Proposition 50K2355

Projet de loi modifiant le Code d'instruction criminelle et la loi du 15 juin 1935 concernant l'emploi des langues en matière judiciaire en ce qui concerne la traduction des déclarations verbales.

General information ¶

Authors

CD&V Jo Vandeurzen
Ecolo Martine Dardenne
Groen Fauzaya Talhaoui
MR Pierrette Cahay-André, Olivier Maingain
Open Vld Fientje Moerman
PS | SP Thierry Giet, Karine Lalieux
Vooruit Fred Erdman

Submission date

March 12, 2003

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

judicial power use of languages interpreting

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld MR

Abstained from voting

N-VA FN VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Gerolf Annemans (VB) voted to adopt.
• Ferdy Willems (N-VA) voted to adopt.

Contact form ¶

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

Discussion ¶

March 20, 2003 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, the proposal submitted by Mr. Giet and several others actually stems from a case of one of the Dutch-speaking civil parties in the Dutroux trial to whom the assistance of an interpreter was refused by the Chamber of Accusation for the Court of Appeal in Luik. This did not leave the applicants untouched. The law of 15 June 1935 only permits the assistance of an interpreter before an investigation court for defendants, but not for a civil party. Through various reforms, the civil party and the victim have already been given a better legal status. It is logical that even in the continuation of this justified evolution it should also be possible for investigative courts to offer an interpreter to the civil party. Amendments were submitted to the proposal to expand its scope. On the other hand, colleague Erdman also submitted amendments in the context of the judicial reform for the Court of Assises, in order to also give the civil party the possibility to obtain an interpreter when he or she is not able to speak the language or is deaf.

The Minister of Justice agreed with the proposal and the amendments submitted. This, according to the minister, fits in a modern conception of criminal justice, where the role of the accused and the civil party are equal to each other. The costs of the interpreter shall be borne by the State. At this time, it was difficult to estimate the consequences of this proposal. This proposal was unanimously approved by the committee.

Mr. Speaker, my very high appreciation for the work of Mr. Giet does not take away that I have a little trouble here to just let this pass without any question. We are here for a piece of legislation. There has been an incident. That incident has led, through an urgent procedure, to a fairly fundamental, new approach to the position of a number of parties in court proceedings. I wonder if all this is well considered. Their

Basically, it is possible that there is much to say for an equalization of, for example, the position of someone who is accused and someone who is a civil party. There can be something to say for that. As expressly stated in the report, there is a reversal here. While previously concerned about the judge’s understanding of the language of the parties concerned, it is now reversed. The amendments have given this a very broad scope. Now they say they don’t know what this will cost. That is right. Such a proposal can never be estimated. To that extent, this is not a valid argument against because otherwise one should never introduce such a thing.

However, it should also be asked what procedural consequences this will have. What happens if one does not have the right Urdutolk? Will the case be suspended? There is also a huge difference between the treatment of written papers and the treatment of oral treatments. Suddenly, the oral handling becomes much more interesting because there is indeed an interpreter everywhere. I wonder if we do not overact here. There has been an incident. This incident was heavily mediated and a very strong response to this incident is now given by providing an interpreter in all cases, in all possible ways and in all instances.

I may be misunderstood and I would like to apologize for not taking part in committee work, but that is our fate right now. That will hopefully change. For all interrogations and all actions of investigative and judgment courts, the person concerned should be provided with an interpreter if he appears in person — as a civil party, witness or otherwise involved. I wonder if this Chamber is fully aware of the impact that this measure will have, not only financially but also on the smooth course of judicial proceedings. I have great doubts about this. I would like to hear from the Minister what the figures he puts on them and what the effect is on the procedure. I think this is all too little looked at.

First of all, we must thank the services. I cannot, as chairman of the committee, sufficiently emphasize the way in which we force them, at the end of this legislature, almost to forced labour in order to settle certain matters in time, taking into account the fact that this is a bicameral matter and therefore still needs to be approved by the Senate. I wanted to limit myself to this, but Mr. Pieters challenges me somewhat.

First, this is not an “emo-reaction”, because during the debates — which is why I have submitted amendments myself — it has been shown that colleague Van Parys, at the time in his office of minister, when discussing a proposal by colleagues Duquesne, Viseur and Reynders on the easing of the assistance procedure, had already recognized the problem. On the grounds that all parties should be treated on an equal footing, they had opened the possibility of providing an interpreter. Only this was not completed, apparently by the discussion at the time.

Second, Mr. Pieters, I can tell you from experience — unfortunately ⁇ — that in some circumstances, for certain councils and AIs, one now has more the defilé of the interpreters than the defilé of the lawyers. The need brings it.

Third, the Minister of Justice can testify that he himself has made a special effort to provide, with regard to a school for the training of interpreters, the funding, which was originally borne by, among other things, the Lessius University in Antwerp and which is now continued thanks to the efforts made by the Minister for this purpose. We stand for a reality.

You may be right, but I cannot blame you for the fact that you thought at a first reading that the situation was the opposite and that this was no longer the case with regard to the judges. We have corrected this, also in the last instance and thanks to the services, when re-reading the texts. This is resolved by an additional amendment. I advocate the option that we have taken — not only in this area, but in many aspects of criminal procedure law — to treat all parties on an equal footing. One cannot advocate for the rights of defence if one does not advocate for the defence of the victim’s rights. That was the goal.

I thank colleague Giet for taking the initiative, I thank the ministers for their support in the whole of the work and I thank the services for the quick completion.

