Proposition 51K1656

Proposition de résolution relative aux droits de l'enfant dans les pays partenaires de la politique belge de coopération au développement.

General information ¶

Authors

MR Luc Gustin, Josée Lejeune
PS | SP Mohammed Boukourna

Submission date

March 17, 2005

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

resolution of parliament development aid children's rights

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld N-VA MR FN 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 ¶

May 4, 2005 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, our proposal for a resolution aims to highlight the rights of the child in the partner countries of cooperation, but also in all the states with which Belgium has contacts.

In fact, in the past half a century, the instruments of human rights protection have multiplied. These instruments benefit all members of the international community and must be applied to all, regardless of race, religion, gender, age or political affiliation.

It remains that a part of the weaker population – we think more specifically of the initially more fragile children – deserves specific protection, mainly in countries where the situation is unstable.

Should we remember that children represent the future of humanity, that these youths of today will be the decision makers of tomorrow? We think more ⁇ of children soldiers, of sexual exploitation, of early child labour, of non-schooling, of abuse, of violence. Tens of millions of children experience these calvaries every day around the world. by

We want to emphasize the exploitation of children in the field of labor. This is a problem that needs to be taken seriously. Children are actually easy prey for those who want to produce a lot and at very low cost. We also want to focus on children who are often victims of discrimination because of their national, religious, ethnic, political or skin color. Let us not forget that in various countries, even today, some children do not have access to education because of their gender.

But these are not the only plagues that threaten the weakest of us. Malnutrition, disease, non-schooling are all serious concerns that must be included on the agenda of our foreign policy and cooperation.

We must also emphasize the more than worrying phenomenon represented by children soldiers. Indeed, in some parts of the world, the latter are forced to take up the weapons to participate in conflicts of which they know neither the issues nor the actors. It is true that these young people are an easy prey to manipulate, even easier when they are not alphabetized. From an early age, they are educated in the hatred of the opponent. They quickly find themselves in a vicious circle, where they can only convert themselves in violence because they unfortunately know nothing else.

At the end of the conflict coming, these young illiterate find themselves without work, knowing only the trade of weapons. In addition, children soldiers reintegration centers only accept minors. However, it is not uncommon to see senior people recently appear to these centers, in the hope of finding solutions after years spent with guns in hand. Thus, the demobilization of these children constitutes an inseparable challenge to the process of pacification and democratization of a region.

But we believe that we should not limit ourselves to confiscating weapons. We must also accompany these children, these young people, to help them get out of this vicious circle of violence. The need to educate, socialize these youths marked by violence and educated in hatred exists indeed in a global approach to the pursuit of peace. An accompaniment of children is indispensable in order not only to enable their literacy — a fundamental element of education that constitutes a basis for learning tolerance — and the rejection of hatred, but also to find a professional occupation so as not to sink into robbery. Finally, through economic activity, they can become a concrete link of the economy and participate in the growth and development of their country.

We all know that many international conventions address this problem by providing specific protection for children. We think in particular of the United Nations Programme for the Promotion of the Rights of the Child, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. But unfortunately, in reality, things don’t really change and, too often, international conventions are not ratified or then they are not actually applied in the facts. Too often, governments in these countries give little importance to the protection of the most vulnerable people.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, we believe that it is indispensable to make a real effort of education and respect for the other so that children, these decision makers of tomorrow, no longer repeat the misfortune of which they are today the victims. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, our proposal for a resolution calls on the Government to make respect for the rights of the child the battle horse of our foreign policy and cooperation, on the one hand, in the partner countries and, on the other hand, in all the States with which Belgium has relations.

By adopting the Millennium Declaration in September 2000, the Member States of the United Nations, including Belgium, have committed to achieving the eight international development and poverty-fighting goals which are, I recall, reducing extreme poverty and hunger, ensuring primary education for all, promoting gender equality and women’s autonomy, reducing child mortality, improving maternal health, combating HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases, ensuring a sustainable environment and access to clean drinking water, and establishing a global partnership for development. by

All these objectives, which have a direct or indirect connection with the rights of the child and its protection, must be accompanied by a special concern for children, both boys and girls, who are entitled to special assistance and assistance. The Belgian Development Cooperation has, in its contacts with developing countries, a tradition of promoting respect for human rights. Article 6 of the Law of 7 February 1994, as amended by the Law of 17 September 2000 on the assessment of development cooperation on the basis of respect for human rights, clearly stipulates that our Government must explicitly ensure that the rights of the child are respected. by

It is true that the responsibility for improving the position of the child in society lies in the first instance with the countries themselves. However, Belgium and other developed countries must also assume their responsibilities in these areas. The Convention on the Rights of the Child and the annexed Protocol on the involvement of children in armed conflicts constitute major international instruments, indispensable tools for this struggle for the improvement of the child’s position in society to be effective.

