Proposition 51K0103

Projet de loi relative aux violations graves du droit international humanitaire.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP MR Open Vld Vooruit Purple Ⅰ

Submission date

July 22, 2003

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

international humanitarian law international criminal law crime against humanity war war crime war victim

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Vooruit PS | SP Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

Ecolo FN

Abstained from voting

CD&V LE VB

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 ¶

July 29, 2003 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Justice, dear colleagues, the Committee for Justice discussed the draft law during its meetings of 23 and 24 July 2003. She held last Monday, 28 July 2003, the final vote on the draft law.

I will try to be concise, given the advanced hour. I also suspect that the debate will bring a lot to all colleagues.

I will begin with the introductory statement, as given by Ms. Onkelinx, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Justice.

In fact, it argued that the provisions of material criminal law are transposed into the Criminal Code. The punishment of serious violations of international humanitarian law, namely the crimes of genocide, the crimes against humanity and the war crimes, goes therefore to the Criminal Code. The law, as it existed, is actually abolished and is transferred to the Criminal Code. The other loop, namely the provisions concerning the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the Belgian courts to take note of the crimes referred to in the Act of 1993, is transferred to the previous title of the Code of Criminal Procedure. That is the essence of the bill.

The Minister provides a more detailed explanation of the new rules on the concepts of active and passive personality principles as well as the rules on our international obligations in this regard. I keep it very short. The principle of active personality means that the suspect is Belgian or has his main residence in Belgium. The principle of passive personality means that the victim is Belgian or has resided in Belgium for at least three years effectively, normally and legally at the time of the facts. This is also stated in the memory of explanation. It was also subsequently added to the law as such by a majority amendment. It seemed to us important for the clarity that it was added later.

Subsequently, the Deputy Prime Minister said that under the new article 10, 1bis of the previous title of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the criminal action can only be exercised by the Prosecutor’s Office. For these crimes, therefore, only the federal prosecutor is competent. Of course, it is only possible to proceed to the exercise of the criminal proceedings – as the Deputy Prime Minister argued – on the basis of a complaint submitted to him. As stated above, the criminal action can still be brought even if the requirement of double punishment is not fulfilled or if the suspected perpetrator cannot be found in Belgium.

In this regard, in the proposed system, when a complaint has been lodged with him, the federal prosecutor will demand that the investigation judge investigate that complaint, except if - and now the four conditions that are very important in the new draft law: first, the complaint is apparently unfounded; second, the facts referred to in the complaint are not

The Justice Committee examined this draft and the attached proposals at its meetings on 23 and 24 July. During the debates, Minister Onkelinx explained the essence of the bill. The provisions relating to the material criminal law of the former law of universal jurisdiction will be entered in the Criminal Code and the provisions relating to extraterritorial jurisdiction will be entered in the Criminal Procedure Code. In addition, an active personality principle and a passive personality principle shall apply. The first principle implies that the suspect must be Belgian or that his main domicile must be located in Belgium. The second principle implies that the victim must be Belgian or have resided in Belgium for at least three years at the time of the offences.

Only the public prosecutor can initiate a criminal action. The federal prosecutor is therefore the only one who can decide whether a complaint gives rise to an investigation. It shall not initiate an investigation if the complaint is manifestly unfounded, if the facts do not correspond to the offences concerned, if no criminal proceedings are possible or if the case should rather be submitted to an international court, either to a court of the place where the facts were committed, or to a court of the State of which the perpetrator is a national or of the place where he can be found, provided that such court is independent, impartial and equitable. by

In addition, a system of immunities will be established. It concerns and premier place the personalities occupying a preponderant function on the international stage. A great clarity is necessary in this regard. correspond to a description of the crimes referred to in Book II, Title I bis, of the Criminal Code; third, from this complaint no admissible criminal action can follow; fourth, from the concrete circumstances of the case it is apparent that, in the interests of good judicial administration and in respect of the international conventions of Belgium, this case should be referred to the international courts — this is very important, colleagues — for the extent that this courts have the characteristics of independence, impartiality and bilaterality. This principle is often repeated in subsequent discussions.

A third important point highlighted by the Deputy Prime Minister is the system of immunities, to which I will return later. Furthermore, it may not be extended even after the amendment, but only clarified to make it clear that some persons enjoy immunity when they visit our country, or — given the treaties concluded by Belgium — de facto and de jure can also enjoy this immunity.

An important point of discussion were also the transitional provisions and transitional arrangements for the ongoing matters. In this regard, the Deputy Prime Minister said the following: "On current cases a precisely defined arrangement applies."

The general philosophy here is, the Deputy Prime Minister stated, that the pending cases in which the new territorial or extraterritorial powers are respected remain. In that context, she continued, it must not be taken into account the fact that the possibility of appearing as a civil party is limited in relation to the former legal system. Where criminal proceedings have already been brought in respect of the ongoing matters and due to the objective link that has since arisen between the case and Belgium, certain matters which do not meet the conditions of jurisdiction that will apply in the future, but which have been validly brought before the Belgian courts, shall also remain pending before the Belgian courts.

The system, according to the Deputy Prime Minister, which has been introduced for the cases for which a criminal action has been brought, as, by the way, the Council of State has proposed, ensures that the cases brought before the Belgian court are not withdrawn on the basis of the operation of the law, but by a court decision, in this case by a decision of the Court of Cassation. I will return to this later because we have also approved some amendments on this issue in the committee, more specifically on Article 29, which clarifies some things.

Subsequently, the colleagues who submitted a number of legislative proposals that were added to the bill took the floor to clarify their respective legislative proposals. Collega De Crem was the first to get the word to clarify his bill. He argued that his bill was based on the conclusions of the final report of the Interministerial Committee on Military Law and that it was intended to change the scope of the law so that the law would only apply if the suspected perpetrator has Belgian nationality, is in Belgium, or if at the time of the facts the victim is Belgian, or for at least a period — he said one year — has resided in Belgium. A transitional regime is provided for pending affairs. The pending affairs that meet the new criteria may be prosecuted. In addition, the affairs which do not satisfy it, but for which the criminal action has already been engaged, remain pending. In any case, the future law may not put an end to the procedure in the framework of affairs for which the criminal action is engaged. The decision belongs exclusively to the Court of Cassation. Amendments have been submitted in order to clarify this article.

by Mr. De Crem noted that his bill also relies on the final report of the Interministerial Commission on Humanitarian Law, which corresponds to the bill on a number of points.

by Mr. Laeremans indicated that his bill was limited to the abolition of the law of universal jurisdiction. It raised the question of whether all the crimes against humanitarian law included in the long list that is included in the project can be qualified as such.

As part of the general discussion, Ms Nagy stated that the Belgian law of universal jurisdiction should serve as an example and deplored the negative image associated with her.

According to M. Eerdekens, the law of universal jurisdiction constituted a praiseworthy initiative, but Belgium was not up to the task it had undertaken.

by Mr. Wathelet is surprised that common law would be more favourable to victims than the law of universal jurisdiction. He mentioned the difficulty that the federal prosecutor will experience in deciding on foreign courts. These courts are not obliged to deal with the Belgian complaint.

M is Monfils this soutenir le projet de loi, estimant qu'il fait la clarté sur He decided correctly that the bill corresponds in a number of points to the text of the bill, but that there are also a number of derogations. I will return to this later.

Mr Laeremans presented his legislative proposal. He added that his proposal aims to abolish the existing genocide law as it currently exists. Any other legislative initiative in this area threatens to cause difficulties again, he added. Finally, the speaker asked whether all the crimes described in the draft law — they are detailed in it — should be characterized as crimes against humanitarian law.

Mr. Bourgeois of the N-VA referred to the written explanation attached to his bill.

During the general discussion, Ms. Nagy van Ecolo noted that a year ago the law on universal jurisdiction still served as an exemplary law by which Belgium played an international leading role in the fight against crimes against humanitarian law. She regretted the fact that the law on universal jurisdiction is being highly negatively assessed internationally, ⁇ because a number of countries have introduced similar provisions. Collega Nagy also noted that the draft is based on a passive personality principle which, in her opinion, is not imposed by any international provision. All this, she said, is the result of the June 2003 legislative amendment — the last — which led to a politicization and caused all the problems that currently imply a complete capitulation. Their

Collega Eerdekens of the PS then took the floor and stated that the law of 1993 as it originally existed had a very glorious goal, playing a pioneering role in punishing crimes against humanity. However, he clarifies that the necessary resources must be available for this. This is not always obvious for a country like Belgium. He continued that the government has sought to solve the problem by limiting the scope of the law in the draft.

In his general explanation, colleague Wathelet of the CDH expressed his amazement that for a victim the common law would ultimately be more favourable than the Genocide Act, which ultimately aims to punish serious violations of international criminal law. He discussed this with the Deputy Prime Minister, which gave rise to some animosity. He added that it would not be an easy task for the federal prosecutor to verify whether the foreign courts are independent, impartial and fair. The federal prosecutor, he said, will have to assess this on the basis of international treaties. Furthermore, if the Belgian Federal Prosecutor files the complaint because the foreign jurisdiction meeting the established criteria, this jurisdiction is not obliged to deal with the case.

Collega Monfils of the MR then took the floor to state that he agrees with the government draft for three reasons. First, there is a law. There must be a clear link between Belgium and the complaint submitted. The Belgian courts no longer have universal jurisdiction. Collega Monfils pointed out that the new rules on the concepts of active and passive personality principles are again creating clarity. The proposed transitional provisions are logical and reasonable. The original law, he emphasizes, was misinterpreted. Therefore, there is also the call for an objective law with this matter.

For Ms Taelman, the abrogation of the law of universal jurisdiction was not an option, but Belgium had to show a little realism.

by Mr. Van Parys believes that the bill will not end the problems posed by the current legislation.

for Mr. Maingain, the bill is part of the continuation of developments in other European countries, which have also set criteria for the jurisdiction of the courts. Such adaptation is necessary given recent diplomatic difficulties and the risk of legal uncertainty.

We have adopted three important amendments.

Thus, we have inserted an article 12bis which extends the immunity so that not only members of governments can benefit from it but any person invited by an official instance and originating from a country with which Belgium has concluded a settlement agreement.

The former article 15, article 16 new, concerns the principle of passive personality. Anyone who wishes to file a complaint must already have resided in Belgium for at least three years.

Article 29 stipulates that the criteria listed in the law are also unambiguously applicable to the Court of Cassation which decides on ongoing cases. by

Eleven members of the committee voted for the bill, four abstained. by

Regardless of my role as a rapporteur, I would like to emphasize that with this new law, we have an operational instrument that allows us to punish the perpetrators of atrocious crimes, without leaving the door open to abuses of all clear criteria. Het voorliggende wetsontwerp, zo stelde hij, komt hieraan tegemoet.

Ms. Taelman of the VLD group emphasized that for the VLD group the abolition of the Genocide Act has never been an option. After all, one should also not lose sight of the fact that a number of treaties require Belgium to have legislation in this regard, she said. The VLD, however, is in favor of a realistic genocide law. As a country, Ms. Taelman said, we are, after all, too small to carry out research activities everywhere in the world.

Collega Tony Van Parys took the floor for the CD&V in turn. He was of the opinion that the draft law is very short of removing all the obstacles that the current legislation raises. Given the serious difficulties that Belgium has encountered with the law of 1993 in its current reading, he stated that it should be hoped that the proposed amendment would have had as its main objective to end the legal uncertainty.

According to Van Parys, this is not the case.

Colleague Maingain of the MR took the floor to say that one must have the courage to acknowledge that the legislation of 1993 and 1999 has caused serious diplomatic difficulties. He argued that those laws were dangerous to legal certainty. Therefore, as stated by colleague Maingain, the circumstances under which our courts may be competent should also be better defined. Something that this bill is trying to ⁇ . Most countries with a law with universal jurisdiction have done the same, he continued, and have established attachment criteria under which their courts are competent.

To this extent, the main statements in the general discussion, colleagues. Of course, the Minister has given a response. By the way, I would like to expressly refer to the written report, because of course there are many important details and references from many colleagues to the report which, I think, are very important for the completeness of this dossier and the discussion of this draft law.

I would like to come briefly to the article-like discussion. I believe that three major amendments were made through an amendment in the committee. Article 12a was added, which divided Article 12. The immunities were separated from the original article 12, the subsequent article 13. It is important to emphasize that it stipulated that any person who is invited by a Belgian authority or by an international institution with which Belgium has a settlement agreement enjoys the immunity, which was not previously registered.

