Proposition 50K2265

Projet de loi modifiant la loi du 16 juin 1993 relative à la répression des violations graves du droit international humanitaire et l'article 144ter du Code judiciaire.

General information ¶

Submitted by

The Senate

Submission date

July 18, 2002

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

war war crime war victim

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Open Vld MR FN VB

Voted to reject

Groen Ecolo PS | SP

Party dissidents ¶

• Bart Laeremans (VB) 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.

Discussion ¶

April 1, 2003 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Karine Lalieux and Fauzaya Talhaoui were rapporteurs. They are probably referring to the report. I can only determine that.

Mr. Speaker, for such an important bill, and knowing how the Committee on Justice has dealt with it, it can of course not be enough that the rapporteurs refer to the written report. It is not even done: the rapporteurs are not present. I think it is essential to inform the plenary session of the discussion in the Committee on Justice and of the manner in which that discussion was conducted in the Committee on Justice, as it will show very clearly the incredible way in which the matter has been dealt with there. I truly believe that it would be unworthy of the Chamber to make only a reference to the written report. It is of even lower level that the rapporteurs are not even present here.

The reality is, of course, that in other cenacles one is again doing what one has done before in the Committee for Justice. At this moment, I don’t know where, we are trying to resolve the disagreement within the majority, a disagreement so fundamental that it is not even possible to report to the plenary session. Mr. Speaker, I read this morning your comment on the functioning of this Parliament during the last parliamentary term. This is an illustration of how the Parliament now works! There is an important law on the agenda that needs to be urgently discussed, given the social context and the diplomatic relations of our country, with the risks involved. At the time that the issue is to be discussed here, the rapporteurs are not even present. In the meantime, they conduct discussions in all sorts of cenacles, while Parliament is the place where this should happen. You cannot cover that by organizing the plenary session as you wish, Mr. Speaker! This is how the Parliament works now, that is how in this legislature the Parliament is taken into account! Reporters must report here. The debate will be held here. You should not cover it up with all kinds of organizational tricks. We know you, President, we know what the reality is.

Mr Van Parys, you are right.

Mr Graham, for a moment. I think mr. Van Parys is right and that this is not a way to work. I will therefore suspend the session, worry about the rapporteurs and reopen it when the people I need are present. Here, Mr. Graff, I think this is the best solution. You have to be correct in this system. I suspend the session. by

I will submit the oral report. Mr. Minister, I have made an attempt. The opposition has its rights. The Rules of Procedure have priority and I hope it will remain so until the end of this legislature.

Mr. Speaker, I know that it will probably be an evil attempt to ask the colleagues present whether it is nevertheless possible to address some of the agenda items for which I am here. If not, I have no choice but to put myself down. I wanted to ask this question.

Mr. Speaker, I will do what a President who imposes respect for this institution should do. I let Minister Daems know that there is no system here in which one asks for an appointment. It is not a speech place where one signs up and asks for an appointment.

This is the Parliament and the Government must be accountable in Parliament. If she wishes to have drafts approved by Parliament, she must be present at the time the Chamber meets in accordance with the established agenda.

April 1, 2003 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, we will divide the work between three rapporteurs: myself, Mrs. Lalieux, and for today Mr. Tony Van Parys, who has just been appointed as a rapporteur in the Committee on Justice.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, the Justice Committee has discussed both drafts for discussion, discussed on 26 February and at several committee meetings in March, including today. The drafts are situated in the context of combating the impunity of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. Belgium has played a leading role in this area since 1993. Their

Nevertheless, it was necessary to adapt this legislation to the entry into force of the Statute of the International Criminal Court from 1 July 2002 and to the Yerodia judgment. At the same time, there was some uncertainty in the case-law regarding the files filed before the entry into force of the Rome Statute. The legislator was also of the opinion to interpret Article 7(1) of the Act of 1993 for the aforementioned files in the sense that it applies regardless of the location of the suspected perpetrator, wherever he is found.

In his introduction, the Minister of Justice made clear that the principle of absolute universal jurisdiction in practice is accompanied by many difficulties and practical objections. He referred, among other things, to an increase in complaints whose manageability could no longer be overlooked, both in terms of the resources for the Belgian justice and in terms of diplomacy. The Minister was of the opinion that only complaints with a Belgian connection point should be handled by the Belgian justice and that it was not intended to organize an international criminal court on the Belgian territory. Furthermore, it is difficult to explain to our Belgian public opinion that important matters land here as long as they wait while so much time and energy is invested in matters based on this current legislation. Their

What are the changes to the 1993 law? First, adapt the list of crimes to new forms and standards of international law, including crimes against humanity, war crimes, the use of child soldiers, and so on.

Second, adapting international immunity to the evolution of international law. Their

Third, adapt the rule of universal jurisdiction to the entry into force of the Rome Statute and therefore of the Statute of the International Court of Justice. I refer to the Yerodia arrest. In addition, there is a filter built for the case between Belgium and the case would not be linked. Only the federal prosecutor is entitled to initiate legal proceedings if there is no connection with Belgium. If the Federal Prosecutor rejects the case, the complainants may appeal to the Chamber of Accusation, which will decide whether or not the Belgian courts are competent, whether the complaint is admissible and whether it is not manifestly unfounded. Their

Subsequently, the Chairman of the Committee on Justice explained his own proposal, which was co-signed by other colleagues. This proposal comes down to the following.

First, supplement the universal jurisdiction of the Belgian courts with the principle of non bis in idem.

Second, the establishment of a priority of jurisdiction for the matter in question. Instead of a King’s Prosecutor and an investigative judge, a General Prosecutor and a First President of the Court of Appeal would be competent.

Third, the adjustment to the Rome Statute and to the Yerodia Case of the 1993 Act.

During the general discussion, some colleagues from the majority emphasized the importance of universal jurisdiction and the merits of the 1993 Act, namely to counter impunity of the most severe crimes against humanity — genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. In the meantime, they also referred to the legislation adopted in other countries such as Spain, Germany, New Zealand, South Africa and Australia on universal jurisdiction. Some also emphasized that although there is pressure from abroad, it was not intended to give in to that pressure. Other members of the majority had some concerns about the applicability of the bill if there were no points of connection and do not exclude diplomatic and political crises. Furthermore, the problem of companies investing in risky countries is not sufficiently regulated in the bill, they found. Uncertainty remained about the notion of complicity.

The opposition once again stressed that the law was inapplicable and that the federal prosecutor’s authority to act as a filter was not undeniable and was actually also challenged. The intervention of the executive power, as discussed in paragraph 4, has also been repeatedly criticized and accused.

The State Council made several comments on the amendments made to Article 7 on universal jurisdiction and the Statute of the International Criminal Court. These comments are extensively reflected in the report. Subsequently, the Minister of Justice responded to the questions of colleagues. More specifically, he repeated that it was a parliamentary initiative, which cannot be challenged in terms of principles. However, the relationship with Belgium is another matter. If there is a Belgian link point, then the prosecutor’s office must act. If there is no Belgian connection point, then only the stay can be used as a criterion and one also necessarily needs a filter. As regards the business world, the concept of complicity should be clarified. Criminal law requires accuracy in this area. The reputation of these companies is at stake. Regarding the filter, the minister admitted that the criteria available to the federal prosecutor needed clarification.

Finally, in the replicas, almost everyone regretted that such important drafts are being discussed several weeks before the end of the legislature. Others even called for hearings. The fear of some for political and other motives-inspired complaints was repeatedly expressed and the concern for the image of Belgium was repeatedly expressed. The visit of the federal prosecutor finally made clear that he is responsible for overseeing humanitarian law. Out of a total of 40 files, a dozen have been sent to the federal prosecutor’s office.

The federal prosecutor also noted that the criteria on the basis of which he should act should be refined and legally anchored. He did not feel called to make a claim based on opportunity criteria.

I now come to the article discussion. The submitted amendments concerned the length of residence of the victim. In particular, it was proposed to extend that from one to three years.

An amendment concerned the so-called convenient forum, in the sense that if the case could be better handled by another national or international legal system, that the complaint had to be submitted to that legal system.

The Federal Prosecutor is the most appropriate body to deal with the case. The complainant party may, within fifteen days, appeal against the decision to the Chamber of Accusation, which then examines the reasoning of the federal prosecutor in accordance with the criteria laid down in Article 7 § 1, paragraphs 3 and 4.

A subsequent amendment concerned the date of 1 July 2002, the date of entry into force of the Statute of the International Criminal Court. This more restricted regime would only apply to cases brought after 1 July 2002. Some members of the majority did not support this amendment because they did not pass the review by the Arbitration Court. In addition, the criminal law principle applies that the accused can always invoke the most favourable and latest law.

Furthermore, observations were made on paragraph 4 and on possible interference in matters pending before the court and on whether or not it is a discriminatory provision between old and new matters.

For the continuation of the report of the discussion, I leave the word to my co-rapporteur.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, the discussion this afternoon in the Committee on Justice covered the various amendments already submitted. I will briefly review them and subsequently announce the outcome of the vote on them.

There was an amendment no. 7 of the gentlemen Simonet and Coveliers. They demanded that the date of 1 July 2002 be deleted in Article 7, § 4 because it would be discriminatory.

Madame Lalieux had an amendment no. 8 submitted in which it was proposed that the new mechanism be applied after the entry into force of the new law.

There was also an amendment. 9 of Mr. Grafé, Langendries and Arens who proposed to delete paragraph 4 of Article 7, on the grounds that this paragraph would constitute a clear violation of the principle of the separation of powers.

There was an amendment no. 10 of Mr. Grafé, which corresponds to amendment no. 7 of the gentlemen Simonet and Coveliers. This amendment also proposes to remove the date of 1 July 2002.

There was an amendment no. 11 of Mr. Grafé who proposed to delete the second paragraph of Article 7, § 4.

There was an amendment no. 12 of colleagues Moerman and Simonet in which it was proposed that the mechanism by which the Minister of Justice after a decision consulted in the Council of Ministers had the possibility to report the facts to the third state would be preceded by an opinion of the Chamber of Accusation if the facts were pending before the publication of the law. However, the opinion would cease if the Prosecutor’s Office confirms the initiation of a judicial investigation into the crimes after the announcement of the current law.

In addition, there was an amendment by Mr Laeremans aimed at replacing Article 7 entirely by the provision that the criminal action cannot be brought if the offence is not aligned with the Belgian authority.