Mr. Speaker, during these eight years of office that will soon end, it has not often been given to me to swim in approximately general unanimousness and I will not deprive myself of it, at least for a few moments. This responds to a need, it is an urgent need, urgent for several years and that relates to putting on an equal footing of private parties at trials. We come from a situation where, as enshrined by the European Convention on Human Rights, the principle of equality of weapons, if you scratch the vernis a little, turns out to be above all a principle of fairness and fair trial between the accused, especially the accused detained, on the one hand and, on the other, the public power and the prosecution authorities. It will be necessary to progressively evolve towards an extension of this principle of equal weapons and fair trial, towards an idea of equality between the various private parties, namely the civil part and the accused person. I think this happens a little, although it is very modest. This is an extremely punctual aspect of the procedure, but it is a necessary aspect. I have always said that when one can climb a centimeter, even when there are miles to catch and sometimes decades to compensate, when something progresses even a centimeter in the right direction, my job here is to support it, at least to the extent that the program on which I was elected commands me to do so. by

That said, I will quickly conclude by saying that in the last four years, we have worked hard to fulfill the commitments made unanimously on these banks at the end of the previous legislature, by elaborating what has been called a great Franchimont. The term is neither neutral nor insignificant since it was invented by the current Minister of Justice. At this same tribune and at the end of the previous legislature, in the face of the small reform of the criminal procedure that could have been removed in 1998, he had said that it was a good project but that it was necessary to recognize all together that it was a small project Franchimont in relation to the extent of expectations and even needs in our society. I just want to regret here that at the end of these four years, we are always struggling with the technique of small, even very small steps, while, however, in debates, in statements and commitments before the previous elections, everyone agreed on the idea of going further and deeper in terms of reform of the criminal procedure. by

For example, I had submitted a proposal which, without being revolutionary, seemed to me more structured and seemed to me to respond at the source and transversally to a series of problems. It is the one with the number 1154. It was kept in the refrigerator for three years. I regret that no one was sufficiently aware of the commitments made by the outgoing majority to accept that it could one day be put on the agenda of the Justice Committee, not even President Erdman. by

I will vote for this proposal. I would like to conclude with a comment addressed to Mr. by Pieters. If among the many deputies who make up this House, there are some who cannot be suspected of legislating under the influence of emotion, Thierry Giet must ⁇ be one of those.

First of all, I would like to thank the services who, indeed, had to work quickly, but also the Commission.

I am also very sensitive to the praiseful appreciation I just heard. by

It must be acknowledged that it is a somewhat unpleasant actuality that is at the origin of this bill.

I think it was not pleasant for anyone to see that one victim, and not the least, was somewhat disempowered when leaving a hearing.

It was therefore up to Parliament or at least to the House of Representatives to react quickly and to try to correct or fill a gap that, objectively, was somewhat gone unnoticed. It was through a media record that we had the opportunity to work.

We must therefore very modestly appreciate our work, while saying to ourselves that we are probably doing useful work but also recognizing that we do not make omelette without breaking eggs and that if in the 21st century we want a criminal procedure that is respectful of all parties, it is probably by paying the price at a given time.

There is clearly a political choice to be made.

It is also, very clearly, a work to continue, whether on the level of access to justice or on the level of work for the equality of the parties to the trial.

I think I can say that a first reading of the preliminary draft reform of the Code of Criminal Procedure, called the “Great Franchimont” — although I do not like this expression — can improve a lot of things.

Parliamentary work will ⁇ bring changes, but the general lines of this text seem to me to go in the right direction. This is undoubtedly a workplace for the future parliament, and I am hoping that from May 19 or in the days that follow, we will be able to start this work in favour of a 21st century criminal procedure.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, it has been cited later that it is actually a reaction to a case that has occurred in practice. Some have even used the word lacune. This is a gap in the law. In fact, in the course of a case before an investigation court, the injured civil party, although assisted by a lawyer, has not been assisted by an interpreter and may still be confronted with a language that it does not understand. Their

I would like to answer the following. Both my predecessors and myself were aware of this problem. We have taken steps to provide a translation relating to the assistance to victims. The best evidence is that when the case had been handled before the correctional council, these parties were effectively assisted by an interpreter. It was also foreseen that this would be the case in the degree of appeal before the Chamber of Accusation. It went differently. I do not criticize the ruling. That is not my role and duty. It can only be said that all elements were taken into account in order to reach a solution except for the legislative change. Their

A legislative amendment is now being proposed. This is an initiative taken by parliamentarians. I have fully supported this in its development. I would also like to respond to the following. When it is said at a certain moment that one does not actually do so much for the victims, I say that there has been especially much changed for the victims. First, in the conditions for the conditional release, they are informed and may make comments. Second, the criminal file is now available at a reduced rate. It is available at 0.25 euro cents per page. This is also an important response. Third, there are a number of fees that are paid to victims who have been raised. All this happened because of parliamentary initiatives. I have two comments. I am also here to answer the questions asked by Mr. Peterson. The rapporteur, Mr. Verherstraeten, has been fully included in his report. He pointed out two problems that arise in practice. First of all, there must be enough interpreters. I have said that there are significant efforts being made. They were quoted by the Chairman of the Justice Committee. Now we have a reserve. One has that can build up with people who have the diploma to be able to interpret at the judicial level. This is an important step forward.

Second, this will of course have a budgetary impact. Let us be clear. It is difficult to predict what this budget impact will be. This will mainly translate into the complicated matters. Parties with a different language role will want to use an interpreter there. This is also a reality of today. I can’t add a number. However, I do not think that this will be of nature to create a large imbalance that would be budgetally uncontrollable. I think we also have sufficient guarantees there with the approval of this law. It can also be implemented in practice.