration process.

Mr. Van Peel did not listen to me properly. I have not said that one should not act vigorously or that one should not hold them accountable. On the other hand, I was talking about alternative punishments to replace prison sentences. Your plea is not concerned here. You are right. I am also for accountability. However, I here advocate for alternative punishments for these young people. I think we have understood each other.

Mrs. I listened carefully. I would like to formulate two concerns. A first consideration concerns the rights granted, either to the defence of the suspects or to the civil party. I have once more carefully considered the means presented now in the procedure of immediate appearance. If you would make the comparison with the classical investigation, which is the usual procedure, then I note that the procedure in this form, with the immediate appearance, provides more guarantees for both parties than current with the standard procedure. I come to my second consideration. I follow you when you say that there is a problem with the estimation of alternative penalties. The reason for this - which we all know - lies in the fact that Article 7 of the Criminal Code specifies which penalties are used: the fine and the prison sentence. Over time, however, other punishments have also begun to be exploited, but we have not included them in the scale of punishments. This sometimes poses us with insurmountable problems, because we can only resort to those alternatives if, for example, a prison sentence has been pronounced first. It has always been the position of the government - which is evident, by the way, from the government statement - that alternative penalties should also be considered as full-fledged penalties. I would not use the term alternative. This is a different form of punishment, which often allows a much more nuanced approach, works much more purposefully and also allows the recovery of the effectively suffered damage. At least the government will work on it.

I agree with the opinion of the Minister. However, I do not understand why the original draft on the rapid court procedure does not include the possibility of imposing alternative penalties. It was only with the amendment of Mr. Giet that this possibility was created. There was a lot of carelessness in the design. It was forgotten to allow alternative punishments through the high-speed law.

Mr. Speaker, the Green Group warmly advocates the application of alternative penalties that take into account the person of the perpetrator, not only in the context of the speed court procedure, but as a full alternative to the prison sentence. An examination of the person of the perpetrator in order to apply an adjusted punishment is then also a conditio sine qua non. Through an alternative punishment, it is clear that the misconduct is not tolerated. The perpetrator is imposed a service as training, which he must perform in addition to his profession or other activities. In this way, he has the opportunity to carry out his punishment in a meaningful way within society. He can satisfy his guilt towards the victim and society in a constructive way. By the way, the time interval between the offence and the punishment is much shorter and therefore also takes away a possible sense of impunity. Scientific research shows that excluding the perpetrator from the social tissue and keeping him out of prison facilitates his reintegration and reduces the risk of recurrence. In short, Mr. Minister, for us, alternative penalties constitute an important addition to the criminal legal instrumentary. We urge the publication of the so-called “Law-Giet” together with this bill, in order to contribute constructively to the bill submitted by Mr. Bacquelaine, which in the meantime was signed by the six majority factions and submitted to the services. This bill deals with the inclusion of alternative punishments, such as the provision of services, in our global criminal code as an autonomous punishment, in order to accelerate the introduction of another more meaningful form of punishment, more adapted to the new era we have entered.

Madam, I have a small question to ask you. You’re talking about something other than the project discussed; that’s very good. However, we are currently discussing not a project on alternative punishments but on immediate appearance. I know that can be part of the new political culture.

Mr. Viseur, if we had to talk only about things that are really about, we would often talk much less.

Finally, I would appreciate if the Minister could reassure me on a few points. First, there are social conflicts. In the memorandum of explanation it is stated that the punishment of collective unrest will not take place through the quick court procedure. Can the Minister assure us that special actions taken as an expression of the constitutional right to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly and association will not be sanctioned through this procedure? Will the Minister also explain this to those who have to implement this law? The memory of explanation has a limited legal value. The second point is the law-give. The Greens attach great importance to alternative punishments because they have a restorative and reintegrating effect against both the victims and the perpetrators. We would therefore like to have received from the Minister the confirmation that the Law-Giet will be published together with the present draft law, which will become law. Third, it is an expression of good governance to evaluate and possibly update new laws on their effectiveness and merits. Will this new quick court procedure, which is viewed with suspicion by the outside world and the experts, be evaluated in time? If so, when then? Taking into account the government agreement, my group will approve this bill upon immediate appearance. I would also like to take this opportunity to remind the government that the government agreement also contains other priorities such as punishing environmental crimes and social and tax fraud and that this also needs to be done quickly. This will ⁇ be discussed during the discussion of the federal security plan.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to Mr. Talhaoui’s interpellation on the security plan because it seems to be the only opportunity for Parliament to take a stand on it. I would like to hear the Minister’s answer to Mr Talhaoui’s question whether he can assure that the quick court procedure will not be applied to social conflicts. This is a crucial question.

I hope the Minister will answer this later.