Finally, there was another amendment by Ms. Moerman and Mr. Simonet proposing to delete the last paragraph of paragraph 3 of Article 7, fourth.

The discussion in the committee concerned the content of those amendments. The Minister has taken a position on behalf of the Government. The various groups gave the word. I hope you save me from bringing forward all the elements of discussion and I end with the outcome of the votes.

Amendment No. 5 was introduced. 14 of Mr. Laeremans. There were 2 votes for and 14 against, with 1 abstinence. Similarly on Article 5 — all amendments were related to Article 5 — there was an amendment no. 9 of Mr. Graff. There was 1 vote in favor and 6 votes against and 9 abstentions. In the amendment No. 11 of Mr. Grafé voted no one for, 11 voted against and there were 5 abstentions. Amendment No. Thirteen of Mr. Grafé voted no one in favour, 6 colleagues voted against and 10 members of the committee abstained. In the amendment No. 15 of colleague Simonet voted 11 members of the committee, 5 voted against and there was 1 abstinence. Then there is the amendment no. 12 of colleagues Moerman and Simonet. Eight members of the committee voted in favour, four voted against and five abstained.

These votes resulted in the removal of amendments 7, 10 and 8. Until then, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, the report of the meeting of this afternoon.

Mr. Van Parys, I will immediately give you the word in the debate. The following speakers took part in the discussion: Mr Van Parys, Mr Bacquelaine, Mr Laeremans, Mrs Dardenne, Mr Coveliers, Mrs Lalieux, Mrs Talhaoui.

Mr. Grafe, I’ll put you somewhere at some point...

Mr Erdman will be the last to speak. I thank the reporters, and I give the floor to colleague Van Parys in the general discussion.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, it is ⁇ regrettable that we have had to deal with this important legislation in these circumstances. However, this had not been necessary at all. Following, among other things, the submission of the bill by the chairman of the Justice Committee, Mr. Erdman — whom we had co-signed with colleague Bourgeois — in tempore non suspecto had been able to conduct the discussion in a quiet manner. Colleagues, this had enabled us to deal with the necessary adjustments to the law of 1993 in an atmosphere of serenity, not affected by all sorts of initiatives from outside and with the necessary rest and time.

The majority and the government have decided differently. It is merely because of the fact that there were fundamental contradictions and are within the majority and government that we must deal with these adjustments to the law of 1993 with urgency and out of a necessary sphere of serenity. This is extremely regrettable and regrettable. The matter, after all, relates to human rights, the way we want to address and see treated major violations of humanitarian law. It also concerns the international position of our country.

The CD&V group wishes to strongly accuse the government’s stealthlessness. Colleagues, it is the stealthlessness of the government in a matter that determines the Belgian position abroad. How can a draft law that has such an impact on foreign policy lead to a position of the government saying that it is left to Parliament. The government does not take a position at all. We have experienced this afternoon following the intervention of the Minister of Justice. We still do not know what the Foreign Minister’s position would be on this. He is undoubtedly concentrated in this matter.

Colleagues, in addition, it appears that this government’s uncontrollability relates to a matter that is important not only diplomatically and in the context of our country’s international relations. It is especially important for the sake of the legal certainty that is so necessary with regard to fundamental violations of human rights. It is important in relation to a matter relating to violations of international humanitarian law. In the past months and years, when the government was faced with this matter and with the problems that it brought with it in terms of legal uncertainty, in terms of international appearance, in terms of diplomatic relations, it had to take the necessary initiatives in time to submit to Parliament a draft law that was indeed decent and that offered a solution to the problems. So this has not happened. Colleagues, it is as if the blocking of this file within the majority gave rise to a situation in which Belgium threatened to be diplomatically isolated and in which the legal uncertainty for the victims of the genocide would be made total.

These circumstances have ensured that there has been no possibility of proper legislation in that matter. This is so clearly demonstrated in the way we had to deal with this matter in the Justice Committee.

Furthermore, I consider that such legislation should be able to be the subject of consultation across the boundaries of majority and opposition for the sake of the fundamental social interest, for the sake of the humanitarian interest and for the sake of the international interest of that matter. This has apparently not been possible, despite the fact that one is always invoking the new political culture. We have always been very constructive with the CD&V faction. We have always offered to talk about this. We knew that Belgium’s international position was at stake and that so many people, who rightly want to appeal to that law, actually no longer knew whether or not that law would be applied properly or properly.

The next thing happened. The noble purpose of the 1993 law — we continue to support the noble purpose of the 1993 law — threatened to be undermined by sometimes a politically inspired complaint. I must say that even members of the Chamber contributed to this. We want to absolutely defend the 1993 law, as well as its humanitarian scope. But if some, even some members of the House, who use the complaint for purely political motives, then undermines the noble purposes that the 1993 law contained absolutely.

Furthermore – I would like to emphasize this absolutely and clearly – I believe that it is actually impossible to properly organize processes from a distance. If we want to ensure that a trial is conducted with proper investigation, proper evidence, proper trial and contradictory procedure, then it is absolutely necessary that the facts about which we conduct those trials in this country are in some way related to that country, whether it is linked through the perpetrator or linked through the victim. I think this is an absolute starting point. If this is not the case, then we are facing a ⁇ difficult proof-making process. Let me just refer to the rogatory commands that are necessary when these processes are conducted remotely. We have once had hearings with investigative judge Vandermeersch, who so often pointed out those rigorous, impossible procedures, which make it impossible to conduct a decent procedure in this way. That must be the starting point of our legislation: we should provide the guarantee of a decent, fair, contradictory process based on solid investigation and solid evidence. Well, remote processes do not give us that possibility. If we can have the guarantee that those processes will be conducted in the state of the suspect and if we have the guarantee that there can be conducted a decent trial, there can be no problem to conduct those procedures there. By the way, we cannot afford, Mr. Minister of Justice, that we are overloaded in this country with processes that we actually cannot properly organize. The Weze, however, once again emphasized that, with regard to crimes related to the Belgian State or to perpetrators or victims related to Belgium, it is already so difficult for us to properly organize it. If we have the guarantee that they can be properly fed in another state, then we must consider and create that possibility.

I therefore believe that the risk, which was or is created if the law was not or is amended, is enormous, and this from a double perspective.

First, to the extent that the law cannot be changed, there are the enormous, diplomatic, economic and political consequences.

The second point is not less important. There are also ethical consequences. If we were to find ourselves in a situation where we would have to go back to the 1993 law, at that point the legal security of victims of violations of international humanitarian law would no longer be guaranteed. I believe that it has therefore been a responsible choice of the CD&V group to vote for the amendment, as it was approved in the Committee on Justice. The amendment provides the necessary guarantees. After all, if the crimes are related to Belgium from the point of view of the perpetrator or victim, a decent process in our country is guaranteed. If this is not the case, the amendment guarantees the proper conduct of proceedings in the State of which the suspect is a national. It is, in fact, a condition for the entry into force of the special mechanism of reference to the third State.

Mr. President, colleague Van Parys, I understand your reasoning perfectly. However, it is wrong in one aspect. Honesty commands me to establish that there is no guarantee. There is no guarantee that the procedure will continue in the country in which it should be continued. That may even be right. After all, some complaints are pure fantasy. They do not need to continue in the countries concerned. If you say that there is a guarantee that they will continue in the countries concerned, you are wrong. That is not in the law at all.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Laeremans, during the discussions in the committee it was clarified that the complainant, at the time the file is forwarded to the State of which the suspect is a national, has all possibilities to bring the legal system into effect in the State concerned. Their

At that point, the legal system must function after it has been established that the country has indeed a proper legal system because that is the guarantee that has been charged: either the federal prosecutor or the Minister of Justice must provide for that guarantee. Therefore, I say that, in my opinion, that guarantee is sufficient. It is obvious that we would have much rather adopted legislation on the basis of the bill-Erdman, which he submitted together with me and colleague Bourgeois. That would have been a much better amendment to the Genocide Act but in the given circumstances we could not justify that we would end up in a situation that would be diplomatically impossible and, secondly, in a situation of legal uncertainty for the victims under international humanitarian law. Therefore, we made this choice explicitly, knowing that it was a choice for the least evil.

Mr. Van Parys, can Mrs. Dardenne interrupt you?

I would like to ask a question to Mr. by Van Parys. You have long explained to us in committee that political power and judicial power should not be mixed. I would like you to tell me how the amendment you voted for avoids this discourse.

Mrs. Dardenne, I would like to answer this question, because this is an important point of discussion. The amendment, as it was amended, contains two elements that have given an answer to the problem of the separation of powers. First, when the file is under investigation with the investigation judge ...

To this day, Mr. Van Parys told us the opposite.

Maybe Mrs. Dardenne can listen for a moment when I try to answer her question. A good debate in Parliament requires a question and an answer. Mrs. Dardenne, you can then judge that answer, I have no problem with that. By the way, we would have better had that discussion in Parliament, in the committee and in this plenary session rather than in the cenacles where you always sat meeting with other colleagues of the majority, outside the presence of the opposition. This debate should be held at parliamentary level. However, if I am not mistaken, it was precisely the Greens who refused CD&V’s involvement in the discussions. This discussion, colleagues, is a discussion that should be a discussion over the boundaries of majority and opposition, within the Parliament and not beyond.

I would like to say to Mr. Van Parys who always boasts of making constructive opposition, that as far as I am concerned, I have conducted more than ten years of constructive opposition and I have never done the procedure for pleasure. I have never done what you say, and I have never objected to being invited anywhere. I do not have that power!

It would have been pleasant, Mrs Dardenne, that the Agalev-Ecolo group, from the culture it always promotes, had led the debate in Parliament and in the committee and not outside. I think this is the starting point.

Allow me to answer your question. The amendment, as it was originally submitted, has been adjusted to address the problem of the separation of powers. When the case is pending before an investigation judge, the opinion of the accusation chamber is requested before the case is withdrawn from the judiciary. The chairman of the committee pointed out that there is a precedent in this regard of the extradition procedure. I agree with you that this is a bit on the edge. You will agree with me that the matter is also on the verge of a political and judicial decision. When the diplomatic position of our country and the international situation are at stake, one must understand that the government must be able to intervene in some way. This was at least the point of view of a lot of people from the majority.