Mr. de Donnéa gave the example of Mr. Massoud from Afghanistan, who at that time indeed was neither head of government nor head of state and could not fall under the immunity rules provided for in the original draft. In the extended and aggregated version, someone like Mr. Massoud would have fallen below. This means that all institutions in Belgium can invite not only heads of state and government, but also experts or other persons. They can enjoy immunity for the duration of their stay.

The former Article 15, now Article 16, was also amended, in the sense that a provision on the moment of the facts was added. The principle of passive personality. of the victim nature. Their

in particular, he is expected to reside in Belgium for three years at the time of the facts, insofar as he is not a resident of Belgium. This was defined in the memory of explanation. The committee has decided to effectively include this in the draft law. Thus, any interpretation of this is made impossible and all clarity is created.

Article 29 was substantially amended. The amendment aims to ensure that the criteria listed in the law would also apply to the assessment by the Court of Cassation, insofar as the latter will have to take a decision on the ongoing cases. I am speaking then about the transitional measures and ongoing cases that should be dealt with by the Court of Cassation. The criteria contained in this bill are also applicable in this area. This was also defined in the Memory of Explanation. For the sake of clarity and in order not to allow any other interpretation, this provision was added by amendment to Article 29 of the Act. Their

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, in the end, this bill was approved in the committee with 11 votes for and 4 abstentions. So far my report.

I would like to add the following, but not in my capacity as a rapporteur.

Mr Borginon will speak later on behalf of the VLD group. Well, it is also my feeling that this law is a significant improvement because it provides us with a more efficient tool that allows us to still be able to prosecute the serious crimes that fall under genocide, but then without allowing a number of persons – as has been shown in the past and in the past months unfortunately – to abuse the law of 1993, amended in 1999.

This will provide us with a viable tool that will enable us to prosecute the perpetrators of such disgusting crimes in our country.

I think we have done a good job with the committee. As a rapporteur, I would like to thank the services in particular for their enormous efforts. After all, they managed to prepare a beautiful workpiece in a short time. I also thank our language services, the interpreters, the translators for the special effort they have made in the last few days.

Thank you Mr Goris. The following speakers were registered in the debate: Mr De Crem, M. Maingain, Mr. Laeremans et M. of honor. Mr De Crem has the word.

Mr. Speaker, I will make one statement regarding the proposal I have submitted and the discussion of the law.

I’m not going to talk about the reasons why we should meet after July 21. I will go back to the election campaign for those who would have declared during this campaign that Prime Minister Verhofstadt and Minister Michel would have advocated the abolition of this genocide law, who might have belonged to the camp of the negativists. So much was clear, because it was written in the stars that the law on genocide would be held unshorted. It was a bit the crown on the work of the new diplomacy Michel-Verhofstadt. It was also the vehicle of the

During the electoral campaign, the Belgian law of universal jurisdiction was presented as the pearl of government work. It was the symbol of the new diplomatic policy led by MM. Michel and Verhofstadt. This law was intended to put Belgium back on the world chessboard. On the other hand, silence circonspect with regard to the effects on the politieke actie die ons opnieuw een plaats zou geven - is it not so colleague of Donnéa? In de rangorde van de groten van de wereld.

The impact on foreign investment in our country could and should not be discussed. The cracking legislative amendment of the text in April – I remember it myself and colleague Van der Maelen and his then present fellow politicians may also remember it – came here after a nightly deliberation. It was created thanks to the support of the opposition because it was actually a choice between plague and cholera. However, I would like to say that it is with the leverage of the opposition that the law has been amended.

It is a very technical and difficult matter, it is not an easy fabric. During the long formation consultation, there were many difficult points that were not discussed, but the law on genocide was discussed. The design has undergone a huge evolution. It was a bit of a “from-alpha to-omega” evolution. In the beginning, there were some adjustments and adjustments. So we saw the Prime Minister every night, with the backdrop ".be", moving forward with a number of employees and future members of parliament. Welcome to this halfway in the meantime. It was only at the time when signals came from Washington that a little redirect and a little mess in the margin would not be enough that one realized that there would be a lot of adjustments needed.

After an interview and an appearance for the blue background of .be in the press center, Mr. Michel stated that the scratches had been glued. At that moment, however, the pots were finally broken! It is a ⁇ significant change in the attitude that our country has adopted in this genocide law. They used the slogan of De Gaulle: "Je vous ai compris, madame" or in the language of Shakespeare "Yes, we understood". I notice that Ms. Van Weert is not present at this discussion. After reading today’s “The Time” – “Le temps” for the French speakers among us – I think there will be another update. It is very interesting reading. The wound has not yet been “gecicatrized”. The scar formation has just begun. A small layer of skin has formed. Ms. Van Weert says that the agreements with America on a number of international affairs need to be revised. That is the essence of the legislative change. The Genocide Act has been amended and updated with the guarantee that the bilateral treaties between the United States and Belgium will also be amended. This is, in my opinion, a ⁇ important data. I will not bring this point into discussion. Their

Colleagues of the majority, if you want to do something about the totally disrupted relationship between David and Goliath, between the United States of America and Belgium, you must talk to Mrs. Van Weert.

The government has made its turn in this genocide law. However, the differences remain ⁇ large. Before going deeper into the content of the law, I would like to list a number of important changes that have been made during the committee discussions.

Collega Goris has there op exceptionally good ways to verwezen. Het waren eigenlijk eerst of colleagues of Donnéa in Maingain die het stelsel van de immuniteiten sterk hebben uitgebreid, niet dat zij dat allemaal zo aangenaam vonden maar "for the needs of the cause," foreign investments. In April, however, a first banking amendment was made to the law, with the support of the opposition. We had to choose between pest and cholera.

The evolution of this case is full of reversals. Some changes were first made but when Washington began sending messages indicating that these adjustments were not enough, the government then turned back. The law of universal jurisdiction was completely redesigned to the extent that it was found that relations with the United States were profoundly altered. Van Weert said in De Tijd that a number of bilateral treaties concluded with the United States should immediately be revised. The wounds are barely starting to heal as other ruptures are already likely to occur.

In the Commission, Mr. Donnéa and Maingain have worked in favour of the extension of the immunity regime. Immunities are now registered in the law in the form of a general provision in a preliminary title of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This formula was necessary in order to allow Belgium to continue to play a role in the framework of international consultation. If Brussels wants to continue to play its role as a host city, Belgium must accept the consequences. The international community must be able to have places where the parties at war can consult and seek reconciliation. In this sense, immunities even have an ethical dimension in the interests of humanity!

In the month of April, a law of reparation was adopted in the national interest and with our support but, in the end, we n'en tirons aucune fierté. because the Genocide Act was a real seed where so many international figures could break through. These immunities are now registered in the law as a general provision in a previous title of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This is of course important because the role of Belgium in the international consultation would otherwise be completely weakened.

The general provision on these immunities will apply to a person who is officially invited by an international institution with whom Belgium has concluded a settlement agreement. This has a concrete implication, namely that, for example, anyone who is officially invited by the European Parliament during his stay in Belgium cannot be judicially disturbed. You would say, it seems to me as ready as a cloth. But you can’t believe, colleagues, how hard we have actually had to push to make that obvious change, which does nothing but safeguard the interests of our small country, possible.

We, as Christian Democrats, believe that the matter needs to be clarified, that a clear framework needs to be created because the question that arises is whether our country and whether Brussels can continue to play its role as the host of countless international institutions – there are so many more than NATO and the European Union. Do we accept the international consequences, or not? Also ethically, the role of a host state, where fighters from different parties can consult with each other, is ⁇ important. There are places in the world where these conversations can take place and where reconciliation can be achieved. We believe that Brussels has a ⁇ important role to play in this because we can also contribute to humanity.

It is just that humanity that is the main ground flow of the design.

I would like to talk briefly about the design itself. After that bad legislative change, after that April repair legislation, we are not sitting at the package.

The [...]

Mr. Goris, we have then made a practical application of the almost royal oath in the interests of the country: we have helped preserve the integrity of the country and have helped safeguard the territory intact. That is what we have done. Mr. Goris, it was at the request of your group leader Blessed who has now with palliative care referred to the Senate that it has come into being, after Mr. Van der Maelen had said njet. The truth has its rights.

Mr. De Crem, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that what you call the Reparation Act was a repair of the law of 1999 which was made under the then Minister of Justice, Mr. Tony Van Paris. What we repair, we repair together. It is a fact that we have experienced this together from 1993 to today. Let us not call each other a Liezebet. Let us not blame each other. This has always been carried out by the whole Parliament. Let us now also be correct in the settlement of this case.

I would like to point out to Mr. De Crem said the amendments adopted in April were amendments made to the 1993 law that had been written by his party colleague Mr. De Crem. Van Parys, then Minister of Justice. We have experienced this whole legislative episode together. So let us not criticize each other!

Mr. Goris, we will not call each other Liezebet. We will call each other Vincent Van Quickenborne. It is not about Liezebet or the Vlijtig Liesje, it was about Van Quickenborne. In the meantime, he has taken the constitutional oath and has become a minister of the King, but that was the reason why the matter had to change.

Mr. President, I want to remind Mr. Goris of the historical truth. He said that the law of 1999 was created at the initiative of the then Minister of Justice. The initiative was a bill proposed by Mr Foret of the PRL. All the government did at the time was to make amendments because that bill was so shameless that it was embarrassing to discuss it in this Parliament. We have only tried to save the furniture in this way. It was Mr Foret of the PRL who was at the base of this initiative and no one else. I think Mr. Goris will have to review his history and the annals of the Parliament for a while.

I would like to remind Mr. Goris said that the 1993 law had been drafted at the initiative of the PRL since it found its origin in the Foret bill. The government then improved this banking proposal by submitting a series of amendments.

Mr. Speaker, I was not in Parliament at the time, but I read the preparatory works. Indeed, Mr. Van Paris, one of the amendments you then made to Mr. Foret’s proposal was that of the immunities that your group leader Mr. De Crem just said it needed to be urgently adjusted and that, by the way, was also destroyed by the International Court of Justice. Truth has its rights.

Amendments supported by Mr. Van Parys at the time had to do with immunities. The truth has its rights.

This is what you are approving now. What are you doing? You’d better be a little modest about this matter.

Mr. Speaker, I thought Ms. Taelman would once again make a reference to the Hollywood states. He did that in the committee. I was already afraid that GI Joe would come up here.

Our bill was submitted. We didn’t want to sit in the suitcases. The proposal states very clearly that there must be a link with Belgium due to the perpetrator or the victim. We have registered this link as a requirement for the jurisdiction of the Belgian courts and courts. So that was not the case. Our philosophy is taken over by the government in its bill. We have said that too. There must therefore be a clear nationality link with Belgium.

The government is going one step further. It completely abolishes the existing genocide law. It integrates the provisions in general criminal law. We agree that this leads to poor, legislative work. Here, after all, a real holding ball integration in general criminal law has been established. It will, of course, cause incredibly many difficulties. We will talk about the consequences. Colleague Van Parys, colleague Wathelet and I have talked about the consequences. Many consequences were not calculated.

Ladies and gentlemen of the majority, I predict it to you. Madame Soleil has long been dead, but her spirit is over this law. We predict that you will have huge problems with the bill.

Our bill was clear because it stipulated that the perpetrator or victim must have a link with Belgium. The government has taken this idea, but it goes further. The current law of universal jurisdiction is abolished and a new provision will be inserted into the general criminal law. This is a nonsensical approach, a low-quality legislative work that will be heavy with consequences. We expect huge difficulties. The twenty-nine filings of complaints against Bush senior, Colin Powell, Fidel Castro, etc. They are not resolved so far. by

La loi de compétence universelle a donc été élaborée en 1993 et si la Cour pénale internationale a pu commencer de fonctionner en juin 2002, tout le mérite et revient aux ministres démocrates-chrétiens. However, this loi a été vidée de sa substance par les abus politiciens qu'en ont fait des Mr. Goris, there have already been 29 pending cases, in particular the fallen Father Bush, Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, Norman Schwarzkopf, Fidel Castro and the cases of all those against whom a complaint has been filed before the investigative court. These cases have not been resolved. It is a giant loophole. I said that the government is an attractions park. With this design, she sits in the rollercoaster. She is in the seventh jump. You go up, you go down, you call hello, you call hopla, you call hopla. At the end of the ride you will be sick. However, you will not be able to get out. You will have to start again. There is no finality in the design. It is a rollercoaster design. It is a rollercoaster. It is a loophole. No problem has been solved.