Mr. Speaker, our resolution calls for a genuine consideration of this Convention and the Protocol attached to it. It is the duty of Belgium, within the framework of cooperation, to act with its various partners so that the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the annexed Protocol on the involvement of children in armed conflicts are signed, ratified and implemented.

The discussion is close. The discussion is closed.

No amendments have been submitted or re-submitted. There will be no amendments ingediend of heringediend. The vote on the draft resolution will take place at a later date. Voting over the resolution will take place later.

Should Taiwan be granted observer status for the World Health Organization General Assembly? by

The question that comes back at every annual meeting of the WHO in Geneva has become ritual, just like the negative response that arises from the dictates of China, which, you know, considers the island as its province, an island on which six hundred missiles are permanently directed, which plunges a population of 23 million in daily and legitimate paranoia.

Last year, however, the international community appears to have been sensitized to Taiwan’s demand since it was supported by 25 countries including the United States and Japan, at risk of attracting China’s economic retaliation; those who voted “no” like the European Union and Canada, however, insisted that the island be associated with WHO’s work. by

Beyond the political aspect of supporting Taiwan, we must never forget that we are facing a public health issue. The world does not benefit from keeping Taiwan out of the WHO. The fact that Taiwan is not admitted to the WHO not only compromises public health on the island but also represents a serious problem for the entire planet.

The danger of bankruptcy on the island was really revealed in 2003 at the time of the SRAS crisis. Indeed, under the pretext that Taiwan is a province of People’s China, its experts were not allowed to participate in expert councils and urgent decisions within the WHO. The result: the island, which is a major crossroads of air and maritime communications with China, recorded one-fifth of the deaths from the epidemic and probably contributed to the export of all azimuts. The fact that Beijing first denied and then minimized this plague has worsened the balance sheet, which goes against the RSI (International Health Regulation) which aims to ensure maximum protection against the spread of diseases.

Last year, once again, since the outbreak of avian influenza, Taiwan was excluded from trade with the WHO. Beijing has generously offered medical assistance to the Taipei authorities, which makes a smile when you compare the levels of infrastructure and when you know the considerable and widely seen progress made by Taiwan in the field of health. by

The 23 million Taiwanese are entitled to equal and equal treatment in the WHO system, whose constitution stipulates that the goal of the WHO is to bring all peoples to the highest possible level of health. Therefore, there is no legal, professional or ethical justification for the People’s Republic of China’s objection to Taiwan’s participation, nor the WHO’s complicity in the implicit institutionalization of a health apartheid, as it should be called, towards the 23 million Taiwanese.

That is why, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, I invite my colleagues to vote in favour of this resolution supporting Taiwan’s request to officially sit as an observer at the WHO.

The draft motion was discussed in the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Is there a problem with your GSM?

Not with my GSM. Maybe with someone else’s.

The draft motion was discussed in the Foreign Affairs Committee on 27 April. As far as our group is concerned, we are in favour of that resolution and, like our colleagues, we want Taiwan to acquire the status of observer at the annual general meeting of the World Health Organization.

The reasons for this are obvious.

Indeed, given the explosion of international trade and trafficking of persons, the risk of a rapid and global spread of various infectious diseases such as HIV, tuberculosis and malaria has increased. It is in this context — not in the political context of two nations facing each other — and therefore for the sake of global health that it is of great interest that Taiwan can participate in the international approach and the fight against these infectious diseases.

The country is an important economic player on a global scale and an important trading partner of Europe, the United States and also China. It can boast a capita per capita of approximately $25,000, which is five times more than the capita per capita in China. The country also has important medical infrastructure and knowledge. This has been demonstrated, among other things, recently by its exemplary role, both in terms of information provision and in terms of combating the dangerous SARS epidemic.

Giving Taiwan the status of observer at the General Assembly of the World Health Organization is for us a step in the right direction, but rather a symbolic step that operatively contributes little to the fight against global epidemics. It would, of course, be much better if Taiwan received the status of observer in the World Organization, which is not limited to the meeting of 17 to 22 May, but a full-fledged status is within the operational framework where the rules for global health are determined and applied on the ground.

The message of our Parliament to our Ministers of Health and Foreign Affairs ahead of the General Assembly of the World Health Organization (WHO) from 17 to 22 May should include the call for a status of Taiwan within the World Health Organization, as is currently in place within the World Trade Organization. This is the only way to make an effective contribution to global health.