Second, the precedent of the extradition procedure is legally valid. In this way, the problem of the separation of powers is partly addressed. I do not blame you that I would have preferred to approve a text in which there would have been no political interference. It is in this sense that we, together with other colleagues, had submitted a bill. You also do not want to approve or accept this. At no time have I heard from the Agalev-Ecolo group that they could agree to the content of our bill.

I am deciding. Our group will cooperate with the amendment of the 1993 Act because we want to prevent this country from being in a diplomatically isolated situation and from entering into an impossible situation in the international context. Moreover, we would rather have a situation where the legal certainty of victims of international humanitarian law is better guaranteed than a situation where the law of 1993 would return to its full scope. In these circumstances, we would like to approve this text and the amendment in question.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, my dear colleagues, we discuss, tonight, the result of the work of the Justice Committee, after the transmission of this draft by the Senate. It seems to me appropriate to recall the triple objective that we pursue: on the one hand, to stabilize the legislative framework concerning this delicate matter but also above all to ensure the justiciable a clearer legal certainty and, on the other hand, to mitigate the negative effects of this debate on the image of our country abroad.

As an introduction, I would just like to remind you that we had the courage, in the previous years, to take various initiatives. The 1993 law is ⁇ a praiseworthy initiative that first concerned only war crimes. I will remind you that, on the proposal of Michel Foret at the time, the crimes of genocide were added. But since then, there has also been the establishment of the International Criminal Court and the adoption of its statutes in 1998. The creation of this international criminal jurisdiction must allow, it seems to us, to ensure justice for all, to end impunity, to help stop conflicts. It can take the relay when international judicial institutions do not want, are not able to act. Following the concrete implementation of the 1993 Act as amended in 1999, we had to establish the limits of its application, first through the Yerodia judgment where the international arrest warrant issued in April 2000 against the Congolese minister was not valid because it disregarded the immunity from criminal jurisdiction and the inviolability which an executive Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Congo ⁇ under international law. Then there was the Sharon case. In its judgment of 26 June 2002, the Chamber of Accusations recognized that Belgium was competent, but that this jurisdiction could only be applied in joint compliance with Article 12 of the Preliminary Title of the Code of Criminal Investigation, which requires that the alleged perpetrator be found on Belgian territory when a crime has been committed abroad.

In the face of these legal difficulties that have doubled, it must be admitted, diplomatic difficulties, two laws were drafted and adopted by the Senate. It was necessary, on the one hand, to legally clarify the inherited situations of the past, i.e. the judicial proceedings currently underway, and, on the other hand, to correct certain imperfections of the current law of universal jurisdiction, to modernise it, to adapt it to take into account the establishment of the International Criminal Court, and to remove the elements whose practice has shown to cause very serious difficulties in application.

We will discuss the interpretative law on Friday, today we focus on the so-called amending law. I share the view of the Minister of Justice when he recalls that it is necessary to struggle without mercy against the impunity of the perpetrators of crimes against humanity and that it is necessary to inscribe in the pillar of humanity the intolerable crimes, often committed in the name of a State, an ideology, a cause or an ethnicity. But I also share the reservations made when it comes to concrete implementation, in a relevant and effective manner, of an absolute universal competence. We are not able, and must be acknowledged, both technically and politically, to allow the prosecution before our Belgian courts of any alleged perpetrator of the crimes concerned, regardless of his nationality, where the crime was committed, regardless of the nationality of the victims and regardless of the place where the alleged perpetrator is located.

We must, for the sake of realism and the effectiveness of the law, temper this absolute universal competence by introducing a series of filters that will allow us to focus on cases that have a credible basis and which are not subject to internal political games, to reject what can be commonly called manifestly unreasonable complaints. Indeed, it is well known that the practical implementation of an absolute universal jurisdiction creates a considerable labor burden for the Belgian judicial authorities. It can hinder the exercise of a good administration of criminal justice and it requires a legal arsenal of judicial cooperation with the foreigner that does not always exist, it must be admitted.

In the face of the predictable influx of complaints, the Belgian judicial authorities will necessarily have to make choices and it must be avoided at all costs that such choices may give rise to the slightest suspicion of partiality. It was therefore the duty of the legislator to think about mechanisms that enable not the detriment of the law but its enforcement for credible and well-founded affairs.

The work that took place in the Senate allowed to design a first filter when there is no element of connection with Belgium. If the public action must always be initiated by the federal prosecutor and not by a simple constitution of a civil party, the injured person may however bring an appeal before the Chamber of Accusations if the decision of the prosecutor is negative.

We consider — and this is the position that Jacques Simonet had the opportunity to defend in a committee during the general discussion — that this arrangement would result in converging to the Belgian courts an influx of complaints having no connection with Belgium. Another adverse consequence of this law would be to create a real appeal effect on asylum applications and this, while the government is trying to control migration flows.

Furthermore, the filter of the Attorney General was, in its version from the Senate, marked by an illusory character. One could quickly imagine the unceasing pressures that would have weighed on his shoulders, pressures emanating from the Belgian or foreign diplomatic circles and public opinion. by

Does the Federal Prosecutor have the same opportunity-based discretion as the King’s Prosecutor, according to the common law of criminal proceedings? by

The decision to classify without follow-up by the public prosecutor may be dictated by reasons of legal technique or by reasons of opportunity such as the absence of infringement, the unknown perpetrator, the public action extinguished, the unestablished infringement, insufficient charges, the fugitive suspect and ⁇ to search or simply the finding that the prosecution is inappropriate. In the present case, could the federal prosecutor decide not to prosecute, not because he considers the unconfirmed offence or charges insufficient, but because he considers that prosecution would not be appropriate? It was necessary to indicate to what extent the federal prosecutor may decide not to respond to a complaint. by

In the face of these numerous inaccuracies — I have only cited a few for illustration — it was absolutely necessary for the House to be able to adapt and amend this text in order to establish the concrete guidelines on which the federal prosecutor can rely when assessing a complaint.

What additional provisions could be established? The legislator proposed four pistes, four criteria independent of each other in order to frame the reflection of the Attorney General. These criteria are as follows: 1. The complaint must be clearly grounded. 2 of 2. The facts recorded in the complaint do not correspond to a qualification of this law. 3 of 3. An admissible public action may result from this complaint. 4 of 4. It follows from the concrete circumstances of the case that it should be brought before the competent courts, whether international or national.

A second filter has also been set up for cases not covered by the Attorney General’s filter. For such complaints which do not concern Belgian victims, facts committed in Belgium or perpetrators who are nationals of a State whose legislation incriminates serious violations of humanitarian law, the Minister of Justice may, after a decision of the Council of Ministers, bring the facts to the knowledge of the third State. In this case, the Court of Cassation, upon request by the Attorney General, decrees the dismissal of the Belgian court in question. This provision was reinforced and framed by the intervention of the Chamber of Accusations. This is the subject of the amendment submitted by Mr. Simonet and Mrs. Moerman and voted in the committee at the end of the day today.

If an investigation is opened following a complaint filed before the promulgation of the law, the Minister of Justice shall take his decision upon the advice of the Chamber of Accusations, following a report from the Federal Prosecutor. If a complaint is filed and it has any connection with Belgium, the Federal Prosecutor shall intervene. When a complaint is filed and it has no connection with Belgium, the Minister, surrounded by the Council of Ministers and the Chamber of Accusations, may — but must not — denounce the facts and the Court of Cassation shall pronounce the dismissal of the Belgian jurisdiction.

Mr. Speaker, I have often heard that the law, in its 1993 version, posed various problems, ⁇ diplomatic. I will go on to the economic or other aspects that have been mentioned because this does not seem essential to me, but I would like to delay on the diplomatic level.

Diplomacy is a great art, Mr. Bacquelaine, but it is a political art, that is, it is an art in which the ratio of force weighs much and often more than the law. This is a fundamental problem and I think we should recognize it. Now, I have the impression that in order to cure a evil that consisted, according to the criticism of the 1993 law, in these risks on a diplomatic level in particular, such modalities of intervention of the executive power have been introduced — in the paragraph that you just commented — that the same thing is done; the risks of pressures, threats, intimidations, announcement of measures of retaliation or retaliation that could weigh on the Minister of Justice and his government are further strengthened.

I don’t really see how this type of amendment solves the problems posed by the previous law. I feel like problems are worsened more than they are solved.

I hear your argument. I think, on the contrary, that the law in its present form prevents its effectiveness. We have been able to prove this quite recently. The instrumentalization of this law for political, party and internal purposes makes that, ultimately, this law becomes ineffective, inapplicable. The example of the complaint filed, in particular by a member of our honorable assembly, is the proof that this law is a pretext for using it on a plan of local notoriety, in one city or another of our Wallonia. This may be interesting for the parliamentary but it seems to me harmful to the effectiveness of the law itself. Now, we want to set up filters to make this law effectively applicable. This is the purpose of these amendments and this amendment in particular. I think it was necessary to do so if we want this law to work effectively.

These adaptations must, I think, be analyzed with a certain height of view and not in a partisan spirit, partisan, sometimes partisan of low politics, engulfed in pressure groups and other interests that interpell us on this or that point. What is the objective that our Assembly should pursue? What is the goal that our Assembly should ⁇ ? This is a goal that I think the Senators should share tomorrow. It is necessary to ensure a better exercise of international law and justice while ensuring that Belgium can effectively continue to play a role in international politics and that a whole series of contacts, on the international level, are not interrupted by untimely actions. These untimely actions — that is what I was saying at the moment — harm our position on the international stage but above all distract the spirit and the implementation of the law of universal jurisdiction.

We have made ourselves a duty to correct certain imperfections of the law so that it can be fully operational and fulfill the primary goal it has set itself. In the absence and then in complementarity of the International Criminal Court, Belgium has worked and will continue to work for the defense of human rights and international justice through a procedure deprived of these excesses.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, the closer this majority draws to the end of the legislature, the more absurd it all becomes. Today in Parliament will be passed a law that everyone knows is very bad in each other, full of legal errors, dixit committee chairman Fred Erdman, and that it will provide the most contradictory interpretations, in short a law that everyone knows will need to be changed again at the beginning of the next legislature. Per ⁇ that is why the law is being discussed and put to vote today. The law of 1 April 2003 will undoubtedly enter history as a joke washed out of the coffers, after which one will undoubtedly say: “It was actually just to laugh.”