In 1993 the law came into force. There is no International Criminal Court. In June 2002, the International Criminal Court was established. The International Criminal Court is a body — we all agree on it — that should prevent the perpetrators of crimes against humanity from remaining impunity. I would like to say, however, that it is Christian Democratic ministers who have greatly contributed to the establishment of the International Criminal Court. I would like to pay tribute to our colleagues Tony Van Parys and Stefaan De Clerck.

I also think that our diplomacy should continue to use all means to make the International Criminal Court operational. We have also done this with our party in our bilateral contacts.

I come back to what was so sweetly quoted and cited by colleague Goris this summer evening. The genocide law has simply undermined the political abuse. I can’t ignore: who has committed political abuse? Members of the previous government, sometimes again member. Who prompted people to use and abuse this law? Let’s be honest: the former and current Minister of Foreign Affairs. Their

Then, of course, we come to the famous case of the gentlemen Van Quickenborne and Patrick Moriau. Mr. Van Quickenborne has abused the law in a scandalous and shabby manner and the fact that he is now Secretary of State does not affect that. He has ensured that the essence of that law—which we stand behind—that crimes against humanity must be punishable—was made entirely objectless. When political reasons prevail, we are doing wrong. This was done by the members of the previous and current majority. Let’s be honest: the complaints submitted in relation to the First Gulf War are really the typical example of that. If one wants to undermine a legislation, if one wants to make it no longer applicable, then one has only to put it in his head to submit such complaints. This is a typical battle for us. That is very clear. The metaphor of Bush senior and everything related to the First Gulf War is for us a typical battle in which the legislator should provide prima facie inadmissibility. In these circumstances it is up to us that the judicial bodies of the allied countries concerned, together with their parliament, judge whether their leaders have carried out these military operations within the framework of international humanitarian law. Let’s be honest, we made ourselves absolutely ridiculous with our country by letting the law apply to this.

We will be remembered by voting. That do we about a number of redemptions. Die onthouding is bijzonder gemotiveerd in ik wil ze toch nog members of the previous government and the current government. I want to talk about mr. Michael and Van Quickenborne. Complaints about acts committed during the first Gulf War against Iraq are a typical example. Legislation should provide for the possibility of declaring certain complaints filed on its behalf inadmissible from the outset. Belgium has completely ridiculed itself by allowing this law to be the subject of such flagrant abuses. by

The CD&V will abstain, because this new draft of the law does not solve our difficulties with the United States. by

If the CD&V will abstain, it is mainly because this law does not solve our problems with the United States at all. The government believes that Belgian justice can decide on pending complaints concerning certain African countries but at the same time wants the Court of Cassation to dismiss the Belgian courts as quickly of complaints filed against former President Bush and Ariel Sharon for the role that he would have played at the time when he was general. In summary, the Verhofstadt II government seeks to feed the goat and the cabbage. Even under your attention.

First, in fact, this draft should have a subtitle and that should be: this is the draft to be able to declare unacceptable the complaints filed against Bush senior and everything related to it. The problems with the United States have not been solved. If you think that today the illusion exists that these problems have been solved, then you are not in the rollercoaster, but in the forgotten pit, in the oubliette. The problems are not solved. The signals are coming and they will immediately return to the government’s womb after the vote and the publication of the law. Regarding the pending complaints before an investigative judge, the government, Mrs. the minister, saved the cabbage and the goat. You have ménagé la chèvre et le chou. It has required us an incredible amount of effort in the committee to find out just how many complaints were still pending. pending cases!

Because we know it ourselves, of course, we have been able to pull the minister over the line a little easier. Therefore, there are still 29 pending files that fall under the application of the old law.

In fact, the government is appreciating this. The government believes or wishes that the Belgian court will be able to decide on pending complaints relating to Chad and other African countries, but at the same time wants the Court of Cassation to withdraw the complaints against former President Bush and General Yaron from the Belgian courts of justice as soon as possible.

That is the political drive. According to the government, there are ⁇ silly complaints, namely those related to Chad and some African leaders, and on the other hand there are the pending cases in which the Court of Cassation should withdraw the complaint.

Mrs Vautmans would like to interrupt you, if you allow it. You will apparently do this with pleasure.

You have also submitted a bill. What opportunities do you offer for the pending affairs? I think your bill is much lighter than that of the government. If Parliament approves your bill, then NATO will leave Brussels tomorrow, I am really convinced of that.

If your bill, which is far more lax, was adopted, NATO would have left Brussels early.

Thank you very much, Mrs. I can see that you have not yet heard of the speech of the Prime Minister.

You say exactly the same thing as your boss.

She has never been that, that is her colleague next to her. You have to distinguish.

Mrs. Vautmans, that is exactly the same phrase as what your great rider has proclaimed here under the motto ‘do not be deceived, create courage, follow us’. In fact, it is not our way.

I have not heard a word from you, Mrs. Vautmans, during this discussion. You’re just trying to be a little bit of the abdominal speaker of the resident of the 16. In order to intervene here, you must use other arguments.

You give me the impression that you are always in the skin of the spokesperson you were in the previous legislature. But in this hemisphere, you should not behave like a ventriloque. You have to make real arguments.

That is not friendly.

Should we be kind to each other?

The independence of the Court of Cassation turns out to be a hindering formality for the government here, as there is also an opinion from the State Council.

Mr. De Crem, I have not received an answer to my question.

Your bill on this subject is much lighter. What do you propose to resolve the hanging affairs and to resolve the hell with the Americans? This is a concrete question that I would like to get an answer to.

I repeat my question: how does Mr. Would Crem take it to settle outstanding affairs?

Do you know how you can do that? By adding to your law an article stating that cases submitted before April 2003 were automatically withdrawn from the Court.

By inserting an article that automatically dismissed the Belgian courts from all cases filed before April 2003.

Is that your proposal?

Mrs, our proposal was submitted after a silent and amicable phone call from the Lambermont, with the request to help them out of need and to submit a proposal. That is the truth. At the time you no longer knew which wood to make arrows, we were contacted by phone with the request to formulate a proposal; "Then we have at least one vehicle to get out of" was told to us. That is the truth.

As regards the Court of Cassation, I also refer to the report.

Second, the federal prosecutor, who plays a ⁇ important role in the March and April amendment, is now being degraded to a lakei of executive power. Therefore, we are here completely with the negative injunction right. The government will now give the federal prosecutor instructions regarding the opportunity of prosecution. I think that this is a heavy blow to the sacred principle of the separation of powers. This is totally unacceptable for us. There is also a novum. In fact, the Public Prosecutor’s Office, which is considered one and indivisible, will be represented at the Court of Cassation by two members, namely the Attorney General at the Court and, in addition, the federal prosecutor who, as a delegate, is assigned a role of emissary, of dispatched. For us, this is unacceptable, because it means that the Attorney General is not trusted in the Court. The Federal Prosecutor is then also sent to the Court as a Deputy.

Third, victims of genocide crimes are subject to discrimination. This is unacceptable for us. In some cases, they will not be able to exercise their right to form a civil party. The victim, who is rightly given an important place in the government agreement, is therefore again in the cold.

Mr. Speaker, I will talk briefly about the extension of the jurisdiction of the Belgian courts through Articles 14 and 15 – for that is our fourth objection – to any person who has a permanent residence in Belgium. This is not well thought out. This is not the object of good legal work. We want with our

This is not provided for in my bill because I had to write it in a hurry, after a supplication in this sense from Lambermont. by

The violet coalition considers the independence of the Court of Cassation as an embarrassing formality. The federal prosecutor will be downgraded to the rank of government laquais when it comes to assessing the opportunity to initiate prosecution. By this right of negative injunction, the executive power violates the principle of separation of powers. The Public Prosecutor’s Office is one and indivisible but is represented in the Court of Cassation by two members: the Attorney General at the Court and the Federal Prosecutor. Therefore no confidence is given to the Attorney General near the Court. The federal prosecutor is sent to the Court of Cassation as a representative of the government.

The third objection that we formulate is as follows: in some cases, victims of genocide crimes cannot constitute a civil party, which is discriminatory.

To draw attention to this amendment introduced by this law in the general criminal law, with far-reaching consequences for the Belgian courts and courts. In fact, when establishing the principle of active personality, the government no longer assumes only nationality, but also persons who have their main residence in Belgium are caught. This means that the Belgian courts and courts will be competent for all crimes committed also abroad by non-Belgians permanently residing here. Furthermore, this having a main residence is not limited to the moment of the facts. It can also be later, when the main residence is located here. We therefore face the unimaginable risk that foreign resident holders with their rival factions will file complaints against each other over facts committed abroad. We really risk becoming the troll of rival factions that will file complaints here. This has resulted in overload of the judicial services, which do not have the resources to find out the truth. On the other hand, we have in vain asked about the additional resources provided by the Government to bear the additional tax of the Belgian judicial system.

From the government side, therefore, within two years, when there are major problems with the judiciary in Brussels, one will not have to say that one did not know.

In a few months we will be here again. We will be here again to adjust that government draft. We are therefore here again to answer the question to which Mrs. Minister has not answered. I call it again the metaphor, the lever of that law, in fact the only thing for which that draft government was intended: the metaphor Bush senior con suis, and consorts. This is not resolved by this law. This is one of the twenty-one pending cases.

Your legislative amendment is not operational. What happens if the Attorney General at the Court of Cassation decides not to withdraw the complaint from the Belgian courts and courts? Then he returns, Mrs. Minister. That’s the angel, but I hope he doesn’t steal you. That is the angel.

Mevrouw of minister, i kom tot de kern van het problem. the extension of the competence of the Belgian courts through Articles 14 and 15. Anyone whose main residence is in Belgium falls under the law even if crimes committed abroad are committed by non-Belgians. In addition, the principal place of residence must not be located in Belgium at the time when the punishable acts are committed. The victim may have settled at home later. Belgium thus risks becoming the field of confrontations between rival groups that will fight in our country by filing complaints there, which will cause a huge overload of work for Justice. The government does not answer the question of how much additional resources it plans to allocate to Justice to fulfill this additional mission.

Changing the law makes no sense. It will not allow us to reintegrate the favors of the Americans and will not resolve the pending affairs. If the Attorney General at the Court of Cassation does not dismiss the Belgian courts of the complaints, they will be returned to the Minister like a boomerang. I promise that in a few months we will have to re-adjust the law again. I come to the core of the problem. If the Court of Cassation does not dismiss it is that the complaint that was filed on the basis of the old law returns directly to the investigative judge. The case is now on the government’s table. And what will you do in this case? What will you say to the Americans? That is why we will not vote on this project. We will give a well-motivated abstention. And I give you an appointment in October, at the beginning of the next parliamentary year, because this law will expire and cannot be applied. What will u of Americans green as of complaint that was ingediend on the basis of van of earlier law, meteen opnieuw bij de bevoegde rechter terecht komt?

Our abstinence is strongly justified. Date in October, because then it will prove that your faulty law cannot be applied.

The law of 23 April 2003 amending the law of 16 June 1993 concerning the repression of serious violations of international humanitarian law, is called to disappear from our legal arsenal. Is the extraterritorial jurisdiction of our courts to judge the most serious and most disgusting crimes therefore greatly diminished or modified? Abrogation of the Law of 23

De opheffing van de wet van 23 april 2003 was inevitable. De wet was in essence een politiek signal, met als zwakke plek dat de uitvoerende macht een zaak kon onttrekken aan Belgische April 2003 was inevitable. As a circumstance law adopted at the end of the legislature, it had above all the value of a political signal, and it could only know the fate that the bill under consideration reserves for it. The legal doctrine did not fail to highlight certain weaknesses, the most significant of which was the intervention of the executive power in the discharge of Belgian courts for the benefit of foreign states, as this discharge was organized by the famous article 7 of the contested law. Because the current bill restores the separation of powers and the executive will not exercise any authority over the federal prosecutor’s office when it considers that the conditions for dismissal are met, we can already be very satisfied.

A second advance represented by the draft law examined is that concerning the regime of immunities of the enforcement courts organized by article 1bis new of the preliminary title of the Code of Criminal Procedure. I look forward to the introduction of this regime in a separate article at the beginning of this preliminary title because this provision is general and does not concern only crimes violating international law on immunity. by

This is in accordance with the proposal I made in the committee, supported by my colleague, Mr. In accordance with international law, the system of immunity shall be granted to persons officially invited to stay on the territory of the Kingdom by the Belgian authorities or by an international or European organisation established in Belgium, and this for the duration of their stay. by Mr. The rapporteur referred to specific cases that Mr. To justify this extension of the immunity regime.