Our motion does not take into account the evolution of relations between the two China. In early May, there was an important meeting in Beijing between the Chinese authorities and the Taiwanese opposition. It has shown that China is not reluctant to a settlement such as that currently exists in the World Trade Organization. Therefore, it would be obvious that the island could acquire the status of observer, as in the WTO. Why should we not translate this favorable evolution into an adjustment of the motion? Therefore, I ask the Government to eventually amend the motion.

I, of course, fully support the plea of Mr Chevalier. He has already intervened very extensively, also on the recent actuality that delights us, given the approximation between China and Taiwan, which was surprising after China’s disturbing adoption, a few weeks ago, of the non-separation act. However, the latest developments are quite positive.

I would like to emphasize that, according to the Flemish Interest, Taiwan is entitled not only to a full status within all international organizations, but also to the right of self-determination that the international community of peoples has accepted as a general principle. Taiwan remains a friendly nation for the Flemish Interest, a privileged trading partner, a nation that needs to be supported in its endeavors for a full status at the international level.

We therefore fully support this resolution. I recall that the Flemish Interest in the previous and this legislature has submitted several proposals in this sense. We therefore stand as one man in favour of this resolution and we therefore hope that all other groups in this Parliament will support this resolution.

The discussion is close. The discussion is closed.

No amendments have been submitted or re-submitted. There will be no amendments ingediend of heringediend. If the House adopts this draft resolution, I will ensure that it reaches the Government in due time, since I find that the General Assembly will be held from 17 to 22 May. The vote on the draft resolution will take place at a later date. Voting over the resolution will take place later.

In recent days, the Flemish and French-speaking press has evoked the refusal of employment of foreign-origin job seekers in the Feryn company. Alarming figures have been highlighted, such as the very high unemployment rate of people — especially young people — derived from immigration or the number of complaints filed with the Centre for Equal Opportunities and Combating Racism. 154 complaints were registered for 2004.

Yesterday, the final report of the Commission on Intercultural Dialogue also pointed to the discrimination in employment against Belgians of foreign origin. In this context, let me read a brief excerpt from this report: “It should be noted that in Belgium positive action policies are generally considered fully legitimate by policymakers and citizens when it comes to women, young people – Rosetta plan – or people with disabilities but are perceived as much more questionable when it comes to members of cultural minorities and/or immigration populations. The Commission firmly supports policies of positive action towards these populations."

In this regard, Mrs. Minister, I would like to draw your particular attention to the Brussels-Capital Region, which has a socio-economic context at least alarming. In fact, immigrants are three times more affected by unemployment than Belgians. Brussels, due to its multiculturality, is ⁇ exposed to this phenomenon. Let me add two figures: 30% of the inhabitants do not have the Belgian nationality; 125,000 naturalizations between 1990 and 2001.

It is obvious that one can advance arguments such as knowledge of languages, proper training, the eternal lack of professional experience and I pass. But all these factors contribute, as much as ethnic discrimination in employment, to explain the long-term and very long-term unemployment of immigrant populations. The discrimination in the hiring of Belgians of foreign origin is a screaming and undeniable reality. A recent study by ULB and KUL, sponsored by ORBEM, shows that employment discrimination has increased in Brussels over the past eight years. According to the report, ⁇ one in two immigrants is at least once victim of employment discrimination when seeking employment. Not only do Belgians of foreign origin not have the same statistical chances of accessing a job, but they also do not have the same chances of accessing quality jobs. Given your competence in Employment, what is your position regarding the recommendations of the Commission on Intercultural Dialogue and, in particular, its recommendation that positive action policies should be implemented with respect to immigration populations?

I agree with the concerns you express. The unemployment rate of the population is significant and increasing. I condemn, of course, what happened to the Feryn company a few days ago, as well as the statements made in this regard by Mr. Feryn. Feryn but equated by Unizo. It is a tragedy to see that employers, who are looking for employees, discriminate against certain unemployed. This indicates that racism is still anchored in the mentality of many people in our society. by

Fighting this mentality is a long-term work. It will not be easy. The government cannot act alone. We need the help of workers’ organisations but also of trade unions to change mentalities. Everyone has to take action. I will organize an interministerial conference with my colleagues responsible for Employment in each Region, given that many skills are regionalized, such as workers and employers awareness. The Regions have already made a lot of efforts, but it is now seen that this is not enough. I will work on an action plan with my colleagues so that, within a few months, we have made sure to improve the situation.