Much less to laugh is the attitude of the government, which has been too cowardly to confess colour in this dossier that brings us to international difficulties. Louis Michel told our colleague Tastenhoye in the plenary session on March 20 that he would like to cooperate on this law. We have not seen him. Mr. Michel has sent his cat! As we are used to in delicate files, Minister Verwilghen has pushed the ball to Parliament.

This law on genocide came into being and was amended in a climate of serious violations of international law following terrible events in Africa and former Yugoslavia and had the noble purpose of counteracting absolute impunity. To a certain extent, this was correct. Of course, we must prevent cruel criminals who commit large-scale crimes from seeking refuge here and remain unpunished, as long as there is no international body to take on this task. Naturally, our courts should be able to act when the perpetrators or victims of such a crime at the time of the facts have our nationality.

Of course, this must stop! As we go further, and that law goes, of course, much further, we call ourselves world conscience, world court, which testifies to a hopelessly outdated, colonial, imperialist and, as the chamber chairman himself last week stamped in a West Flemish newspaper, racist mentality. First of all, this kind of absolute legislation makes us absolutely ridiculous in the international forum. This country comes over again like the frog that wants to be a donkey. Eric Donckier wrote very correctly about this legislation in the Interest of Limburg on 14 February 2003: “Imagine that besides Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, Italy, America, Argentina, Iraq and Congo – to keep up with those examples – will soon also be outpaced with their own genocide law. Do you see it happening? The world becomes a madhouse.” – Eric Donckier

If the consequences of the law were only that this monkey land made some ridicule in the world, of course it would not be so bad but it goes far beyond that. In the past, no one paid attention to that law, but since we are seated with Louis Michel as Minister of Foreign Affairs, who considers himself the living conscience of the world and whose number of punitive and stupid sentences is no longer to be counted, this country becomes a magnet for all kinds of fanatics who want to stretch our justice for their political chariot, who want to try out where our courts want to go too far.

Since the entrance of the current government, the number of complaints has accumulated rapidly at the Brussels court. We have one diplomatic conflict after another. Therefore, it has long been no longer a matter of ridiculising ourselves abroad, but that we are creating for ourselves heavy diplomatic problems and in the long run inevitably also heavy economic problems.

Can colleague Tastenhoye interrupt you, Mr. Laeremans, a colleague of your own group?

I have no problem with that.

Does that mean you can do better, Mr. Tastenhoye?

I do not want to do it better than my respectable colleague. As the representative of Antwerp, I would like to add some facts and data on the serious economic damage, to which my colleague has just referred, to the debate. I think this is essential.

Due to the uncomfortable and inconsistent attitude adopted by the government in the Iraq crisis and through the Genocide Act, the damage done to our economy and to our image is already enormous. Not only in the long term, it is already the case.

Representatives of the port and the diamond sector are already warning about this. The port and the diamond sector are vital to our economy. The diamond accounts for 7% of the total Belgian exports and provides employment to 30,000 people. The port employs 60,000 people and indirectly 350,000 people.

The chairman of AGHA, the Antwerp Port Community, recently said very clearly in an interview in The Gazet of Antwerp: "We fear economic retaliation from the United States." The delegate administrator of AGHA testified: “Our representative in New York sends us emails almost daily with the supplication to stop this behavior in Belgium.” The spokesman of the High Council for Diamond testifies: “We get...

Mr. Tastenhoye, come and say it here, if you want to. This is not an interruption. Come to the speech room.

This is an essential addition to this debate. The Supreme Diamond Council spokesman said: “We now receive emails from the US: hold your diamonds or sell them to Iraq.” The diamond trade has dropped alarmingly in recent weeks. In addition, Tel Aviv threatens to cut off traffic from Antwerp.

As a blow to the firepile, the whole hustle around the genocide law came, with the Israeli ambassador in Brussels being called back to Tel Aviv. This is one of the toughest measures in international diplomacy. There was a real war against Belgium. Then last week there was that complaint against Colin Powell, the current foreign minister, who, by the way, will visit NATO in Evere overnight. Will he be arrested? A complaint has been filed against former President Bush; a complaint has been filed against Dick Cheney, the current vice president of the United States. The chairman of the American Chamber of Commerce says he is deeply concerned that Belgium is throwing in its own windows and that this threatens to cost very many jobs in Flanders. One must know well...

This is not an interruption. I write to the speakers, I have no problem with that.

I go around. One should know that America provides 12% of the jobs in the private sector in Belgium; that means more than 200,000 jobs. All this has put this government at risk and we strongly complain about it.

I can only bear that, Mr. Tastenhoye. I only hope that you don’t expect me to answer this, because you are absolutely right, of course. Their

I talked about the heavy economic problems arising from the functioning of our courts, a domain in which our reputation was already very bad. Seven years ago we brought the world press with the Dutroux case and looked at the justice policy of this country in a shameful way. Today the Belgian court again takes the world press. When foreigners ask how this horrible child-killer really is, we must be deeply embarrassed to say that this story is not yet over. Then the eyes of our interlocutors lock themselves wide open and then those same eyes radiate a tremendous amount of compassion and compassion. Then we are asked if we are not thinking about them. This failing Belgian court, which does not yet even succeed in judging Eastern European ramscrackers quickly and must appeal to the help of Polish and Romanian courts, has as its task to judge foreign business leaders, military, ministers and heads of state for often alleged and removed from their context, thousands of kilometers away from here. Absurd is almost impossible.

It is for all these reasons that we have said that there should be a line under this law. If we want to save ourselves from further international damage, we must give a clear signal to the outside world and repeal this law in its entirety. We must remove all pending complaints and make it clear that the legislator has made serious mistakes in recent years. Only then will the highly justified criticism cease and we can work again to restore our credibility. Their

The amendments made last week and today do not comply with this. There is no certainty that the next government will deal with the many files that are currently making us very embarrassed. Not only is the law that is being discussed today, an incredible stable of art and flightwork, of rude and hasty mocking, in which justice and politics are shamelessly knocked apart. Furthermore, it remains a fact that this law still gives a far too wide jurisdiction to the Belgian courts. It does not mean that cases in which there is no link with this country, in which neither the perpetrator nor the victim have our nationality, in which the perpetrator is not in our country and the facts have taken place far from here, continue to fall within the competence of our courts. It ⁇ does not matter that a stay of just three years in this country is sufficient to force the court to open an investigation with the most fanciful complaints.

That is why we re-submit our amendment that makes our jurisdiction uncompetent for such files and extends the minimum period of residence to five years. The adoption of this amendment would, in any case, bring clarity to the outside world and definitively free our judicial bodies from dozens of absurd files with which they should never have been taxed.

Finally this. In the committee we voted against this legislative amendment because it absolutely did not go far enough and because the law is legally kaduuk. Of course, we also want to avoid that by our attitude the harmful and entirely unacceptable present state would continue to exist. We will coordinate our voting behavior.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, the CDH is really impressed by the improvisation that the government and the majority once again demonstrate. We believe that a project of such importance that aspires to be an example for the whole world could not be dealt with in such a light and inconsistent way. Wanting to analyze objectively and serenely the project as amended, I can briefly make the following analysis.

The positive side is the clarification of the scope of the law by the establishment of linking factors. Also positive is the articulation between this law and the Rome Statute, between the jurisdiction of our courts and that of the International Criminal Court. Positive also – you see that we know to be objective – the removal of a date from which the new procedure is applicable, a date that was totally arbitrary and therefore unconstitutional, and which we demanded with others to be removed. Finally, the procedure for dismissal of Belgian courts when the facts are judged before a foreign court offers guarantees of a fair trial.

The negative side is the totally unacceptable interference of the executive power in ongoing judicial cases. This is a serious violation of the fundamental and constitutional principle of the separation of powers, which I have always watched to scrupulously respect for more than thirty years as I sit in Parliament.

On the latter point, the Court of Arbitration will have to decide. For us, there is no doubt that the latter will cancel the provisions that allow the interference of the executive in the judiciary and that it will thus nullify what this law has worst and which has been presented in a very hypocritical way.

Negative is also the refusal of the majority, taking advantage of a few minutes of absence over a few hours of debate, to examine alternative, reasonable formulas proposed by the CDH. I truly regret that, in particular, some technical amendments or intended to clarify and avoid certain appeals, have not been accepted.

We also regret that this matter has been treated with so little sense of the state, so little consistency, so little coherence by the majority. The problem was not considered serenely and the case could only proceed chaotically under the pressure of the emergency. The majority is so divided that it is incapable of joining a common position and that we will soon witness divided and contradictory votes. This is the divorce of the majority. The country will see tonight that the government no longer enjoys the confidence of its parliamentary majority. I ask the government to clarify the conclusion it will draw from this, since the rainbow, which is temporary by nature, no longer exists even today virtually.

As for the CDH, for the reasons I just explained, we will not be able to vote positively for this bill as amended, because the limits of improvisation have been exceeded. Hopefully the work will be restored with order and rigour — I don’t dare too much to hope — in the Senate tomorrow, but in the next legislature, I’m sure.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, at the exit of the Second World War, some discovered with horror that the barbarism of men could go, in its processes, to the denial of humanity itself.

What belonged to the order of the innumerable led the so-called free states, all to the horror of what they had just discovered, to organize the Nuremberg Tribunal, which one can ⁇ consider as a prefiguration of a court of universal jurisdiction.

Unfortunately, history had to teach us later, and even until recently, that humanity is not hereditary.

The democratic countries therefore began to confection an international law that could best guarantee human rights in a context of war too often present.

Thus, as paradoxical as it may seem, rules of war are drawn up. These are mainly the Geneva Conventions and in particular the Convention against weapons striking without discrimination and causing excessive traumatic effects, the conventions against genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. It can also be said that the law of universal jurisdiction is part of this legal arsenal.

I would like to remind you of the issues. It is a challenge for States and their responsibility in the face of the impunity of certain crimes, crimes among the most serious and abject, if not the most serious, since these are crimes against humanity. It is therefore a responsibility and a duty of States, and especially of democratic States, signatories of the conventions I have just listed, to end this impunity.

The second issue of this text is the need to ensure victims a place to seek justice. Indeed, it was found that some victims declared that it was a consolation to see their torture officer brought to justice, even if no compensation was obtained.