I recall that the jurisdictional immunity of heads of state, heads of government and foreign ministers must be understood in the sense determined by the International Court of Justice in its judgment of 14 February 2001, the famous Yérodia judgment. “A court of a State may, provided that it is competent under international law, judge a former Minister of Foreign Affairs of another State for acts accomplished before or after the period during which he held his duties, as well as for acts which, although accomplished during that period, have been accomplished in private terms.”

It shall be understood the terms contained in the provision, in Article 1bis § 1, 1 tiret, "during the period in which they exercise their functions" in the sense thus recalled by the judgment of the International Court of Justice.

For private acts, even accomplished during the duration of the exercise of the office, heads of state and similar persons may, in compliance with the rules of jurisdiction, answer for their acts before our courts for any litigation, for example of civil type.

I come to the essential aspect of the analysis of this bill. What remains of the previous laws of universal jurisdiction? On the very principle of the extraterritorial jurisdiction of our courts to know of the prosecution and judgment of acts repressed by international law, as recognised in the bill under consideration, it must be admitted that the scope remains relatively broad, I am speaking of the principle of jurisdiction. Indeed, one could have held a principle, otherwise consistent with international law and satisfying our international obligations, which would have wanted our courts to know of crimes committed abroad only on the sole condition that their author rechtbanken in ze doorverwijzen naar een buitenlandse Staat. Het voorliggende ontwerp houdt op dat vlak een verbetering in.

The new article 1bis of the draft law, a separate article from the previous title of the Code of Criminal Procedure, concerns the system of immunities with regard to prosecution and the exercise of criminal proceedings. This decision has a more general scope and is not limited to crimes against humanity.

In accordance with international law, persons officially invited to stay on the Belgian territory enjoy immunity for the entire duration of their stay. The immunity from prosecution enjoying the Heads of State and Government and the Ministers of Foreign Affairs is the immunity within the meaning of the International Court of Justice’s judgment-Yerodia. The essence of this is that acts in the private sphere, even if they were made during the exercise of their functions, can be prosecuted before our courts.

The bill preserves the principle that alleged perpetrators of crimes constituting a serious violation of international humanitarian law can be prosecuted and even convicted in Belgium, even if the foreign perpetrator is not located on our territory.

Via het artikel 12bis van de foregående titel van het Wetboek van Strafvordering gewijzigd bij artikel 18 van dit wetsontwerp, behouden onze rechtbanken een extraterritorial bevoegdheid in zijn ze bevoegd om strafbare feiten te berechten die in het buitenland werden gepleegd in die omschreven worden in een regel van internationaal verdrags- of gewoonterecht, dus los van de criteria inzake een band met Belgium waarin of articles 6 in 10 van the preceding title voorzien. the alleged victim is in the national territory since the victim is not Belgian. Our legislation under consideration ⁇ ins the principle of the implementation of the prosecution, or even the judgment in Belgium, of perpetrators of alleged crimes constituting serious violations of international humanitarian law, even if the foreign perpetrator is not found on the national territory. Therefore, the extraterritorial jurisdiction of our courts remains quite broad. Certainly, there are filters organizing the admissibility of complaints or the examination of the well-foundedness of the implementation of public action in relation to the criteria of attachment, but this does not limit the principle competence of our courts in terms of extraterritorial competence.

In particular, I would like to draw attention to the scope of Article 18 of the bill amending Article 12bis of the preliminary title of the Code of Criminal Procedure. By means of this new article 12bis, our courts will remain competent to know of offences committed abroad and covered by a rule of conventional or customary international law, when that rule requires them, in any way whatsoever, to submit the matter to these competent authorities for the exercise of prosecution. This article 12bis thus gives extraterritorial jurisdiction to our courts, regardless of the attachment criteria provided for in the new articles 6 and 10 of the preliminary title.

I have expressed a few reservations in the committee. While it can be accepted that our courts exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction based on international conventions, according to the attachment criteria they provide — criteria which may be different from those we hold in our domestic law — it is far more accidental to admit the extension of jurisdiction in our courts based solely on customary law, a non-written rule whose binding scope falls for a large part in the judgment of the court requested. In fact, it must be remembered that in order to base his jurisdiction in the Pinochet case, concerning crimes against humanity that were not yet incorporated into the law of 16 June 1993, the investigation judge Vandermeersch, citing abundantly the doctrine of Professor Eric David, considered that there exists a customary rule of people's right, recognizing universal jurisdiction and authorizing national state authorities to prosecute and bring to justice, in all circumstances, persons suspected of crimes against humanity.

Following the construction of Judge Vandermeersch, the repressive competence of the judge is thus deducted by himself from a supposed rule of international customary law allowing him to prosecute crimes against humanity, wherever they have been committed from around the world and without any criteria of connection with Belgium.

The seriousness of the crimes alone would be sufficient to justify the interest of the Belgian authorities and the title of jurisdiction of the Belgian judges. Even though Judge Vandermeersch’s reasoning on this particular point has been criticized by another part of the doctrine — I think of Professor Verhoeven of the University of Louvain — it remains that only the courts will have to assess the scope of a rule of customary international law and the obligations resulting therefrom with regard to the exercise of judicial competence. If one can follow the reasoning of those who rightly assert that crimes against humanity, or even certain types of war crimes, are incriminated only on the basis of customary rules and not conventional rules, one cannot, however, deduce that a customary rule imposes their extraterritorial repression. De bevoegdheid van onze rechtbanken uitbreiden louter op basis van het gewoonterecht is niet zonder risico, since de bindende draagwijdte van het gewoonterecht grotendeels afhangt van de appreciatie van de rechtbank waarbij de zaak aanhangig werd gemaakt. Het feit dat misdaden tegen de menselijkheid worden incrimineerd op grond van regels van het gewoonterecht means niet dat die laatste ook voorzien in de extraterritorial bestraffing van die misdaden.

Thus, Article 12bis could be invoked to circumvent the obligatory link with Belgium provided for in Articles 6 and 10.

The extraterritorial jurisdiction of our courts cannot be based on customary law. Only the International Criminal Court whose authority must be recognised by all States may exercise jurisdiction based on customary law. In this way, it can be avoided that the jurisdiction differs from country to country. Their

Furthermore, without the criterion of the point of connection, national courts cannot guarantee that victims or the defense will receive a fair trial with a debate on contradiction.

Het is de taak van de rechterlijke macht op de voordelen en mogelijk zelfs op de zwakheden van de nieuwe wet te wijzen. Daaruit zal de wetgever dan de gepaste conclusies moeten trekken. In addition, Article 12a does not provide for any incrimination. It is a simple rule of competence, nothing more. This new Article 12a ⁇ ins for a large part the principle of universal competence, which has often been called absolute. I am afraid that the most clever advocates do not fail to file a complaint, or even, ⁇ , attempt to constitute a civil party — even if the will of the legislator is not to permit them to do so in this latter case — invoking the custom of international law. There may therefore be an attempt to circumvent the obligation to find criteria of attachment, as recalled in Articles 6 and 10, by merely invoking Article 12bis and by reference to international custom.

We will probably know in the coming months the first judicial debates, ⁇ uncertain, as to the scope of this article 12a. I advocate to consider that the customary rule can only aim at the incrimination of facts and their qualification and not be the basis of the extraterritorial jurisdiction of our courts. Depending on what jurisprudence will tell us in the coming years, we will probably be forced to re-evaluate this debate.

As much as I am attached to an extraterritorial jurisdiction of our courts, based on criteria of attachment to the remainder admitted by the legislation of other European countries with the same objective, so much I consider that the jurisdiction based on the customary rule must return to the International Criminal Court. This is the only certain legal way to avoid variable jurisprudential constructions from one country to another, derived from a too random interpretation or affirmation of the customary rule.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, dear colleagues, there will ultimately be no real satisfaction in the repression of crimes against humanity in the broadest sense until the day when an international jurisdiction, such as the International Criminal Court, will see its authority recognized and accepted by all States. This is the real challenge, let us not be mistaken, against the impunity of which the perpetrators of these most disgusting criminal acts try to prevail. This is the most demanding but, in the long run, the most beneficial way to fight these crimes.

There is no true international order without an independent and impartial judicial authority guaranteeing it. The national courts of course contribute to the observance of this order but cannot ultimately, on their own, offer the guarantees of a fair trial respecting the rights of each of the parties, since the facts prosecuted offer no criterion of connection with the State of jurisdiction. To make judgment by our jurisdictions of facts, even the most disgusting, while their author is not brought before them, that he cannot assert his defense, that he cannot be subjected to contradictory debate, that is to undermine a healthy conception of justice and this, at the expense also of the rights of the victims who will never have answer to all their questions because there will always be a lacunar and therefore unsatisfactory trial, in the absence of the alleged authors of the most dangerous facts.

Let us keep ourselves from asking our courts what even the international courts responsible for prosecuting and punishing the most disgusting crimes in Rwanda or Bosnia do not agree to do. Certainly, the bill already brings more legal certainty in this matter, significantly more legal certainty! There may still be a few technical or even interpretation issues but, now, let us leave time for the judiciary to draw all the advantages – if I can express myself so – of this new law, or ⁇ even to highlight some of its weaknesses. It will then be up to the legislator to draw the lessons from what jurisprudence will teach us, but with the firm hope that in the meantime, the cause of the new world order will be reinforced by broader powers recognized by the International Criminal Court.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, dear colleagues, less than four months ago we also stood here in a previous episode of the same story. Let me quote myself for a moment: “The closer this majority draws to the end of the legislature, the more absurd it all becomes. Today, a law will be passed in Parliament that everyone knows is very bad, full of legal errors, and that 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 ⁇ this is the reason why the law that is being discussed today and submitted to vote is the law of 1 April. The law of 1 April will undoubtedly enter history as a joke washed out of the coffers of which one will afterwards undoubtedly say: it was actually just to laugh."

And whether we got right. Yes, we passed that law because this was the only way to avoid worse, because socialists and Greens then competed to get the patent of the most politically correct party. Contrary to all logic, they refused to take into account the consequences of this law on the international, diplomatic plane. At that time, it was already clear that the genocide law was abused by Maoists and other left-wing extremists, including Mr. Van Quickenborne. The Red and Greens refused to nominate a bar and a bar, so that only an alternate majority of liberals, Christian Democrats and the Flemish Bloc could provide a first way out for politically inspired complaints. That alternate majority came at the explicit request of the then VLD faction leader, Coveliers.

Immediately, that same day, we said that the law of April 1 was legal bricolage, a flagrant allegation of the separation of powers. However, we only stood with our warning. We only agreed with our amendments to limit the jurisdiction of our courts to those cases in which there was a link with this country. They were joyfully voted away, also by the N-VA and by CD&V. Afterwards, we have thus been right because the majority has, meanwhile, come to the pins with the bill we are discussing today and that the range of action of our courts is indeed limited to cases with a link to this country.

So we got right. The Flemish Bloc was also in this file the voice of common sense and one should listen to the Flemish Bloc a little more often in time before one makes hasty decisions. In the meantime, this country has wasted a lot of credit abroad. In part because the media initially did everything to wipe out the dispute under the mat, Verhofstadt and Michel in the beginning simply did not know what was happening. No one can lie: we experienced the worst crisis with the United States in 50 years. Never in such destructive words was spoken and written about this country, all because a betwinner like Louis Michel was assisted in this by an equally large ego as Elio Di Rupo but did not want to bind on his own great equality.

Michel found at one point nothing even better than

Less than four months ago, during the previous rebound in the case that we are dealing with, we had already observed that a law filled with legal errors had been approved and we had predicted that it would already be subject to changes at the beginning of the next legislature. The facts gave us right.

At the time, we only passed the law to avoid a worse situation. Socialists and Greens refused to take into account the international consequences of the law in force at that time. A replacement majority was then constituted at the request of the leader of the VLD group at the time, Mr. Coveliers, but the new law still contained a flagrant violation of the separation of powers. Through amendments, we have attempted to insert a criterion of attachment with Belgium into the law. However, our amendments were rejected. But, now, the scope of the courts is limited to cases that are related to our country. You should listen to the Vlaams Blok more often.

