Proposition 50K0626

Projet de loi portant les conditions auxquelles la Commission pour l'aide financière aux victimes d'actes intentionnels de violence peut octroyer une aide.

General information ¶

Authors

CD&V Tony Van Parys, Jo Vandeurzen, Servais Verherstraeten

Submission date

May 3, 2000

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

violence damages victim criminal law

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld MR

Abstained from voting

CD&V FN VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Luc Goutry (CD&V) voted to adopt.

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 ¶

Oct. 16, 2002 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, Mr. and Mrs. Minister, colleagues, the attention to the victim in the light of criminal law has continued to increase steadily in recent decades. This is logical and can be seen as a positive evolution, as the victim is usually free or even highly traumatized after some criminal act. It should therefore no longer be said that such an act interferes quite heavily in one’s daily life. Their

Thus, there are both financial, material, physical, psychological, social and legal consequences, all of which end up on the shoulders of the victim concerned. Often, one is just getting the shock and has begun the morally heavy processing process, or there are already new difficulties when it feels incomprehensible and distracted by the various actors who are active within the criminal law, not finding hearing and the like more. In this way, the victim will become the victim for the second time. This phase is better known by some as secondary victimization. In seeking any satisfaction, one seeks, among other things, to obtain recovery of the sometimes significant financial damage suffered,

Fortunately, the attention paid to the victim of a crime has increased over the years. After the crime, the victim must still endure a lot of suffering. Unfortunately, it often happens that even before being relieved from the trauma, she must find that no one is there to listen to her. This is called “secondary victimization.”

It has been a long time since the legislator attempted to soothe the suffering of the victim and allow him to obtain reparation for the damages incurred, which often constitutes a long calvary. Les tentatives et ce domaine ont toutefois toujours échoué et raisons de dissolutions du such as the material, but also the medical costs incurred. This too can undoubtedly be a long path of suffering, because the perpetrator may remain unknown. If he is known, he may, consciously or unconsciously, be insolvent and therefore not able to pay even the minimum amount that should serve as compensation. Their

For several years, therefore, the legislator has rightly sought a solution to remedy this unjust situation and this to allow some state intervention in the financial compensation of victims, so that they do not remain completely in the cold. We find that the first attempts already initiated in Parliament date back to 1966–1967 and that in the following years two more attempts were made to reach an acceptable solution. These attempts have continued to result in the dissolution of the Parliament. The judiciary has also paid attention to the problem of financial compensation by the State to the victim of certain violations. Such is, among other things, the mercurial of then Attorney General Van Honsté from 1973, which once again focused on this problem. Their

While other countries already saw such damages funds arise and function effectively somewhere in the 1970s, work was only done in 1985. It was then decided to spend a few articles in a single package of laws on developing a financial arrangement in favor of victims of intentional violent acts. The point of departure here concerned in particular equity, and the idea of the collective solidarity of the members of the same community. Their

Ladies and gentlemen, the legislator had launched a valuable tool. No one doubted this and the good intentions of the legislator. Nevertheless, criticism of the whole came relatively quickly and it became painfully clear that the functioning of the system and the victim fund was not to be called optimum and that the original objectives of the legislator were not or too little achieved.

Therefore, they remained below expectations. The various legislative changes resulting from this have also not immediately brought the necessary soil. This evolution was nothing more than happy for the victim as the situation of those involved became even more dramatic, precisely because additional expectations were created that were again not or incomplete fulfilled.

The criticisms that have been heard in recent years are of all kinds and clearly show that the dysfunctions are not limited to a partial aspect, but that there was rather some shortage to the concept itself of the legislation of the time.

The first limitation was that the victim fund did not enjoy sufficient awareness. Although the number of applications increased each year, it was difficult to maintain that it was widely known. This mischief has already been somewhat corrected over the years and ⁇ recently by an extensive information campaign, but for most victims and even for most lawyers, the saying “Unknown is unengaged” still applies.

The difficult access to the Victim Fund is a second obstacle. Once the application turns out to be admissible, the procedure to express it softly takes an extremely long time. Research shows that especially the demanding and restrictive petition is one of the major perpetrators. Two years, with outlets from three or four Parliaments. Their

The judiciary has also examined the issue. by

While other countries set up a compensation fund in the 1970s, it was necessary to wait until 1985 in our country for a financial settlement in favour of victims of intentional acts of violence to be adopted within the framework of a program law. This regulation was based on the principles of equity and collective solidarity. If the intention was praiseworthy, it quickly turned out that this formula did not meet the expectation. The law has been amended several times, but in vain. Meanwhile, these measures had raised expectations among the victims. by

In recent years, criticism has focused not only on the dysfunctions of the system but also on the principle underlying it. The funds of the victims remained relatively unknown. It was also difficult to access and the procedure is very long. Obviously, a period of two years, or even three or four years, can no longer be considered reasonable. Similarly, the principle of equity proved too imprecise to be really effective. by

The changes made to the system in recent years have not given the expected results. This finding is partly due to the sporadic nature of these changes. by

A reform must be based on a certain logic and prioritize the simplification and acceleration of the procedure. The new proposal initiates this reform and, thanks to the radical amendments submitted by the government, the issue will also be addressed in detail. A simple and quick assistance procedure is in sight. This is a full law and not a few articles in a full-fledged law. The new text defines the required criteria and prevents any year wachten, kan met de beste wil van de wereld nog worden aanzien als een redelijke periode van afhandeling. Op die manier is men complete voorbijgegaan aan de oorspronkelijke bedoeling van dit wetgevend initiatief uit 1985.

A third problem is that the conditions for obtaining aid should be taken on a fair basis. The recourse to fairness had to be taken since there was no need to seek errors confirmation from the government. Although this principle requires some smoothness, one falls back to a rather vague concept, with all its consequences.

As mentioned earlier, a number of changes have already been made to the entire system of victim support for victims of intentional violent acts in recent years. These, however, have not delivered the expected results, so that we are still facing a man-claping whole about six years after the law came into being.

This failure is, in any case, partly due to the fact that so far we have only made sporadic changes, but without further considering how we could reach a more systematic adjustment. When considering any changes, one should start from a certain logic, in which simplification and acceleration of the procedure as a red thread should go through the whole.

The current legislative proposals of the original applicant therefore provide a thorough proposal to provide a solution to the problem. However, it is partly thanks to the amendments of the government, which completely rewrite these bills, that the proposal can be stepped straight into the goal.

Various changes can be experienced as very positive. For example, it will be possible to accelerate the granting of aid through a request to the chairman of the committee, who at that time will decide alone. For example, the matter of aid to victims of intentional violent acts will now be regulated by a separate law, which is not included in the package, so without the disadvantages thereof. Confusion will be eliminated as far as possible by better defining the criteria and by better arranging them. The scope of ratione materiae will be expanded so that fewer victims, who really need it, fall out of the boat and all this without overloading the competent commission.

The legislative amendment we discuss here today aims to optimise the functioning of the Commission for Assistance to Victims of intentional violent acts and to open access without compromising the balance and creating an abundance of applications. All this is aimed at achieving the expectations that were highly tense about seven years ago but were not fully fulfilled. and confusion. The scope of application of the law is enlarged. All this is done without surcharge to the competent commission. Their

This amendment of the law should enable to optimize the functioning of the Commission for Victims Aid and thus meet the expectations of victims.