To deny this right to victims is in some way to deny the violence that is done to them, otherwise to violence them a second time. Therefore I think that there are no tortionaries more frequent than others or categories of victims. So I find it very difficult to consider an amendment that allows Belgium to get rid of diplomatically overwhelming complaints. I also confess not to understand that some, throughout the committee sessions, have explained to us, and I said it just recently, that it was unacceptable that the executive power — say the political power — would interfere with the judicial power, even if this judicial provision was to be granted a role of opinion and consultant, and then vote in such a way as to safeguard in this text a paragraph — paragraph 4 — which consecrates this confusion and grants, as some underlined, a right of negative injunction to the Minister of Justice. by

I think that the eminent dignity of the human being is a choice, and as far as I am concerned, I want to believe in the force of deterrence of law and not of war. Of course, I’ve been told, Belgium must ensure a role on the international stage. I ⁇ do not disagree with this and I think Belgium plays this role. I would also like to recall that when I worked on the anti-personnel mines ban file, I heard exactly the same argument. We would make ourselves ridiculous, we would lose all credibility on the international stage. I must note that a few years later, things turned around and that it is Belgium’s pioneering position that makes its reputation on the international stage. So I am convinced that in humanitarian law we can also play this pioneering role, both in deterring certain tortureers but also in encouraging other democratic countries to adopt legislation similar to our own.

The same people who invite me to trust Justice—which I am happy to do since I think we live in a rule of law—are also those who devote the political filter. There is no contradiction close to it. However, since Montesquieu, I thought I knew what constituted...

Mr. Speaker, I would like Mrs. Dardenne to explain to us why this political filter, which was acceptable when a date was inscribed in it that allowed to make an ad hominem law, is suddenly no longer so when this date is removed. How can this consistency be reconciled?

Mr. Bacquelaine, we had made a concession by saying that we could accept certain things from the moment when we did not question the affairs already handled and already started, especially at the level of instruction. However, the fact of considering that it is necessary to obtain a feedback for this law is very disturbing to us!

It is not accurate. There were business at instruction before and after that date.

It is not true!

This is entirely true! I have not completely finished. Madame Dardenne, I am surprised that you wanted to make a distinction and that you could justify your agreement on this paragraph 4, when there was a date, by the fact that procedures were already in instruction. It is not accurate! All the procedures are currently under instruction, whether before or after July 2002. This argument is not correct!

Mr. Bacquelaine, we also suggested that this date be deleted; we have also submitted an amendment in this direction. We wanted to take into account the files submitted after the promulgation of this law as amended. This is what we wanted!

I would just like to make a formal comment. I find it unfortunate that such a serious issue can be discussed in the midst of the election campaign. The importance of the subject deserved more respect.

Mr. Smets, do you believe that in the election campaign, there is no more serious topic?

Mr. President, you know very well what I mean! I now see that within the majority, two prominent colleagues I respect say to each other: “What you say is not true!” by

I repeat that it is deplorable that such an important topic, because it is about the international image of Belgium, is discussed in the midst of the electoral campaign!

It is evident that Mr. Smets, whether during the election campaign or before it, has nothing to say on the bottom.

If I understand rightly, Mrs. Dardenne, you agreed — it is very clear — with the filter you called politics, provided that one expressly focuses on a certain type of business.

Mr. Bacquelaine, we had reached an agreement, painfully, by working, by putting all of our own into it. It was not us who broke the agreement in the committee, since there was a unanimous vote in the committee on a text, on a whole. It is not we who have submitted an amendment, it is someone from your group.

I am not very impressed by what Mr. President said. and Bacquelaine. by Mr. Bacquelaine has the art of being very reductive. It is very important that there are substantial exchanges. I simply say that the importance of the topic deserved to be discussed at a different time than in the middle of the electoral campaign.

It comes when it comes, Mr. Smets!

I am not responsible for the agenda. I would have preferred this topic to come on the agenda earlier and I think I asked for it.

Since Montesquieu, I thought that what constituted the foundation of democracy was the separation of powers, but I may have wrong readings.

This is the new culture.

What is the new culture?

Nothing is respected, even the Constitution.

Tell me what the new culture is for you!

The new culture is no longer respecting the basic laws.

Mr. Speaker, if I understand correctly Mrs. Dardenne, she has been a supporter of Montesquieu since July 2002!

This is an affirmation of which I leave you the responsibility.

She is kind, the majority.

Mr. I don’t need to be kind, I don’t have the habit of being kind, I have the habit of having convictions, that’s another thing.

(Applause on the Ecolo-Agalev banks)

Mr. Leterme, I would tell you that you are ready to crush your beliefs to win your ticket for the next majority.

( ... ...

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, in the early 1990s it was common, it was "in" to think that in certain countries one must be able to bring the whole world before the court. When it concerned especially serious crimes, such as a genocide or a war crime, it could be justified at that time because the evolution in international public law had not yet led to the Treaty of Rome. Thanks to this treaty, the International Criminal Court was established.

Currently, two ad hoc tribunals are already operating, one in The Hague is competent for crimes committed in the former Yugoslavia, the other in Arusha is competent for crimes committed in Rwanda.

I think the international community has made the right decision by saying that these crimes are so serious that they should not be dealt with by the courts of a particular nation, but by an international criminal court. This eventually resulted, after years of negotiations and action in the United Nations, in the establishment of the International Criminal Court in The Hague.

Meanwhile, the law of 1993, which initially provided only and only war crimes as incrimination, is no longer adapted to the current situation even after the 1999 amendment. Why Why ? The established principle, which is still applied at this time — although with reservation to the International Criminal Court — was that the Belgian courts are competent to take account of the various crimes — initially it concerned only war crimes; later it also concerned the crimes defined in the Genocide Act — regardless of the place where the crime was committed and regardless of whether the suspected perpetrator is presently or not in Belgium.

What are the problems that cause an amendment to this law? That is the abuse, the improper use of these laws. This happens quite often with a number of systems, such as the Geneva Convention concerning political asylum. I think that, contrary to what has just been said, it adorns the legislator that he checks laws that are not as old as the law of 1999 to the reality, and where necessary revises them.

There are two major forms of abuse of this law. A first abuse is the political abuse of the law, the mere complaint not for a suspicion or a description of genocide or of the matters specified in Articles 1, 1bis and 1ter of the law, but only for political reasons. This has happened in this. A second abuse — we must dare to admit that — is a number of commercial abuses in which, as a result of the change in our legal system, as a result of the criminal liability of the legal entity and the theories of competition — the so-called conspiracy theories which are very well known in the English-speaking part of Belgium — the law is abused to cause commercial damage to competitors. Against this type of abuse, the legislator must act and try to prevent them. This, in my opinion, has happened in this text.

We have the “happiness” that the Belgian system has already been tested once by an international court. Following the arrest warrant for Mr. Yerodia, there has been a review by the Court in The Hague. This review has given us a judgment with very solid commentary and three forms of dissenting opinion — in my opinion a very good system in international jurisprudence — where some judges repeat their own opinion. What is revealed? After a few dissenting opinions, it appears that all these judges agree that there must be a minimum point of connection in order to judge a case in Belgium. The fingerprint of President Guillaume to Belgium is the question of whether it is not Belgium’s interference in the legal order of other countries if one does not take care of this “passive personality touchpoint” as it was later translated into Dutch.

Such a link point has now been introduced into the law. In fact, a condition is placed on the complainant who, if he is not a Belgian, must have had his place of residence in Belgium for at least three years. This means that he must legally reside in Belgium, otherwise he cannot have his place of residence there. It is not accidental or illegally staying, but have its place of residence in Belgium. In addition, in order to prevent abuse, in the absence of a connection point, the system in which the federal prosecutor acts as a filter on this matter is introduced.

Mr. Coveliers, that is exactly the weakness of your argument. Internally, you are very contradictory. First, you argue that the international level imposes a link to our country and that it is now being built.

Then you say that when there is no connection point, we do something else. In this situation there is therefore no link point and that is therefore in our opinion unnecessary.

Mr Laeremans, I think you should read again the text of the judgment in Yerodia and the opinion expressed therein by Mr Guillaume. If, of course, one says that one is only competent when those points of connection are present, then one can no longer speak of universal competence. I think that in the face of those horrible crimes we must maintain universal authority. That is to say, we guarantee — I will tell you at once in what way — that when someone is personally harmed — we must clearly say that it is personal harming, thus also somewhat eliminating commercial abuse — he must meet a number of conditions. If the person personally injured does not have a link point, then a number of systems are provided that should lead to a competent court that, when we look at the criteria on which the federal prosecutor will judge, in most cases will not be the Belgian court. I ignore the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, because I assume that we all agree that the complementary jurisdiction of this Court exists and that no one disputes it. That is exactly the important thing, I think.

Mr. Coveliers, if you say that there must be a link and that the prosecutor must have a personal interest, how will you avoid, for example, that there are still Iraqis who have been living here for 3 years and who may have a family member in Baghdad, saying that they meet the conditions? They have been living in Belgium for three years, they are involved because they have family members in Baghdad and they are filing a complaint against the President of the United States of America. How will you prevent this?

Assuming that your assumption would be correct regarding the 3-year stay and personal injury — which is already challenging and questionable — and such a complaint is filed, then the first filter is the federal prosecutor. The Federal Prosecutor shall examine whether or not the complaint is manifestly unfounded, whether the facts correspond to the definition of the law, whether or not the complaint can result in an admissible criminal action and whether, in addition – which is important – Belgium is the convenient forum under international public law. He will then have to check to what extent the United States — you think of a complaint against the President of the United States — gives the guarantees that the same crimes will be dealt with in their legal system. These crimes are regulated in the U.S. Federal Criminal Law. Then this will indeed be transmitted through the famous and already so much acclaimed paragraph 4 of article 7 to the most convenient forum. The most convenient forum is the forum of the perpetrator and the accused. Their

In this way, it will be transferred. I would like to add the following. The question is whether Belgium will not control whether it is also implemented there. First, I would like to point out that one must also ask whether this is not interference in the internal affairs of another country, conferatur what has been said about Mr. Yerodia. Secondly, once it has been determined in Belgium that the Convenient Forum — in other words the international public law, the forum where this case should be dealt with — is not the Belgian forum, Belgium fulfils its international obligations by means of this in that country. They call this so. However, this terminology is a little wrong. It does not happen with a door value. This is given to the knowledge of that country. It is up to the complainant to turn to that legal system. It is up to the complainant to follow the legal steps there. It will be followed there according to the legal system. Anglo-Saxon criminal law is a different criminal law than European criminal law.

