Proposition 50K1179

Projet de loi insérant un article 10, 6°, dans le Titre préliminaire du Code de procédure pénale.

General information ¶

Submitted by

Groen Open Vld Vooruit PS | SP Ecolo MR Verhofstadt Ⅰ

Submission date

March 28, 2001

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

criminal procedure terrorism

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.

Discussion ¶

June 7, 2001 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, I note the absence of Minister Verwilghen. It would be good if the government was represented.

Minister Daems informed me that Minister Verwilghen would be present. Minister Verwilghen must now not watch the tennis match, he must be in the hemisphere. Their

(Minister Marc Verwilghen enters the hemisphere.)

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, the bill that is being discussed today is about the insertion of Article 10, 6° in the Pre-Title of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The committee discussed this draft in three consecutive meetings.

What is it about here exactly? Last week, in the plenary session, the draft law amending article 12bis of the law of 17 April 1878, making the Pre-Title of the Code of Criminal Procedure, into law was approved. This draft law aimed at implementing in our Belgian law the international obligations arising from treaties to which our country has become a party and which contain provisions for a mandatory extension of the jurisdiction of the courts of the contracting States. I take as examples the Genocide Convention, the Anti-Folter Convention, the Anti-Personal Mines Convention and the Convention against Hostage Taking.

The underlying draft law introducing an article 10, 6° in the Previous Title of the Code of Criminal Procedure, concerns the implementation of the European Convention on Combating Terrorism of 27 January 1977, ratified in our country in 1985.

Articles 1 and 6, paragraph 1, of this Convention contain rules concerning the mandatory extension of the jurisdiction of the Belgian courts in order to be able to take note of a series of serious facts. This has been done in the meantime through Article 2 of the Act of 2 September 1985, Act of Approval to this Convention.

In contrast, this bill aims to extend the jurisdiction of our Belgian courts to criminal offences as defined in Article 2 of the European Convention on Terrorism, for which there is no obligation to extend the jurisdiction of the courts.

Our Government, facing a number of delicate situations in which the extradition was requested of certain persons — I mean Mrs Erdal and the couple Morena García — who are charged in their country of origin for serious acts connected with terrorism, but who cannot be extradited because of the political nature given to the crimes and thus are not covered by Article 1 of this Convention. This is what the Belgian government wanted to remedy.

In such cases, the Convention does not provide for the prosecution of the alleged perpetrators before the Belgian courts. Usually the facts also have nothing to do with the Belgian territory. Just in order to remedy that de facto impunity and when the alleged perpetrator is on the Belgian territory, the Belgian Government has considered it necessary to give the Belgian courts greater powers. Furthermore, the Convention allows for a broader definition of the competence of national courts. As for the discussion and discussion in the committee, the consolidation of the principle "aud dedere, aud judicare", in our criminal law, is welcomed by virtually all committee members. They acknowledge the fact that the draft responds to a need when it comes to the prosecution of persons who, for humanitarian reasons, cannot be extradited to another State.

One pressing question and concern raised during the discussion in the committee concerned whether or not the current bill was applied to the Erdal case. Several members of the committee believed that the present bill should also be declared applicable in the Erdal case and that Fehriye Erdal should be prosecuted in that country for the facts for which she is charged in Turkey. The Minister of Justice replicated that he understood the concerns of the aforementioned members and that Ms Erdal had to be held accountable for the facts she committed on Belgian soil before our courts, but that there is currently no legal basis for the facts she has already committed in Turkey and that the current draft law will only be applicable for the future and will not apply to the aforementioned elements. Several members of the committee could only regret this, but found comfort in the future possibilities of this design.

In the same context, the discussion on Article 3 should also be mentioned that the application of the draft refers to the future. The question was raised whether Article 3 of the draft creates a new competence or confirms an existing competence and must therefore be purely procedural. There were different opinions on this issue in the Justice Committee. The application of the draft for the future, however, finds support in the jurisprudence and in recent case-law.

Finally, Article 1 was adopted with 11 votes for and 2 abstentions. This also applies to Articles 2 and 3 of the draft. The entire bill was adopted unchanged with 11 votes for and 2 abstentions.

Mr. Leterme, I just received a letter from the cabinet chief of Mrs. Aelvoet. I read: "I regret to apologize to the Minister for her absence at the questionnaire of 7 June 2001. Ms. Aelvoet is today in Luxembourg at the second formal meeting of the Environment Council. Please apologize for the late communication. I was convinced that the secretariat had done the necessary. I can assure you that this will not happen again in the future.”

Is there anything in the letter about the drug brochure?

and no.