While the media are trying to disguise it, the relations between the United States and Belgium have traversed the most serious crisis in 50 years, and this, only by the fault of the teachers of lessons like MM. Michel and Di Rupo. After the Deconfiture Humiliante of M. Michel, Les dégâts diplomatiques ne pouvaient plus être niés. The standard is an estimate that Louis Michel could not remain in foreign affairs. Il a finalement conservé son poste, et dépit du préjudice pour l'économie flamande. In other words, M. Flahaut n'aurait jamais dû, lui non plus, être autorisé reprendre la tête du département de la Défense. to declare to the camera that his services would soon explain the scope of the Genocide Act to the Americans, as if on the other side of the trap we were dealing with a gang of stupid idiots who are not even able to properly study a law text. Subsequently it became a disobedient departure for Michel and his own, and he and the purple government were forced into a painful kneefall. In the meantime, the diplomatic ravages — long not only with regard to America — were unprecedented. The NRC Handelsblad wrote on June 21, I quote: "Belgium has exchanged its international position among the serious smalls for one among the silly smalls with public scholarships by governments who should know better, followed by unhelpful crisis management. It is seen as an undiplomatic quarrel." NRC Handelsblad on June 21. It even went so far that the housekeeper of purple, the Belgian De Standaard, openly proposed that Louis Michel no longer be ⁇ ined on Foreign Affairs. This is blasphemy for some.

By the way, colleagues, it is especially regrettable, too, because of the story of the Genocide Act, that in the end the opposite happens. Louis Michel, the lilliputter who sees himself as a genius of international format and a personification of the world consciousness, still sits in the chair of Foreign Affairs. This is ⁇ regrettable, not so much because the Kobold of Geldenaken makes Belgium ridiculous abroad — you know that we do not lift it so hard — but especially because his performance abroad causes such great irritations that the Flemish economy — the port of Antwerp, the Flemish trade and the business — must pay the bill for it increasingly.

The same rationale applies, by the way, to the PS'er Flahaut. Even this extremist, this ideologically broken eyeliner carrier, should never have returned to Land Defense.

Let us return to the actual topic of today, the genocide law itself. Of course, we are pleased that this law is no longer ⁇ ined as an exceptional law and as a law with unlimited international scope. For the Flemish Block, however, the restriction is not far enough. As we said at the beginning, we continue to repeat that it would have been much better if the Genocide Act had been put out of effect in its entirety. Only in this way would we have clearly demonstrated to the international community that we have recognized our mistake and would have recognized that with this law we had gone unimaginably far too far. That signal would finally have brought clarity, and no one could have misunderstood it.

At a later stage, we could then, to the extent necessary, align our criminal laws on genocide with neighboring countries to the extent that such crimes with a link to our country could remain impunity. This requires serious study work. This requires a thorough preparation and comparative legal research in advance. Therefore, it would require a minimum of a few months of time, but it was not allowed. The amended law was to be hunted through the throat of parliamentarians in one night with the carwats of Laurette Onkelinx, even though everyone knows that this law is manifestly unfulfilled and will lead to a lot of contradictory interpretations.

What is not totstandgekomen, is a regelrecht compromised to the Belgian, where allerminst clear is within which krijtlijnen of judges bevoegd are. If we welcome the fact that this law is not ⁇ ined as an exceptional law of an unlimited international scope, we regret that it is not completely repealed as a strong signal. In a later phase, we would then have been able, after a thorough study, to harmonize our criminal legislation on the crime of genocide with that of neighboring countries.

The result is a typically Belgian compromise: a fuzzy description of the judges’ competence, a reference to the ⁇ vague concept of international customary law and a total lack of clarity regarding pending cases. The majority parties refused to hear the federal prosecutor.

It is impossible to predict the attitude of the Court of Cassation in certain cases. An inequality is also created between pending cases and new cases, an inequality that can and will be challenged until before the European Court of Justice. It is worrying that we are prepared to take this risk for a few files that we intend to maintain.

There is also a very broad description of the crimes. Genocide is a barbaric crime committed against an entire population. The new law also includes condemned but common acts of war.

Furthermore, a high magistrates are entrusted with the responsibility to decide on the quality of the judicial system of another State, even a friend.

The U.S. judicial system is placed at the same level as that of Liberia.

The solution that is proposed to us is ridiculous, it will lead to new diplomatic conflicts and as such remains a stumbling stone. We will vote against. Uitermate vaag begrip. Mr. Maingain’s self has given this right.

It is also not clear what the fate of the pending affairs will be. There is, of course, a wave of ambiguity. The majority parties failed to order the federal prosecutor to provide the necessary explanation on these files. If this becomes the new mentality with which the Committee on Justice, Chair Borginon, will be working over the next four years, we will ask ourselves big questions about the democratic content of this Parliament. Their

Even as it is completely unpredictable what the attitude of Cassation will be in some files, for example that of Father Bush, it would have been much simpler and more consistent if one had said from the beginning that the legislative change would inevitably lead to the decay of criminal claim in all pending files. I am very pleased that colleague De Crem has finally joined our position on this subject. Now it is obvious that all possible procedural tricks will be used in the files that are ⁇ ined. The inequality of treatment is obvious. New files will only be admissible if the victim already had the nationality at the time of the events. For old files, this is not a requirement. It is sufficient that the citizenship was granted years later. It is obvious that this discrimination will be contested by all possible means up to the European Court of Human Rights. Their

We find it unimaginable that for a few files that one wishes to save murderously one flies into a highly questionable arrangement that will inevitably bring us a new loss of vision in the long run. Colleagues, it is these three files that we could read about in the media; one from Chad, one from Rwanda and one from Guatemala, the latter is as much as twenty years old. Are these three records worth us all this? Their

We, by the way, continue to note that the genocide law, as it is now being reformed, is still too broadly understood. Genocide is about the most horrible, most inhumane crimes against an entire population. In the text that is adopted today, we read about violations such as fraudulent swinging with the white flag, wearing an enemy uniform, and treacherously killing an enemy soldier. With this text, undoubtedly, rejectionable, but at the same time very common and generally applied acts of war are declared crimes against humanity. Even this kind of ridiculous provisions could have been avoided if we had been able to compare our texts well in advance with the legislation of other European countries.

Finally, a new arrangement is introduced by which a higher magistrates in our country, in particular the federal prosecutor, are assigned to speak about the qualities of the judicial system of another country. This federal prosecutor, in cases where a victim has our nationality or has resided here for three years, will be solely responsible for making a final judgment on the fairness, impartiality and independence of the judicial systems of other countries. Even if it is about friendly countries, NATO member states, or EU member states with which we are on the same level in terms of legal system, or for which we should even submit, then yet this prosecutor alone will have the exclusive power to discredit these legal systems by making a negative judgment about the intrinsic qualities of those systems. The legal system of the United States is therefore at the same level as that of Liberia and I do not get that out of my sleeve here. It has been discussed in the comparison of all international extradition treaties. Canada is at the same level as Botswana. This arrangement is not only potsier. It also carries in itself the germs of new diplomatic conflicts, so that our genocide law will remain a stone of insult internationally in the long run. Their

The Flemish Bloc therefore remains aware that this new genocide law is a missed opportunity and a worthless homework. You do not have to rely on our approval.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Deputy Prime Minister, Ladies and Gentlemen, I will briefly speak on behalf of the Socialist Group in this debate on this bill on serious violations of international humanitarian law.

I will not go into the technical aspects of the project. In this regard, the path chosen by the government is, in my opinion, the right one. Since our earlier provisions have been substantially modified, in any case with regard to the procedure, and therefore lose, for a large part, their exceptional character, the emblem that constituted a particular law is less necessary than before.

The integration of the provisions in the Criminal Code and in the Code of Criminal Instruction is, in this regard, perfectly consistent with our legal organization. I will make little further considerations on the arrangement of this project. The Justice Committee, under the chairmanship of Mr. We’ve had a lot of discussions and we know where we’re going.

I would rather say briefly and simply difficult things. These things are related to my journey as a parliamentary, to our history, to the history of this parliament itself. They also relate to our history of activist, to those beliefs that we all have, to disenchantments that have ⁇ reached us at certain moments, and ⁇ to a hope that remains.

The 1993 law that the draft under consideration tends to repeal and replace with other provisions is just ten years old. It was then voted with the enthusiasm and unanimous vote of all democratic parties. I myself had climbed to this tribune to greet a major advance in our right. We were proud, in particular, of an amendment that had been adopted in the Senate, at the initiative of Roger Lallemand, and which organized this famous universal jurisdiction granted to our jurisdictions.

This amendment also extended the scope of the law to civilian armed conflicts that, from former Yugoslavia to Rwanda, were probably among the most monstrous of the late 20th century. The adoption of this law was in truth based on a strong conviction, which remains today and that no one could deny. It is the conviction that we must guarantee and protect the humanity of each person, not only because it is the foundation of ours, but also because, otherwise, a project of society that was precisely built on the radical contestation of Nazism and on the universal assertion of the equality of every man and woman should collapse.

This desire that we had to do justice at any cost was

With its draft on serious violations of international humanitarian law, the government is on the right track.

The inclusion of the provisions in the Criminal Code and in the Code of Criminal Procedure is fully in accordance with our legal organization.

That being said, I would like to touch on a few delicate points. They have to do with my parliamentary career, with our history, with our beliefs, with some disappointments but also with a certain hope that I continue to cherish.

The law of 1993 is exactly ten years old. The proposal aims to replace that law with other provisions. At the time, this law was enthusiastically supported and unanimously approved by all democratic parties. We were especially proud of an amendment submitted by Roger Lallemand, which organized the notorious universal jurisdiction of our jurisdiction and thus extended the scope of the law to armed conflicts between civilians.

De wet werd goedgekeurd in de overtuiging dat wij de menselijke behandeling van elkeen dienen te waarborgen en te beschermen, niet alleen omdat zij aan de basis ligt van onze eigen menselijkheid, but also omdat een gebrek aan menselijkheid het einde zou betekenen van een maatschappelijk project dat is gestoeld op of our identification to the victim. We could not tolerate inhumane massacres that sometimes occurred less than 1,000 kilometers from our home. If we could not guarantee to those who were also our brothers a minimum of justice, that which anyone is entitled to claim, it was our own democratic project that, in a way, retreated and lost its meaning.

These were our statements at the time. It ⁇ retains its full value today. And yet, we are preparing to change this law. What about this change and our beliefs of yesterday that are still, I repeat, those of today? I will say, in this regard, only a word of the attitude of the U.S. authorities and the diplomatic and media pressures they have exercised. This attitude is obviously regrettable and is very symptomatic of the state of mind of a country that intends to govern the world for the sole benefit of its own interests; a country that, let us recall, has refused to subscribe to the statutes of the International Criminal Court. It can therefore be said that the law has been modified under the pressure of the United States, in particular, that to govern well is to administer the greatest justice, but also, according to the greatest utility, that in order to preserve the essential, we have therefore renounced a part of what was dear to us.

This explanation of the course of events is correct. I can, of course, subscribe to it, but I cannot be content with it. The PS and some members of my group in particular have been and are ardent defenders of the law of universal jurisdiction, but today we must talk about the discomfort that this law has caused. One of its authors, whom I mentioned earlier, has also repeatedly expressed the critical look he had on his text.

Of course, the circumstances have changed. In 1993, any hope of establishing an international criminal court seemed abandoned. We could then say, along with others, that unless we find a solution from above, we could organize one from below and grasp the issue of international humanitarian law through the internal legal order of the states. But shortly thereafter, as a result of the monstrousities we know, ad hoc criminal courts were established for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. Since then the International Criminal Court has been established.

These changes ⁇ weaken the value and scope of our law, but they are not the only ones that explain the discomfort. One can, of course, turn by turn, regret, make a balance of certain anecdotes, evoke the fanfaronades to which the law has given place, a certain diplomacy in the little week and to which, I hurry to say it, we have all little or enough participated, diplomacy that has exhibited our legislation as a disguise of good conscience.

However, the legislation that we abrogate to replace it with other provisions must force us to question ourselves more to go more directly to the essential. The right is obviously supported by an ideology, and the question it poses, just as the question the evil it intends to combat poses, is of a profoundly political nature. Now, if the law is the result of a policy, it is not it that makes the policy and even less the jurisdictions that must apply the law. The courts, and in particular the criminal courts, at the risk of totalitarian deviations, can only deal with special cases. They must investigate these cases as sharply as possible before making a judgment to understand. They cannot process emblems or symbols. Now everything shows us today, including the analysis of our original intentions, that we also made a law whose object was to treat the symbol. Radical ontkenning van de onmenselijkheid van het nazisme in op of universele bevestiging van de gelijkheid van elke vrouw in elke man.