I think that is exactly what is important in this text. The principle of competence is ⁇ ined. It is precisely that possibility is taken to prevent the abuses. It also avoids us from giving the impression — which was put forward by some speakers — that we should become the moralists of the whole world. They did so to deal with it. This always guarantees that there is no impunity, because there is a system in the world that is competent to handle these matters.

This also means — I think it is important, Mr. Minister — that there have been a number of misunderstandings arising from complaints filed against foreign companies. This happened on the basis of alleged negligence. The incrimination of Articles 1, 1bis and 1ter also includes negligence. That is why it was abused. We all know the purpose of these complaints. The purpose of these complaints is merely to hit a competitor. In the publications of the country concerned — which is often again the United States — one can then say that there is a complaint against firm X. It is hoped that this will cause sufficient economic damage to that branch. Therefore, I think I can say — if I am wrong, you will correct me — that a normal economic activity can never be an act of complicity in itself when the state in which it is practiced is guilty of serious violations of international humanitarian law. Their

So I think that investing or being present in a state where such violations occur cannot be synonymous with complicity. I will give an example. An undertaking engaged in the construction of a dam cannot, by its economic activity alone, be considered to be a complicit of a regime which could possibly be accused of having displaced the civilian population. Furthermore, a financial contribution cannot be considered as an act of complicity if the government of the State in which the activity is carried out is guilty of serious violations of international humanitarian law. Their

Companies and companies that merely invest in a state where serious violations of international humanitarian law are committed are not guilty of failure to act. Whatever influence an undertaking may exercise over the authorities of the country in which it invests, it is not a multiple of the local authorities and can only invest its funds there, often also in the interests of the country. The mere failure to withdraw from the country where the activity is carried out and whose authorities seriously violate international humanitarian law is therefore not a failure to act. In other words, I would like to make it clear here that the special arrangement here requires. One of the constitutional elements of the crime is precisely the special purpose. A possible complainant — and this is also one of the duties of the federal prosecutor — will have to prove in his complaint that there is a special intent. It is not enough to say that a company has invested in country x, where human rights are violated, there is a genocide or war crimes are committed, to say that the company has also committed complicity by failing to act. As if a company could act against such facts.

In summary, President, Ministers, dear colleagues, I think that it is normal that this law, which was approved only at the beginning of 1999, should be amended, even if it was only because the International Criminal Court has been established and there must be a referral arrangement. It is, in my opinion, also logical that one seeks to prevent the abuses, both the political abuses and the commercial abuses of which this law was the victim. In this respect, the law has been adjusted. In doing so, the guarantee of universal jurisdiction is ⁇ ined and the rule that there must be a linking point — Mr. Guillaume, President of the International Court of Justice, called it in the case-Yerodia un lien de rattachement — applies. Finally, it applies the rule that there should be no interference in the internal affairs of countries with a similar judicial system where the same acts are criminally punishable and where there are guarantees of democratic rights, rights of defence and fair and fair justice.

That is why paragraph 4 is so important. I think Mr. Bacquelaine is quite right. Therefore, it cannot be said that this paragraph does not infringe any right if it would occur before a certain date but if it would occur after a certain date. Either one accepts the system of the convenient forum, which, by the way, is accepted in international public law, or one does not accept it and places oneself among people who apparently want to put the international criminal law several decades back. I therefore believe that the amendment was correctly accepted and that this law, whatever it is said, will be able to resist the review of an international court. This law also gives us the possibility to prosecute, handle the real complaints and, above all, to prevent the abuses related to them. That is precisely the reason for this text. We will therefore support them with particular conviction.

Mr. President, Mr. Ministers, dear colleagues, I would like to talk about bills, Mr. President of the Justice Committee and Mr. Minister, since we must not forget tonight that there is another bill during, the interpretative law that we have voted by articles in committees and for the vote of which there is no fixed committee. I will come back soon.

The bill we are examining today has two dimensions: on the one hand, a legal dimension to respond to criticism in the form of three successive decisions by the Chamber of Appeals of the Brussels Court of Appeal, by the Court of Cassation and by the International Court of Justice and, on the other hand, a political dimension, it seems to me that this is clear.

First, the political dimension concerns the very principle of universal competence in general. In this context, we are not talking about particular affairs or individuals, as has often been suggested in this debate. This dimension of universal competence is quite clear and of general order. It aims to prevent impunity for very precise and very serious incriminations. We are speaking here of higher principles and human rights, of duties of respect for every man, whatever he is and wherever he lives. No state can or should leave impunity for the most abominable crimes such as genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes.

This law is therefore an essential element and was also, in 1993, an essential element of an emerging international justice. It helps to destroy the walls of impunity behind which the tortioners hide. We must continue to give, if not give a strong signal to all those responsible for crimes: more refuge abroad, more escape from justice. I believe it would be indecent for all the current victims and for all those unfortunately to come to give another signal and hold another speech, while in 1993, our courage had been emphasized by all.

We are no longer the only country in this case. Think of Spain, and very recently Australia, Germany, New Zealand or South Africa, which have ratified the Treaty of Rome by introducing legislation on universal jurisdiction.

With regard to legal aspects, such as Mr. Bacquelaine recalled that by the amending law in its paragraphs 1, 2 and 3, it is put in order with the statutes of Rome since the dispatch to the International Criminal Court is organized, which was indispensable, since the definition of crime against humanity is broadened, since it is also answered to the judgment Yerodia, thereby recognizing the immunity of heads of state, since it is established filters in relation to the criterion of attachment.

These filters are justified, since tomorrow, I hope that many countries will adopt this law on universal jurisdiction. Should it be recalled here that the Rome Statute requires that the States which have ratified these statutes create in their State a law on universal jurisdiction? The International Criminal Court is not a substitute for these states but a complement to them.

Criteria of attachment are probably needed, as many countries will be able to judge crimes that will occur on their own territory. But we should not reject those who do not want attachment criteria, because it is known that the International Criminal Court will intervene only for the facts occurring after July 1, 2002 and that many countries have not ratified and, probably, will never ratify this Rome Statute. Therefore, the necessity is still very present for a law of universal jurisdiction without quite strict attachment criteria.

We have not yet discussed the interpretative law which is not on the agenda, but the PS would like to remind that we find it useful, or even indispensable. In fact, by recalling Article 84 of the Constitution, this article emphasizes that only the legislative power can give an interpretation of authority of a legal text. Given the multiple contradictory interpretations presented by the various judicial instances so far, it is appropriate for Parliament to issue and draft a law that clearly reflects the intention of the lawmaker of 1993, since it is still possible that the ruling of the Court of Cassation will one day be challenged. In doing so, I would like to remind here of our tenacity in relation to this interpretative law.

For us, the modifications as I have just described them, concerning article 5 § 1, 2 and 3, were clearly sufficient and we were, previously, not demanding any other modification, either last week or before. Certainly, I recognize with you, Mr. Bacquelaine, that there has been political instrumentalization, in recent weeks, of this law which has effectively triggered a reaction of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Bacquelaine. by Louis Michel.

We were not applicants of paragraph 4. It seems to me that this last week and the last hours, publicly or not, we have made a lot of effort to try to find a solution that is acceptable for all. We have advanced a lot of very constructive solutions and proposals that have been rejected one after another.

Paragraph 4 as voted last week — it is true, we voted this Paragraph 4 last week because we had reached an agreement with all the majority parties — fixed the date of 1 July 2002, suggested — I want to recall — not by us but by the Prime Minister. It is not us who have written this paragraph 4 but the cabinet of Mr. by Louis Michel. If we abstained from voting on this paragraph 4, we voted in favour on the whole bill.

After careful reflection, Mr. Leterme, this date of 1 July 2002 appeared to us to be discriminatory, in particular with regard to cases filed after 1 July and those filed before. Faced with this discrimination, which may seem unbearable to some States, and in response to the amendment introduced by Jacques Simonet, we have deposited an amendment — this was recalled by Martine Dardenne — to do as with all laws, that is, that this paragraph 4 is applicable at the time of entry into force of this law. There was no longer a question of discrimination; there was no longer a question of targeting ⁇ or particular cases. It was a matter of fairness for all pending complaints.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Lalieux, I will wait a moment. I know that it is difficult for a French-speaking Brusseler to understand Dutch.

This afternoon I listened carefully to the motivation by colleague Coveliers of the amendment to delete the date. We also supported the amendment. We could also support the motivation of colleague Coveliers.

We have a technical problem.

Mr. Speaker, is the technical problem related to Mrs. Lalieux herself or to the equipment?

There is not too little equipment. There is too much equipment. Try it now.

I look forward to the excellent equipment at the moment. I will therefore repeat my explanation.

This afternoon I listened attentively to the accountability colleague Coveliers gave in his amendment. The amendment concerns the removal of the date on the basis of the principle of equality. At the accountability it was said that the date came to do nothing in the law. The date was blatant. Forgive me for my somewhat scabreous use of words.

Mr. Minister, I will address you immediately. Now I hear Mrs. Lalieux expressly stating that the date — colleague Van Parys, I think you also understood it that way — in the compromise text in being had actually come at the initiative of the cabinets of the Prime Minister and of Minister Louis Michel. I suppose you stay with your words. I would like to receive confirmation from the Government of this decision. I would like the Government to confirm that the date was entered in the text at the initiative of the Cabinets of the Prime Minister and of the Minister of Foreign Affairs. It is, however, interesting to check that judgment on the rather vigorous words in the accountability of the amendment by colleague Coveliers, a accountability that we, by the way, can endorse. I would like to ask the government to confirm or deny what Mrs. Lalieux has just said.

Mr. Reynders, I will not bother you. Your turn is coming. I would like to ask the Minister of Justice for a moment to confirm or deny what Mrs. Lalieux claims. I therefore ask for the position of the Government on what Mrs. Lalieux has proclaimed.

Mr. Speaker, I will give a global answer later, but I can already tell you that that date was delayed at a certain moment in response to the compromise that was sought. However, it was overlooked that this is a special criminal law and that it is precisely for this reason that it makes no sense to specify a date in a law that comes into effect immediately.

Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs took the initiative to include the date of 1 July 2002 in the amendment, what was then the motive of the Government?

It was only a reference to the entry into force of the International Criminal Court on that date. In this regard, however, it did not make sense to enter a date as the law becomes immediately applicable in criminal matters. You know that, Mr. Van Parys.