That wants to make justice happen anyway was inspired by our identification with the victim.

The arguments that were raised at the time have not added value today and yet we are on the verge of changing the law. What should we think of this change?

I will talk about the attitude of the U.S. authorities and the pressure they have exerted through the media and diplomatic channels. This attitude is regrettable, especially since the United States has not endorsed the Statute of the International Criminal Court. One can say that the law was changed under pressure, and that, in order to preserve the most important thing, we have abandoned a part that was at our heart. I can agree with that explanation, but it is in my view insufficient.

The PS and some members of my group have strongly defended this law on universal jurisdiction, but we cannot ignore that it has caused a discomfort.

The circumstances have changed and they have weakened the value and scope of the law, but that is not the only explanation for the illness that has arisen.

We abolish that legislation and replace it with other provisions, and that should encourage us to advise so that we can penetrate the core of the matter faster.

The rule of law is clearly based on an ideology, and the question that it raises, as well as the question that the evil raises for the struggle of which the law is intended, is of a very political nature. And vérité, nous avons, à l'époque, sollicité l'extrême de l'horreur pour réaffirmer que notre horizon démocratique l'avait vaincue.

This approach is not secondary, but it raises questions. There are only true jurisdictions that are recognized by those whom they strike. What is then the meaning of wanting to at all costs symbolically reach a world that will not necessarily recognize the legitimacy of our approach? We must also say that this contradiction, which was ours, has been denounced. Prominent jurists have denounced the limits of the right to interfere in the affairs of another State when such interference was not actually founded in law and was not decided by an international organization which had received the competence from the community of nations.

We have all here, and in a beautiful unanimity, criticized the lightness with which the Americans intervened in Iraq. It is then necessary to evaluate the relevance of the choice we have made by creating this universal competence in line with the argument of the limits of the right of interference and the need to organize it internationally. There are, of course, conventions of international law concerning international humanitarian law. I am convinced that their implementation, too, must be shared by the international community, at the risk of not seeing these conventions implemented.

It should also be recalled that the United States, in its will to intervene alone and directly in Iraq, naturally claimed to defend provisions of the United Nations Charter. I remind you, we had not found this claim admissible, in the absence of a decision by an international body authorized to take it. In truth, we can say that we have neglected ourselves by allowing the praetorium to be used as a political forum.

The role of the judge is not to prevent war, to affirm the ratio of force, to tell the history, or to honor the collective memory. Hannah Arendt had already felt the risk of this drift during the Eichmann trial in Jerusalem. Hannah Arendt wrote the following following following the trial: "It is bad history and the rhetoric of pacotille; worse, it is obviously contrary to the principles that sanction Eichmann's confrontation with Justice, contrary to the principles that can give meaning to his condemnation."

I recall this in a kind of incisive to reaffirm that we must not forget to do politics but we must also not transfer our duties to Justice and return to it our true responsibilities. Yes, we have a duty to fight against the Burmese regime; yes, we must prevent abuses from being committed here and there, but we must not look at them in the hope of just being able one day to condemn the perpetrators. Our role is different, it should be more active and more political. And with regard to justice, the real guarantee that we can offer to all those who are victims of these monstrous crimes, that one day the perpetrators will be condemned, is to continue to fight for a jurisdiction that is common to all and accepted by all, precisely by the victims and by the murderers.

It is for all these reasons that are sometimes painful to say that we will vote on the bill on serious violations of international humanitarian law. Some will still speak of imperfections of the law in draft, others, ⁇ , some contradictions that it carries, but here, again, we are required to evaluate the work we do, to learn from it and, if necessary, to improve this text. Like the others we vote, this text De rechtscolleges, en dan vooral de strafrechtelijke, zouden zich enkel met specifieke gevallen mogen bezighouden, zoniet dreigen wij met totalitary ontsporingen te worden geconfronteerd. Zij mogen zich niet bezighouden met louter symbolische dossiers in de analyse toont vandaag aan dat zulks de strekking was van de wet die wij hadden uitgewerkt.

Why would we want to fight a symbolic struggle when our legitimacy in the world is not necessarily recognized?

Is it relevant to want to establish that universal authority by balancing everything against the right to interference and the constraints that it entails and the need to have all this regulated by a recognised international organization?

There are, of course, international agreements concerning humanitarian law, but it is also true that there must be an international community behind their implementation. We found it unacceptable that the United States thought it could act on its own in Iraq without the support of a competent international body.

We made a mistake in making it possible to use the courtroom as a political forum. We must not watch as these crimes are being committed and only hope that we will one day be able to punish the perpetrators. We need to play a more active and political role. We must do everything we can to ensure that there is an international jurisdiction that is recognized by everyone, both victims and perpetrators: that is the only guarantee we can offer that right will be done.

For these reasons, we will approve the bill, but we will have its shortcomings or contradictions n'est parfait ou même immuable. Just like the other texts we approve here, the design is perfect or immutable.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, colleagues, if we were to ask the people outside this room what we are discussing here today, then I think that for many the answer would be that we will abolish the law on genocide and make it impossible to punish genocide by Belgian courts. I think it is good to make it clear here again that this is not the case.

The crimes and penalties established by the Act of 1993 and its subsequent amendments continue to constitute an important part of our criminal law. They are registered in the Criminal Code and are fully part of our internal legal order. According to Belgian criminal law, even after today’s vote, anyone who commits crimes against humanity is punishable. The whole discussion is about another aspect. In particular, it concerns the extent to which our courts should be competent for violations of international humanitarian law when there is no link to the classical norms of common criminal law with its own legal order.

On this point, indeed, the draft law goes less far than the original legislation that honors the principle of universality. The question then is whether this is an abdication under international pressure or a return to a more realistic criminal law. I think it is the latter. Per ⁇ I should remind you that in the 10 years that the Genocide Act exists, there has ultimately been only one process that has given rise to an effective condemnation. This was the case of the Four of Butare. They were convicted in 1994. That was not really a pure application of the principle of universality, because the suspects were found in our country.

It is therefore in no way that the old legislation is, in itself, a very efficient instrument in assessing violations of international humanitarian law. When we look at the functioning of that law, we find that the internal problems emerged mainly after the 1999 reform. Then the classical system of immunities was abandoned. Numerous complaints with sometimes extensive international political implications were submitted. No matter how understandable those initiatives may be from the point of view of the complainants, it is nevertheless not the task of the legislator to look solely and exclusively at the interests of potential victims around the world. We must also be vigilant about the priorities in spending the scarce resources for Justice, about the chances of success of such complaints given the difficult collection of facts and about the country’s international interests and the fair burden sharing of the burdens in world politics.

I would like to take a few examples from a completely different sector. If in the former Yugoslavia there is a conflict in which at some point from the international community is said that one will support it with military means, then there is no one in this country who is the rule of law and says that Belgium now must supply all troops of for example I-force or S-force. No, we find it normal for us to take part in this and for other countries to take their responsibilities as well. The same applies when

It is important, in the eyes of public opinion in particular, to reaffirm clearly that crimes against humanity remain punishable in Belgium. They are included in the Criminal Code. What is changing today is the extent to which our courts are competent. According to the traditional rules of criminal law, the Belgian courts are only competent if there are sufficient criteria for linking with our own legal order. The law of universal jurisdiction, on the other hand, enunciated the principle of universality. Its abolition is not an abdication in the face of international pressure but a return to a more realistic criminal law. by

In the course of ten years, only one conviction was pronounced under the law of universal jurisdiction, in the case of the "four of Butare" in 1994 and, moreover, the defendants were then in Belgium. The old law did not reach summits in terms of efficiency. by

After the 1999 reform, very many complaints were filed, which raised a number of problems. The legislator must take into account not only the interests of the victims but also the resources allocated to justice, the chances of success in judicial affairs, the international position of states and the need to distribute the burdens. In the former Yugoslavia, Belgium is not the only one that has sent soldiers to train the peacekeeping force, it is only a small part of it. It is normal that Belgium is not the only country to handle cases of humanitarian law violations but assumes a realistic share of responsibility and expects that men een voedselcrisis has in one of another land. We find it and normal that we do an effort within the available means, net like all other countries of international community within their responsibility also do an effort.

If an asylum seeker is rejected in a European country, then we consider it perfectly normal that we do not grant a new procedure to that same asylum seeker, simply because he was rejected by another EU country. In other words, is it so abnormal to also seek, in the punishment of serious violations of international humanitarian criminal law, the inclusion of a realistic portion of international responsibility, on the one hand, and the trust in other countries and the International Criminal Court to do their part, on the other? I think this simply fits perfectly in the logic of the international responsibility of a country.

In the new legislation, we also continue to bear an important responsibility. Not only are the theoretical cases punishable of the acts committed in Belgium. Even if the perpetrator is Belgian or, in case of extension, has his main residence here, he falls under the application of our criminal law, even if the acts were committed abroad and were not criminal there. Even if the victim is Belgian or has lived there for at least three years at the time of the facts, if there is no other foreign or internationally valid jurisdiction, the facts are judged here under certain conditions.

The residual role of our international jurisdiction remains in this without allowing anyone to raise any complaint into a political incident. The approach is one of legal serenity rather than publicity.

It is not pleasant for us that the Americans, among others, have been reminded in a not too selective manner of the boundaries of the international competence of each state. But that does not prejudice the fact that, by itself, we find a more realistic balance between legal idealism and the limitation of national sovereignty.

I would like to touch on a few key points from the discussion, including the regulation relating to immunities. In this context, the obligations currently existing on the international level regarding the inability to prosecute are fully applicable. Furthermore, we have also made clear in the discussion in the Committee on Justice that it must be entirely possible for all persons, regardless of the official or non-official character of those persons, who have been officially invited by Belgium or, for example, by the European Parliament or another international organization having its seat here, to be present here without problems. This expansion of the immunity scheme was necessary in order to play our role as a diplomatic turntable permanently and not to create new problems afterwards that would cause the initiative to overcome its objective.

In addition, there was also discussion over the unequal treatment of slachtoffers naargelang het feit of zij door een Belg of, bij uitbreiding, door wie hier woont, gepleegd worden, dan wel of het slachtoffer Belg is of hier minstens three years woont. Men has in de discussions in de commission naar voren gebracht dat dit eigenlijk een schending van de artikelen 10 en 11 van de Grondwet zou uitmaken, doordat er een soort the other countries and the Criminal Court do the same. As part of the new legislation, we will effectively assume our responsibility in the following cases: the crime was committed in Belgium or by a Belgian national or by a person who resides mainly in Belgium, the victim is Belgian or has resided in Belgium for at least three years and no other court has jurisdiction. The remaining role of the Belgian judiciary remains complete. A complaint can no longer be the cause of an incident.

While it is true that the United States has highlighted with little delicacy the limits of international competence, the system now established is no less realistic.

The legislation on immunities continues the current situation. Any official guest from Belgium or an international institution established with us must be able to visit our country. This is our role as a diplomatic turntable.

During the discussions in the committee, it was noted that not all victims were treated on the same foot, which would constitute a violation of Articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution. This concept is based on a confusion of notions. The principle of passive personality should prevent abusive complaints for advertising purposes only. If we removed this principle, there could no longer be a question of discrimination but the possibilities for victims would be limited. by

The list of countries discussed exists as an indication. A country not on the list may have a high-quality legal system, and a country mentioned there is not necessarily an irreproachable democracy in matters of jurisprudence. The list is based, in particular, on treaties that are sometimes already very old. Discrimination would arise.

I think that here, in addition to the arguments already included by the Minister in her reply in the committee, we can still speak of a confusion between, on the one hand, inequality and, on the other hand, discrimination.

When we have chosen to allow the passive personality principle to play, it is in a certain context. It fits in the context that we want to prevent all sorts of publicity-oriented complaints and civil party positions from abusing the system. If we hadn’t foreseen it and had the passive personality principle abolished, then there is no one in this room who could put forward even one argument to say that there is discrimination here. If we give the victims, who should be protected by our anti-discrimination legislation, more resources to safeguard their rights, I think this argument as such is sufficient to suggest that there is no discriminatory inequality here.

Third, I would like to say something about the list of countries that are being discussed. I think it is very important to realize that the long list of countries is indicative and not exhaustive. This works in two directions. It means, on the one hand, that even a country not on the list — a country with which we do not have an extradition treaty or which is not a member of the Council of Europe — can indeed be regarded by our courts as a qualitatively high-quality jurisdiction. On the other hand, it also means that a country that is on the list is not by definition and once and for all a decent democracy in the field of the functioning of its courts.

I do not want to take the example of the Americans. After all, America is a country where one in the previous term of office was able to force, at the expense of the community, a sitting president into an impeachment procedure that was eventually settled with only one vote difference in favor of the president. Honestly, I think we have no right to claim that America would not be a decently working, democratic country. I think there is no problem for the Americans with this law.

On the other hand, there is Liberia, which has already been outlined on this tribune as an example. We concluded a treaty with Liberia about a hundred years ago. It is clear that, over time, facts may occur, effectively undermining the quality of democracy or the functioning of the courts in such a country. It is clear that this is the case, for example, in Liberia today. It would therefore not be logical that, if one were to be confronted with a Liberian case, one would rely on the fact that Liberia is on the list to say that it is a country of which we today appreciate the courts. It is enough to look at the dates on which all the treaties have been concluded to realize that a lot can happen over the course of history. Many of the treaties date even to the end of the nineteenth century.

The indicative character of the list thus works in two directions.

Finally, I want to say something about the ongoing judicial investigations. Together with you, I take note of the information that was challenged in the committee by a member and was not contradicted by the minister at all. According to this information, there would normally be in the new arrangement for the current, ongoing Les enquêtes et cours ne devraient pas, selon des rumeurs que la ministre n'a pas infirmées, donner lieu à des incidents diplomatiques. Their

I wish that this project will put an end to this case and that justice can regain its serenity. The VLD will vote in favour of this bill. Judicial investigations are not problematic, international incidents can come.

I firmly hope that this will close this case once and for all and that the seriousness, serenity and contradiction that belongs to every criminal process can be restored instead of a situation where the court is used only for the achievement of political or advertising purposes. It would be good if, after this law, the word on the application of criminal law is again with the judges and no longer with the public opinion. This is ultimately in the interests of any well-functioning rule of law. For these reasons, the VLD will approve this text.

Mr. President, Mrs. Vice Prime Minister, dear colleagues, we are proposed today to repeal the law of universal jurisdiction, this law that made the pride of Belgium and most of its political representatives, a law that symbolized the international image that Belgium wanted to give itself, even though it sometimes put us in a delicate situation. U.S. pressures will therefore have been right about the position of Belgium, which will do more than get into the rank since we will no longer speak of universal competence but rather of territorial competence. Indeed, there will now be strict criteria for attachment with Belgium, which is contrary to the spirit and letter of international humanitarian law. by

Today, it must be noted, the Belgian State refuses to play a driving role in the development and effective application of this right. Some states will completely escape it because they have not ratified the creation of the International Criminal Court and because they have concluded bilateral agreements ensuring the immunity of their nationals.

There are four critical points to this project. First of all, this project does not take into account the international legal obligations to which our country has subscribed by ratifying various conventions: the Geneva Convention on War Crimes, the UN Convention on Genocide and Torture, the Rome Convention on the International Criminal Court. All these texts contain the obligation to prosecute any foreign war criminal who is on the territory of the Contracting State. Secondly, it is not enough to take refuge behind the International Criminal Court, its action is obviously complementary to that of national courts. It is therefore up to them to act first, the ICC intervening only in the absence. The limitation of prosecution based on the nationality or residence of the victims is therefore a purely political choice and not a legal choice that would be guided by the imperatives of international law. We are therefore witnessing a regression of domestic law in its role as a necessary and compulsory relay of international humanitarian law.

Third criticism: the inability for the victim to constitute a civil party. The government introduces a so-called "passive personality" condition based on the nationality or place of residence of the victim. However, international law does not impose this constraint. Therefore, a restrictive condition is imposed on the prosecution outside of any international obligation, but in addition, even when this condition is fulfilled, the victim cannot initiate the prosecution itself. Finally, our latest criticism focuses on another absurdity of the project: the fact that the victim, if it is not a Belgian, must have resided in Belgium for at least three years at the time of the events. As if the events were taking place on Belgian territory! This is a condition that obviously severely limits the scope of the law.

We are proposed today to approve a bill that means the end of the genocide law that was the pride of Belgium, even though it brought us — but that is normal — sometimes in a troubling parquet. The pressure from the United States has succeeded. Today Belgium gives up its leading role in the field of human rights.

We have four fundamental objections to this design. First, it does not take into account the international obligations to which our country has agreed and which include the obligation to prosecute any war criminal of foreign origin residing on our territory. Second, it is not enough to hide behind the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, which only takes action when nothing has been done at the national level. The persecution depending on nationality and place of residence is therefore only politically inspired. National law thus loses ground in its role as a necessary and mandatory interlink in humanitarian law. Thirdly, the fact that the victim is no longer able to constitute a civil party constitutes a restriction not provided for in international law. Fourth, it is unrestricted that the victim of non-Belgian origin must reside in Belgium for at least three years. It’s as if the facts happen here...

De voorgestelde wijziging is a real nederlaag voor de internationale rechtsorde, but also voor de moral in de ethiek. In summary, the announced changes constitute a real failure for international justice, but also for morality and ethics. This is the end of universal competence. Belgium, which was at the forefront in this field, is now the subject of raids that stigmatize the lack of courage of this government that does not dare to show a minimum of imagination to better frame this law while avoiding abusive uses.

Abuse, of course, but it is not the abuse that killed the law. What has killed the law is the clear rejection by some countries, and first of all the United States, of any international justice. The question is now more complete than ever. How can international justice be implemented? What role does Belgium intend to play in this matter, without merely saying that it cannot play the judiciaries on its own?

Forte de sa longueur d'avance, la Belgique aurait pu, plutôt que le rentrer honteusement dans le rang, initier une concertation au niveau européen. We deplore this attitude plus que frileuse de la Belgique et nous ne voterons évidemment pas cette modification de la loi de compétence universelle. once took the lead, now with the lack of courage of the government the dragon is struck. It refers to abuses. But it was not the abuses that meant the end of this law. Their

What the de das law has overturned is the refusal of certain countries, and especially of the United States, to enable international jurisdiction.

How can such an international jurisdiction be developed? What role will Belgium play in this?

Belgium had already taken a step further and could have triggered the consultation at European level. We regret, however, our country’s shameful attitude and will therefore not approve this amendment to the law on universal jurisdiction.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Deputy Prime Minister, dear colleagues, the debate that we occupy tonight is about the revision of the device of our law of universal jurisdiction. I confess, that already outside this hall, I had the greatest attention for this law and I will begin by saying that today, the position of the Reform Movement on this matter has been marked by three essential points: stabilizing a legislative framework, ensuring the justiciable a clear legal certainty and mitigating the negative effects of this debate on the image of our country abroad.

Our duty as a legislator is to acknowledge the weaknesses of one or another device of a law, to open the debate in order to reach a new position that will allow to respond to the criticism formulated. We have therefore worked as a Justice Commission in order to clarify the situations inherited from the past and to correct some imperfections in the current law.

There is no doubt, we want to keep the spirit of the law of universal jurisdiction. We want to preserve the very nature of this legal instrument, which must allow to fight without compromise against impunity for the most serious crimes. Our country is committed to it, not only because it has adhered to international conventions that impose it, but also because the entire government and our foreign minister have made it an essential point of our foreign policy. Parliament must rely on this policy. However, the material, legal and diplomatic constraints that weigh on the concrete application of this principle must be admitted. Our rule must be: we must not give those who want to use our universal competence for misguided purposes the opportunity to make it inapplicable for all.

I am pleased, like the various previous speakers, that these

The MR has always remained with its position: we want to stabilize the legislative framework on universal jurisdiction, to ensure the legal certainty of the legal person and to weaken the negative effects of this debate on the image of our country abroad.

The essence and spirit of the law on universal jurisdiction, in particular the fight against the impunity of the most serious crimes, must ⁇ be ⁇ ined. However, one must also recognize its limitations and avoid using it for inappropriate purposes, making it impossible for all.

Voor de lopende dossiers waarin reeds een onderzoeksdaad werd gesteld, leidt het feit dat de nieuwe regels niet worden geëerbiedigd niet automatisch tot een onttrekking van de zaak aan onze rechtsmacht. Het is niet de bedoeling een vermomde objectives seem to have been met. As a practitioner and accustomed to the prosecutor’s instruction files, I wish to be attentive to the fate of the ongoing cases in order to avoid a legal vacuum. As said by the Vice Prime Minister in committee, this concerns 11 cases currently on judicial information and 29 other cases where a judge has been brought. We are therefore aware, within the framework of this law, of a transitional regime applied by article 29, § 3 of the law of universal jurisdiction.

What is it about? It seems first and foremost fair and fair that cases that comply with the new rules of territorial or extraterritorial jurisdiction are ⁇ ined. Similarly, when an instruction act has already been filed in a file, the fact that the new rules of jurisdiction are not respected does not result in an automatic discharge of our jurisdictions. No dismantling therefore, it will not be done either by a sort of disguised amnesty law that would not be in honor of our country. The intervention of the executive power has also been discarded, which removes any spectrum of appeals before the Arbitration Court.

This is a judicial decision. It is by a judicial decision, through the Court of Cassation, that these cases will be terminated or not. So how to do? First the documents for information, then the documents for instruction.

With regard to information files, the new law will apply and it will be up to the federal prosecutor to judge whether these cases meet the link criterion set out in the new law, and if not, he will classify them without succession.

For cases under investigation on the date of entry into force of the new law, they may continue to be processed under two conditions: either at least one of the complainants is of Belgian nationality at the time of the initial commitment of the public action, or at least one presumed author has its main residence in Belgium on the date of entry into force of the new law. These are the two criteria set out in Article 29, §3, one of nationality and the other of residence, but they are not cumulative. However, if these two criteria are not met, the Federal Prosecutor will forward to the Attorney General near the Court of Cassation and, on the basis of his report, the Attorney General will request the Court of Cassation to issue the dismissal. If the Court of Cassation decides the dismissal, the investigation must be closed. And if it is not dismissed, the judge normally continues his instruction, which he will close when he considers it appropriate.

I think this system helps to answer the questions of the judiciary about the risks of legal vacuum regarding the ongoing cases. However, it should be noted that this task entrusted to the judiciary is not executed without badges. Article 29, § 3, provides for specific criteria within the framework of the normal discretion of the judiciary.

In conclusion, for my part, this text ensures first and foremost the maintenance of the principle of not leaving unpunished the most serious crimes and that is what we were seeking. Then, it incorporates clear and precise attachment criteria. In addition, it safeguards the immunity systems, in accordance with Belgium’s international obligations. Finally, in order to answer some questions and criticisms, it introduces an appropriate procedure to avoid legal vacuum situations.

And consequently, you invite à vous prononcer favorablement sur ce amnesty law, which would not honor our country.

Furthermore, the intervention of the political government was excluded, so that we do not have to fear appeal to the Arbitration Court.

By a judicial decision through the intervention of the Court of Cassation, these files will be closed or not. How will work be done? Their

With regard to the files for which a judicial preliminary investigation is underway, it is up to the federal prosecutor to judge whether these cases meet the criteria of the link points as provided for in the new law. If this is not the case, he will seponate them.

The cases in the context of which a judicial investigation is under way can be further handled under two conditions: either at least one of the complainants must be of Belgian nationality at the time of the initial initiation of the criminal action; or at least one of the suspects must have its main residence in Belgium at the date of entry into force of the new law. If these two criteria are not met, the Court of Cassation could decide to withdraw the case from the court. If this does not happen, the judge will simply continue his investigation.

I believe that this system makes it possible to respond to the concerns of the judiciary about the danger of a legal vacuum that could arise for the pending cases. Article 23, paragraph 3, contains clear criteria that fit within the framework of the ordinary discretion of the judiciary.

As far as I am concerned, I conclude that this text provides, first of all, a guarantee that the principle of combating impunity for the most serious crimes will continue to exist. He text who fera, the ma part, l'objet d'une approbation sans aucune contestation. contains clear and precise criteria for the link points. It safeguards the systems of immunity and implements an appropriate procedure to prevent a legal vacuum.

We will support this bill.