Why does the Prime Minister make a proposal that doesn’t make sense? The Prime Minister proposes to include the date of 1 July 2002 because it is the date of the entry into force of the International Criminal Court, but the article in question has nothing to do with it, as Mr. Coveliers, by the way, confirmed. Why did the government take this initiative?

Mr. Speaker, in the amendment, which I believe I have signed together with Mr. Simonet, that date was overlooked. That date was completely wrongly recorded following a conversation in which — and there is no reason to hide that — members of the Cabinet of the Prime Minister and of the Cabinet of the Minister of Foreign Affairs participated.

I deleted that date for the reason you know. It is absolutely absurd to write such a date. That is the historical truth. Neither the Prime Minister nor the Minister of Foreign Affairs were present at the meeting. Members of their respective cabinets were present.

( ... ...

This is history! Mr. Minister of Finance, Mr. Mr. Minister of Finance has the word!

This is history, but it is good to remember it.

We were not applicants of this paragraph 4. We introduced an amendment aimed at avoiding all discrimination in relation to complaints pending before Belgian courts. This amendment also aims to avoid any legal uncertainty for judges who had filed a complaint for months or even years, for which investigative acts had been filed that risked being challenged. For us, this insecurity was entirely unbearable. That is why we submitted this amendment.

If we voted on the whole project, we abstained on paragraph 4. An amendment reinserts this paragraph 4. I therefore ask the Minister whether this paragraph 4 will consist of a very exceptional procedure compared to paragraphs 1, 2 and 3. Given that in the future these three paragraphs can be applied correctly, it may be that paragraph 4 is completely useless, which I hope.

I hope that future members of this assembly can have an evaluation, year after year, of the application of the law in general and of this paragraph 4 in particular. by

In the amendment that was deposited and voted in the committee this afternoon, and against which we voted, we take back the principle of extradition, a legal principle that already exists as we heard it say here in the tribune. If I am not mistaken, the principle of extradition consists in extraditing when a country requests the perpetrator of an offence, first because often he is not prosecuted on our territory but then to organize prosecutions against him and to judge him. So we go back to paragraph 3 of the law. In this case, this extradition procedure is applied to a country where there is no requirement that he pursue the case.

Mrs Lalieux, I think you confuse the procedure with the substance of the case. It was referred to a procedure similar to that of extradition. Here, however, there is no question of extradition, for the simple reason that you absolutely want to judge in absentia. By the fact that you judge those people in absentia, there is no extradition because they are not here. The only thing that happens is that one seeks the appropriate forum for the case, but there is no extradition.

There is no extradition. I said that there was a parallel with the extradition procedure, but in this one is extradited to a country that continues. In the procedure that we are dealing with, there is no obligation to prosecute in the country. I did not say that extradition was being made, but we were discouraged in relation to a country that is not obliged to prosecute.

... the extradition is requested on the basis of an investigation underway in that country, which does not necessarily have to be the country of which the suspected perpetrator or suspect is a national. This is a country of which the suspect is a national and has not requested it. However, it takes into account the fact that there are reasons to believe that a fair trial will be conducted. That country can, of course, judge the case according to its own legal rules. You can never get the guarantee of persecution. If a case is referred to Belgium and the prosecutor says for reasons of opportunity that he does not wish to prosecute, then that is the case.

This is not a guarantee of final judgment, it is a guarantee of exercising the prosecution. This guarantee is inserted in paragraph 3, Mr. Coveliers, and not in paragraph 4. You just need to read the text. Parallelism is not exactly the same.

Finally, the PS group will vote against this law, although we thought that a modifying law was needed, it was indeed necessary to agree with the Rome Statute. We did everything we could to reach a compromise, but it was not possible.

What I am also concerned about the application of paragraph 4 is that Parliament will be dissolved in less than a week. The government will be able to take business without any parliamentary control. Mr. Grafé, I like your determination at the tribune but I was somewhat disappointed by your attitude in commission. You submitted strong amendments, aimed at deleting paragraph 4, but you were not there during the vote. I found your attitude somewhat contradictory. I hope you will stay in the plenary session to vote according to the line of conduct you adopted.

Madame Karine Lalieux, if the text of my amendment was so good, as you seem to say, why did you and the PS group not vote on it this afternoon in the committee?

Mr. Graham, I will answer you immediately. As I said recently, we had accepted a compromise last week, when I abstained on paragraph 4. We were not applicants but we were part of a majority and we had negotiated and accepted an agreement. We have been faithful. For the sake of consistency, we therefore abstained from deleting this paragraph 4.

I see that Mrs. Lalieux is very Christian: she tends her left cheek, and when she is given a kick, she tends her right cheek. You know very well, Madame, that in the committee this afternoon, the agreement you report has not been respected by your partners since they have submitted amendments and that you, loyally, believed that you should not vote on my amendment! So, don’t regret today what resulted from the act you made with your PS colleagues in commission.

Maybe that’s the sense of responsibility. We’ll see if you get it soon, Mr. Graff.

Who will live, will see.

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief as Mrs. Dardenne has expressed all our feelings and arguments.

President, gentlemen ministers, colleagues, in 1993 Belgium, with the law of 16 June, gave a premier to our world. It was a law that was approved almost unanimously. The trials against the six of Butare gave the international community again hope in the fight against impunity of the most punishable crimes against humanity. The law of 16 June 1993 was amended. Taking into account the developments at the international level — I mean the Yerodia case regarding immunities, the International Criminal Court and its statute — our legislation had to change.

As far as the International Criminal Court is concerned, we must all find that we are extremely disappointed with the statute. Everyone thought that with the entry into force of the statute and the establishment of that court, states, which were to punish the most severe crimes against humanity, would have the opportunity to have an independent international court to judge them if confronted with difficult affairs and diplomatic tensions. Unfortunately, this is not the case. The International Criminal Court acts only as a complementary court. It is intended that national states incorporate international humanitarian law into their national legislation.

That is of course. A case is always first brought at a lower level, which is called subsidiarity.

Yes, but if you look at the International Court of Justice in The Hague, you can see that a lot of delicate cases between states go to that court rather than they are handled on the national territory.

The built-in filter...

Here you make a comparison with states where it is usually a civil procedure and not a criminal procedure. This is about criminal proceedings against individuals.

No, Mr Coveliers, the International Court of Justice does not deal with civil proceedings. The International Court of Justice deals with complaints relating to disputes between States, which are not civil disputes. The Yerodia case was not a civil dispute, Mr. Coveliers.

... ... It is about persecution of individuals.

and yes.

The example you cite is a procedure between states. That is why the comparison is missing.

What will Belgium do? A case that we cannot judge ourselves, will we, as a State, refer to the International Criminal Court?

If it is individual persons to be prosecuted in accordance with the Statute of the Court, we will in fact transmit it to the Court.

Is it from a state to the court?

That is not true, then it is a proceedings by the public prosecutor at that Court against that individual citizen, and then Belgium has nothing to do with it.

We have said that we as a state can also refer to that International Criminal Court, Mr. Coveliers. It is even in that notorious paragraph four.

[...] who act as a state before that Court. You can refer, but you...

You may act as a State before that Court and before any international court.

That is not true, is it not as state certain?

I have practiced international criminal law for six years.

What proves that? I have been here for 18 years and the president for 35 years. Does this mean that we can never make a mistake?

Mr. Coveliers, when it comes to international courts, then there is a high chance that states can bring disputes for them.

Not before the Criminal Court.

Per ⁇ we will soon find out about this in the cafeteria. The built-in filter of the federal prosecutor to address complaints that are foreign to the application of international humanitarian law and merely motivated by private motives, demonstrates a realistic and responsible view of the practice. Furthermore, the more stable anchoring of the length of residence for the victim may prevent unconscious and hasty complaints. However, this legislation should give more security to the victims and not to serious human rights violators.

What, however, we could not find, which we are against, is that notorious paragraph 4, where the interference of the executive power in judicial files is so clear. It is such a horrible violation of the separation of powers, not true, Mr. Van Parys, as you have expressed it many times in the Committee for Justice, that it must hurt every lawyer’s heart.

The buffer of the Chamber of Accusation as an advisory body to the government, conferatur the extradition procedure, in no way guarantees the objective treatment of the complaints pending to our courts. On the contrary, one risks being referred to the country of origin of the perpetrator, where rather impunity than trial awaits the latter. This impunity, by the way, applies to all politically sensitive files, because the inclusion of international humanitarian law and the respect for a fair trial in the state of reference, even if it is a democracy, does not yet guarantee prosecution and trial, precisely for those political reasons.

As regards the interpretative law, the case-law of the Court of Cassation speaks of course for itself. However, in order to be sure that our courts would put into practice the intention of the 1993 legislator, namely that the presence of the perpetrator on the territory is not required to investigate the complaint, it was still better to incorporate the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court also in our legislation.

Furthermore, in this context, if other countries, in particular those that have joined the Statute of the Criminal Court, followed the same principle, the burden of such persecution would be fairly distributed among all those states, where appropriate on the basis of international agreements, as we do in the framework of asylum law. Their

Mr. Speaker, I will conclude. In 1993, our country took the lead in the fight against impunity for serious international crimes and was believed worldwide — by human rights organisations, by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and by Carla Del Ponte, prosecutor at international courts — as an example for other countries who take their international obligations seriously. Their

As with everything new, there must be an adjustment from time to time. This was also intended in the present draft. Today, however, we missed a historic opportunity in the Justice Committee of this Chamber, namely the contribution of Belgium to a global system of international justice. Therefore, my group Agalev-Ecolo will vote against this draft.

Mr Erdman is the last speaker in the general discussion. What does the Gospel say again?

The last will be the first.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, together with many of you, I think that we take responsibility for parliamentary work in this dossier by the timing of the discussion. After hearing various responses — from some I have learned, from others I have asked myself whether they had understood the correct range — I say unwaveringly that this debate could have been conducted much more thoroughly with the necessary time not only to write down texts but above all to be able to test the actual range of those texts, to be able to examine whether or not they fit within the framework of the general principles that govern a rule of law and can be effectively implemented. Their

Mr. Minister of Justice, you can’t blame me for addressing you personally. Every legislator who prepares a text does not do this to put this text in a codex and then never use it again. Each legislature has the duty, when adopting a text, to test it for its feasibility and to ensure that the text has a certain effect.

Under the pressure of this agenda and taking into account the last week of parliamentary work, it is possible — at this point I agree with those who argue that the work will have to be transferred by our successors — that the review of this text will lead to the conclusion that here and there its scope was not properly calculated.

A second consideration is based on a text that I myself quoted in the proposal I submitted in 1991 together with my colleagues Coveliers, Van Parys and Bourgeois. After hearing all the comments on the scope of this text today, it is not without importance to re-cite that text. The text is in French because its author uses the French language.

In accordance with the general principle of loyalty of the action of the judiciary, an immunity from enforcement must, in our sense, be recognized to any representative of a State who is welcomed on the Belgian territory, as such, on an official visit. The reception of such a foreign personality includes the commitment of the host State and its various components not to take any coercive measures against its host, and this invitation cannot become the pretext for bringing the person concerned into what should then be qualified as a little bit.”

The author of this text is the judge of instruction Vandermeersch. La portée de ce texte a été commentée dans l'arrêt Yerodia. From this I would like to deduce that already on 11 April 2000 Mr Vandermeersch was aware that texts with this scope — as I have repeatedly emphasized — have not only a legal force, but also side effects on the political and diplomatic level. After all, an investigative judge, ordered to conduct an investigation, assumes that he does not come to that case when the person concerned is on an official visit. The investigative judge does not even speak of a particular capacity, he only says "on official visit".

I address this text in particular because it seems difficult for some to track the actual scope of paragraph 4 and to estimate its limits. Their

I do not want to engage in any controversy about this case. I will not enter into the arguments of those who noted that paragraph 4 was accepted in an earlier version and the current version was rejected. They wondered if that might be because the date was left out and whether it was a compromise. The text was accepted and the content, political and diplomatic elements contained in it also formed part of a particular agreement.

By linking the scope of paragraph 4 to the procedure concerning extradition, stipulated in the law of 1874 — at that time ⁇ good laws were made — it was intended to make a reference to a judicial element in the assessment of the executive power in these very delicate matters.

I just want to show that nothing is invented. If, at that time, investigative judges, entrusted with this problem, also let the political element play, then at a given moment in such subjects can also be sought a way to capture the problem.

My third point is the structure of the whole. By focusing on paragraph 4, one forgets the significant progress made — and my colleagues in the Senate will not blame me — compared to the text approved by the Senate.

We have heard the Federal Prosecutor. He asked us to build criteria on which he should rely in his assessment. We have included the criteria in this text. Accepting an amendment by Ms. Lalieux c.s. We have stated very clearly that the criteria for the future apply. We assign the federal prosecutor a forward-looking role, especially for all new complaints. For new complaints, he will be able to apply those criteria. Today, of course, there are still a number of files, for which we must pursue solutions. At the same time, for each of these dossiers, there are problems in the assessment of the text, as it now presents.

Apart from the detailed analysis of the text, my group considers that it has not gone far enough in defining the correct range. In fact, the essential objective is and must still be: on the one hand, to ensure that those who are guilty of serious offences, in particular the serious offences listed in Articles 1, 1bis and 1ter, will not be able to carry out such acts impunely. On the other hand, the objective is to respect the rights of victims and their relatives. They must also be able to find justice through the procedure.

According to the interpretation given by the SP.A group to the text, the guarantees have not been fully presented. I have repeatedly stated in the committee that, with the consent of the group, I grant myself the right to have my own approach in the assessment of this matter. I hesitate to follow the rigorous position that the group wants to take on this matter. The reason is that, in my opinion, very significant steps have been taken in the right direction. On the other hand, legal certainty is guaranteed, possibly incomplete but yet fully in certain points. Personally, I will remember. In this context, the objectives for me have remained unchanged. During the review of the text, we discussed the issue for a long time. However, the group takes a position in honour and conscience.

In the light of these provisions and the attitude that one wishes to take towards the text, we must also be very clear.

Everyone will determine their position. I then pointed out the dates and deadlines. Well, if this text is discussed here today, it is so that our colleagues in the Senate can continue to deal with it. The consequences must also be drawn out. One must know what those consequences are, also for the senators, taking into account that of course the 1993 law had to be adjusted, of which everyone is convinced. I would like to decide, Mr. Speaker, to take a moment into what has already been said. I am, with some here, one of the veterans who passed the 1993 law with enthusiasm. You may or may not remember that we passed that law shortly after we voted on the statute of the ad hoc tribunal for Rwanda. That was in April 1993. We have to wait a while and shortly thereafter, in 1995, we approved the ad hoc tribunal for Yugoslavia. We then had the illusion that, given the fact that the statutes that we had then approved by law did not provide for a complementary but a competing jurisdiction in which both the national state and the tribunals would have ad hoc jurisdiction for the aforementioned crimes and there could be an exchange, the powers of the International Criminal Court, if there were, would be laid on the same reading. In all probability, in the negotiations that resulted in the statute of the International Criminal Court, one has only wanted to accept the complementary competence in the hope of also involving large states, which have not joined today, and allowing them to actually make the choice. This had nothing to do with subsidiarity; it had nothing to do with political calculations to put large states under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. We had that illusion at that moment and really hoped that an international order could be established that could effectively combat and punish the most serious crimes.

We are still sitting with our law. Because of the statute of the International Criminal Court, which provides for complementary competence, the desired answer has not been found. For those who would still want to do the effort, I say the following. With my previous proposal, I have tried to remedy this. The presenters were then the gentlemen Van Parys, Bourgeois, Coveliers and myself. We then, in 2001, submitted the proposal as part of the discussion of the law of 1993. That was in 2001! I give the right to those who say that we would have better conducted the discussion then leaving that text. I am not saying that this text should have been accepted. In that text and in several colloquies I have indeed defended the principle that, if an International Criminal Court were competent, the Belgian courts would best declare themselves incompetent. Therefore, the quoted complementarity of competence would play. It should not have been. This option was not taken. Today you are indeed facing the great difficulty that Belgian legislation introduces a universal jurisdiction and at the same time there is an International Criminal Court with complementary jurisdiction.

I haven’t talked about all the nuances. Mr Coveliers referred to Mr Guillaume’s dissenting opinion. There are others cited in the judgment in Yerodia. There is an enormous literature to know whether a conviction in abstentions is possible. One has the nuance that was also not discussed during the discussion between the right of prosecution in abstentions and the right of judgment and punishment in abstentions.

There is also the implication of the principle "aut dedere aut judicare". This, of course, only makes sense if one is concerned with those involved. How can one now be given the choice between extradition and trial if the perpetrator is not caught. How can one make the choice aut dedere aut judicare in abstentia? This is contrary to the principle. However, this is due to the fact that we are now trying to provide solutions under time pressure. It is a problem we are all convinced of. However, it may not even now fully meet the criteria I have set forth thereafter. This is why I will personally remember here.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker. I have already said this afternoon in the Committee on Justice that I have heard a number of questions today, which I actually ask myself whether the legislator should not have asked them in 1993. I know that at that moment it was chosen to fight against impunity in terms of war crimes and genocide. I know that at that time it was also a prime in the Western rule of law. However, one may not have asked himself at that moment a double question that has often come back today. First, can our courts deal with this? Are they armed for that? Secondly, are the complaints submitted based solely on legal grounds? Could it also not be that at a given moment political – usually geopolitical or international – intentions are hidden behind a complaint, or that diplomatic problems may have to be recognised?

It is therefore quite clear that the government has at some point wanted to take a position, a position that it can take because ten years have passed since the law of 1993, but mainly because in the meantime two novelty in the rule of law have also seen the light. Either they have joined the International Criminal Court, or they have made legislation on universal jurisdiction — which may not always be an absolute universal jurisdiction — their legal norms.

Under these circumstances, the government has taken this position. The position is that in any case she wants to avoid Belgium being selected as a forum where one can come shopping with his complaints. That does not mean that we continue to maintain the position that, with regard to universal jurisdiction, Belgium must also be able to fulfill its leading role in the fight against impunity at the same time. Following the discussion of these matters, I have taken two reference points in the Chamber and Senate. The primary point of reference is that of M. Antonio Cassese, former president of the International Criminal Tribunal, le TPI, pour l'ex-Yougoslavie, qui connaît donc fort bien cette matière. It is a day that four reasons militated against an absolute universal competence. You cite it:

“ 1 . If the accused never goes to the territory of the judge or is not extradited, which seems very likely, the judge ends up being seized in dozens of cases in which he remains powerless.

2 of 2. If the judge nevertheless decides to decide in the absence of the accused, therefore by contumace, he risks being accused of violating certain fundamental rights of the accused.

3 of 3. If all countries began to practice a system modeled on the law of absolute universal jurisdiction, there would be an inalienable competition and criminal jurisdiction.

4 is "Au regard to the quantity of affairs retentissantes sur le plan politique et diplomatique dont il serait saisi, le juge national finirait par être investi des fonctions qui, normally, devraient revenir aux autorités politiques et diplomatiques." I had also cited a second personality, the judge of instruction Damien Vandermeersch, who had indicated that "the exercise of this competence cannot be accompanied by a very great modesty". Here too, on sent the problem in all its dimension. It is in those circumstances, Mr. Speaker, that the Justice Committee was re-negotiated and that the majority has sought to find a solution. As a result of the right to hear that we have exercised in relation to the federal prosecutor, we have been able to install a number of filters. In this context, four criteria were retained, which allow us to verify in advance when Belgian authorities should take action. This is in the event that there is no possibility to bring the case before the naturally competent foreign court. This is either the court of the place where the offence was committed, or the place where the offender is located or where he could be found.

In this context, a proposal grew up that saw the light during the afternoon. This gives the executive power a competence that can only be granted by the first power, the Parliament, in the so-called national interest. It is not so much an exceptional circumstance and in that regard I refer to previous legislation, in particular concerning extradition and hostage-taking, where a similar legal figure has played.

Furthermore, I take the opportunity to answer a series of questions from Mr. Coveliers — they are, as it were, practical examples — which can be addressed by the principle that I have defended on behalf of the Government following the examination of this case. That means that both a legal person and a natural person who acts on behalf of a legal person, makes investments, concludes commercial transactions or makes economic transactions in a state where crimes against humanity are committed are not punishable, unless it is established that that legal person or that natural person at the time of the investment or transaction, taking into account the given circumstances, should have known that that investment or transaction could directly contribute to the commission of the acts charged. In other words, here there is a particular arrangement which, I suppose, is sufficiently met by the general principle.

It is now up to the House to take a final opinion on the draft law.