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. Indeed, a lot of things have already been said to this tribune. Therefore, it is superfluous to repeat them.

First, we would like to say that, in our opinion, this bill is generally going in the right direction. We amend the April 2003 law because it clearly posed a number of problems that we had already highlighted in April 2003. Moreover, it remains a broader competence than a conventional competence in criminal law, but at the same time it is no longer a universal competence. The word "universal competence" is indeed very often referred to this tribune, but it is no longer a universal competence that is spoken of today. by

We note, however, some reluctance that is essentially the same as those that Mr. De Crem raised up recently and that Mr. Van Parys has raised in the Justice Committee. I will develop three: the reduction of the possibility of constitution of a civil party, the intervention of the federal prosecutor or prosecutor and the transitional regime.

First, when a person who is a victim of a crime against humanity or genocide is in Belgium and the perpetrator of that crime against humanity or genocide is also on Belgian territory, he cannot constitute himself a civil party under the new legislation, whereas if he claims to be a victim of a crime called "common law", that is, a crime that is not a war crime or a crime against humanity, he can do so, he can constitute himself a civil party. by

The Minister responded to this finding by telling us that it was sufficient for the person to say that he was not a victim of a crime against humanity but of a common law crime and thus he could constitute himself a civil party. and true. The reasoning seems somewhat problematic in the sense that one must give a less serious qualification to crime in order to have more rights. Furthermore, by disqualifying this crime, by qualifying it as a pure common law crime, one can no longer claim the rights that are linked to a crime against humanity or to a crime related to a genocide, in particular the impromptibility of the offence.

As regards the intervention of the federal prosecutor, he will once again have to judge the impartiality, independence and fairness of the other judicial systems. Is it really up to us to do this? Is it our role to judge the independence, impartiality, fairness of other legal systems? I would not like to be in the place of the federal prosecutor, especially since the lines the government has given to assess whether the foreign system is fair, impartial and independent, these are a number of treaties that Belgium has concluded and frankly, there is matter for discussion, for jurisprudence and we would not like to be in its place.

In globo, the draft law is a step in the right direction. The law is amended, which clearly caused a number of problems, but it retains a jurisdiction that is wider than a traditional criminal jurisdiction. It is no longer a universal competence.

First, if a victim of a crime against humanity or a genocide is located in Belgium and this is also the case for the perpetrator of that crime, the victim can no longer constitute a civil party under the new legislation.

The victim can do so if it is a common law crime.

The Minister stated that it was sufficient that the person concerned claimed that he was the victim not of a crime against humanity but of a crime of common law in order to be able to make himself a civil party. Therefore, one must qualify the crime as less serious in order to have more rights. Furthermore, the person concerned can no longer invoke the rights associated with a crime against humanity or a genocide, in particular the fact that that crime is excluded from limitation.

Federal Prosecutor will once more over of impartiality, of independence in billijkheid van of other rechtsstelsels must oordelen. I would not be in his place want to be, temeer daar hij zich zal moeten baseren op een aantal door Belgium gesloten verdragen in er terzake rechtspraak bestaat. Second point: if the federal prosecutor returns the file to another state, what will that state do? We know nothing about it! We have no answer to this question! There is a serious risk of denial of justice. We do not know what will happen with the case that will not be handled by Belgium and that will be returned to another country! Many will be thrown into the garbage. But we know nothing about it... So we can sleep peacefully. But that is not enough!

As regards the transitional regime, we know that persons have, on the basis of a Belgian legislation, validly brought cases to the Belgian judicial authorities. According to the law, the authorities are validly seized but, despite this, their complaint will be classified immediately. This still poses a problem.

The last criticism, ⁇ more fundamental and referring to what Mr. Creme and Mr. Van Parys raised, is related to the intervention of the Court of Cassation. by Mr. Courtois just talked about a power of appreciation. Of two things one: either the Court of Cassation has no discretion and in this case, it is clearly the legislative power that imposes something on it. In this case, the interference of the legislative power in the judiciary may pose a problem and the Arbitration Court may need to know about it. Either the Court of Cassation has a discretion, then there is insecurity! And in this case, we do not know what the Court of Cassation will decide for these cases currently under investigation.

These are these three reticences that will cause us to abstain on this dossier. Second point: if the federal prosecutor referred the case to another Member State, what will that Member State do with it? We do not know, we have not received the slightest answer to this question! There is a serious risk of legal denial.

As regards the transitional arrangement, citizens have brought legal matters before the Belgian judicial authorities. Nevertheless, their complaints will be suspended, which will cause problems.

As far as the Court of Cassation is concerned, either it has no discretion and then the interference of the legislative power in the judiciary can cause problems, or it actually has decision-making power and there is uncertainty. Indeed, we do not know what decision the Court will make in those cases that are under judicial investigation.

We will remember.

The text that is presented to you therefore ends an exceptional law. The law of 16 June 1993 — it was said — had been voted unanimously by the democratic parties in this Parliament. The objective was to transpose into domestic law the International Geneva Convention and its Additional Protocols. But beyond the respect by our country of its international obligations, it was, for Belgium, to participate actively in the emergence of a true international humanitarian law. In order for this right to really exist, rules are needed that, if they are transgressed, result in sanctions.

In recent years, progress has been made in this perspective. The creation of the International Criminal Court is the most obvious sign of this. A broader ratification of the Rome Statute would be the most effective weapon for prosecuting war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide crimes, wherever and by anyone.

As I said in the beginning of this intervention, the law of 1993 will disappear from our legal order. In particular, it has been the victim of an abusive or even absurd use, while a text of such importance would have deserved to be activated with parchment and with good wisdom. I obviously do not throw a stone at the victims, but the non-governmental organizations I met last week, as well as many international law lawyers, also regret the deviations that have been found. by Mr. Eerdekens cited Hannah Arendt to question the instrumentalization of the law.

The Minister has read the law. This was the third reading. The core of the problem, to which colleague Maingain has also referred, is: what happens to those famous 29 cases, in which the Court of Cassation decides not to conduct a withdrawal from the Belgian judiciary and refers the complaint again to the investigation judge? What happens with it? That’s the core, that’s the DNA, that’s the recognizability. What happens with it? The Minister gave a lecture of the articles here, but the core of the case has not been solved.

The Minister simply gave us a reading of the law but the node of the problem - to which Mr. also referred. Maingain - is not resolved. I think of those 29 pending cases for which the Court of Cassation has decided not to dismiss the Belgian justice, so they are returned to the investigative judge.

Mr. Speaker, I have answered Mr. Maingain. Their

What I could say to Mr. From Crem, it is that we have extensively discussed the project in committee. You know, in order for a dismissal to take place, the Court of Cassation must decide on the request of the federal prosecutor, who submits the case to the Attorney General at the Court of Cassation, who himself submits the case to the Court. by

The decision of the Court shall be made on the basis of the criteria provided for in Article 29, §3 and specified in the body of the text. It is obvious that if the conditions, the criteria of extended attachment are not met, the Court of Cassation will not pronounce the dismissal and the instruction will continue. But let us be very clear, stop frightening, trying to put our country in trouble with its international partners; you know that we have been precise in the text on the conditions of displacement.

I gave Mr. Maingain a response.

Mr. De Crem, it is up to the Court of Cassation to decide whether a case should be withdrawn from a court, and this at the request of the federal prosecutor and on the basis of the criteria set out in Article 23, §3. If the criteria for linking points in the broad sense are not met, the Court of Cassation will not decide to withdraw the case from the court.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister speaks of clarity here, but here legal uncertainty was created, especially for those famous 29 cases and that specific case of that metaphorical use of Father Bush cum suis. That is not resolved. The whole problem is that this government draft has just come into being to solve that problem, but it has not been solved. I ask the minister when tomorrow she receives a message from her Prime Minister or from the ambassador or business agent of the United States of America what happens with the pending cases, with the pending cases, with the loopholes, with the

La ministre parle en l'espèce de clarté mais l'insécurité juridique est totale et ce qui concerne 29 dossiers pending. This project of law has been precisely elaborated for solving these problems but in definitive, it does not rule anything. Les EtatsUnis n'ont toujours pas obtenu la certitude que la Justice belge sera backdoors, what then? In other words, can Father Bush, can the Vice President of America, can the President of the Senate, can Colin Powell, against whom complaints have been filed with the Investigative Judge, come here to Belgium? Has the case escaped the Belgian justice? The answer is no. As long as you do not give this certainty, your draft — I am sorry, Mrs. Minister — has no meaning. It makes no sense. We don’t even vote against your design, but we put you on the way so that you don’t have to stand here back in October or November. The problem is not solved. I will express it disrespectfully: you will return to the womb in this Parliament in October or November. The silent consent of the members of the majority proves that we are right. That is the painful conclusion. Disposal of complaints filed against MM. Bush, Powell, Cheney and others.

I do not understand Mr. of the cream. In this bill, there are very precise deadlines that are provided for the examination of pending instructions. And a number of deadlines have been set within which the federal prosecutor must examine the issue and give his opinion, etc. The Court of Cassation must also deliberate. Read the latest article of the law. It will soon be known whether the Court of Cassation ⁇ ins a certain number of cases or whether it pronounces the dismissal.

To go further, to start again for the hundredth time – it must be clear – the Court of Cassation will obviously apply the new law. It can, in fact, go against the proposal, the opinion of the federal prosecutor. She does it often. She did so in particular in the Interpretative Law where Advocate General Dejardin was beaten in his opinion by the Court of Cassation who took exactly the opposite position. But always on the basis of the analysis and verification of the criteria provided by the law, in particular and essentially the criteria of attachment. The federal prosecutor may say that there is no criterion of attachment, the Court of Cassation may say, on analysis of the fact, that there are and go against, but always on the basis of the law.

I repeat that anyway, Mr. Bush can wait a few days, because in a few weeks things will be settled in one direction or another, based on the deadlines that are provided in the bill.

In this draft law, the deadlines for handling the ongoing investigations are clearly defined.

The Court of Cassation will apply the new law. It may object to the opinion of the Attorney General, provided that the linkage points established by law are respected.

Mr. Bush can wait a moment, as the Court of Cassation will soon decide whether or not to withdraw from the ongoing affairs.

I may cite a case that some French-speaking members of this majority will bring less to the imagination and more to the reality. What happens if the Attorney General of the Court of Cassation examines the case of Mr Desmarets of Elf Aquitaine 'dans un autre sens' and sends it back to the investigation judge? That is a case in which you need to have a greater chemistry. What will then happen?

What happens if the Court of Cassation returns the case to the investigative judge? Some decisions go in the other direction, dear colleague Monfils. Ask your colleagues what they think about the case. by Elf Aquitaine. The prosecutor near the Court of Cassation decided in the opposite direction by referring the case to the investigation judge. Wat zou er volgens de heer Monfils gebeuren als de procurator-general van het Hof van Cassatie bijvoorbeeld in de zaak van de heer Desmarets van Elf Aquitaine het dossier terug naar naar de onderzoeksrechter stuurt?

Mr. De Crem, there is no federal prosecutor on one side, the Court of Cassation on the other. It is the Court of Cassation that decides. There are no two authorities. The Court of Cassation returns by saying that it is competent to examine the matter. The investigation judge must examine and will see in the substance if yes

Het Hof van Cassatie zal uitspraak doen: indien het oordeelt dat we bevoegd zijn, zal de onderzoeksrechter de zaak ten or not there is a war crime or crime against humanity. This is the normal course of justice. If we say we are competent, we will continue to work. If you say that you are not competent, it stops. Be patient for a while and when you come back from your holidays all brown, all brown, you will see with the deadlines of enforcement of the law, the instructions that will be stopped and those that will be pursued. Then we will see what will happen. Ground must be investigated. This is ordinary law.

You will see, given the applicability periods of the law, which investigations will be stopped and which will continue.

Tomorrow is the last session of the Parliament. Should we not come back Thursday or Friday to discuss a new government draft? When I hear here the exegesis of the Deputy Minister of Justice, I think to notice that Mr. Monfils gives a completely different interpretation of what Mrs. Onkelinx could have done to us here. As I said, appointment in October and "bon success".

Are you sure that tomorrow will be the last day of the meeting? We may have the right, Thursday or Friday, to a new government project. This interpretation of the Minister of Justice, Mr. Monfils, in no way corresponds to that of the real minister.

I have the impression that you have difficulty understanding some elements developed during this session.

I have the impression, Mr. De Crem, that you do not understand what is said here.

not at all.