I am pleased that you are concerned about this issue. I insist heavily on this topic before this assembly because, in October 2003, one of the commitments of the Conference for Employment was the creation of a working group that would examine this problem with all the Ministers of Employment and the Minister of Equality. I am aware of the evolution of mentalities. So far, nothing has been done. Through our permanences, my colleagues and myself are assaulted by questions. I therefore insist that this working group be set up quickly and address this delicate issue. The incident is closed. The incident is closed.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Ladies and Gentlemen, the Justice Committee has devoted two sessions, including yesterday’s, to the consideration of the bill introducing provisions relating to mediation in the preliminary Title of the Code of Criminal Procedure and in the Code of Criminal Instruction.

The aim of this project is to incorporate mediation into our Criminal Procedure and Criminal Investigation Codes and thus to generalize the offer of mediation so that any person involved in a criminal procedure can use it.

By thus providing a legal basis for mediation between the perpetrator and the victim, it is intended to stimulate the evolution towards a justice of participation and communication; it is thus intended to promote a more reparative justice. In fact, mediation in criminal matters gives the victim a true place and recognition in the criminal process and helps to concrete the feeling of compensation.

The bill is part of the continuation of various pilot experiments that were conducted in this area by the Justice Ministers of the time. Thus, already in 1993, a pilot project of reparative mediation was initiated in collaboration with the King Baudouin Foundation and a research group "Penology and Victimology" of the KUL.

In the framework of the discussions, various bill proposals were taken into account; namely, the bill proposal of Mr. Malmendier relating to the approval of certain non-profit associations, organising the author-victim mediation, oriented towards reparation, as well as the bill proposed by Ms. Corinne De Permentier and Pierrette CahayAndré, and M. Alain Courtois, draft law amending the Code of Criminal Instruction in order to allow the criminal judge to propose to the parties to return the file to an agent of the service of the houses of justice.

During the general discussion, Mr. Malmendier welcomed the fact that other solutions are being considered to resolve conflict situations; other solutions than those we currently know in our law. He also stressed the willingness to reconcile, as far as possible, the citizens and, above all, to recognize their own capacity to collaborate in the settlement of a conflict.

It is also in this sense that he deposited this proposal of law which, beyond the condemnation, allows the parties to regain a communication, or even a certain reconciliation. This should be the basis of mediation.

For his part, the Chairman of the Justice Committee was concerned about the guarantees that could exist to prevent mediation from being used for dilatory purposes. In response to this question, the Minister wanted to recall the two fundamental principles at the base of mediation: on the one hand, the fact that it is here a system led and framed by quality mediators that have been validated; on the other hand, that a mediation implies, of course, the will of both parties, a voluntary basis without which it could not start.

Finally, an amendment aimed at further clarifying the date of entry into force of the law was deposited and adopted unanimously.

In conclusion, the whole draft as amended was adopted unanimously.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, first of all, I would like to thank Mrs. Deom for her report, which, as always, was ⁇ solid.

I would like to apologize to my colleagues in the Justice Committee for not being present yesterday when the draft law was discussed. I was in the committee for internal affairs and so I was not able to participate in the discussions.

I insist on taking the floor in the plenary session, colleagues, because I really need to warn about the intolerable scope of the submitted texts. That unbearable range will cause accidents. The design ⁇ has good intentions and can bring together perpetrators and victims, but with any malicious intention it will give rise to huge problems.

The text is so summary and the possibilities of interpretation are so numerous that in it we can only speak of ⁇ poor legislative work. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it is regrettable that through the procedure followed in the committee — again, I am responsible because I could not be there —, we have not even received a legislative technical note, so that even the most basic corrections could not be made.

I would like to make a few concrete concerns for the Minister. I understand that the Minister of Justice...

Mr. Van Parys, I have assured myself that, if you really insist on Mrs. Onkelinx’s presence, I can make her come, if necessary. But now she is held in another place. So I hope you are satisfied with Mr. Demotte.

I will not insist, Mr. Speaker. I also understand that Minister Demotte is obviously unable to provide the answers to my technical questions. In any case, the way the design is discussed proves how with such designs, which could be important, and how such important themes are dealt with.

I would like to emphasize this even sharply by pointing out a number of problems created by those texts.

The present draft provides for mediation in the criminal process, but it has failed to specify for which crimes it will be. This means that this mediation, both at the time of the criminal proceedings, the punishment and the execution of the penalty, can apply to all crimes. For any criminal offence, such a mediation procedure can be initiated. Murder, murder, rape of minors, whatever, there is no limitation. As a result of the criminal mediation, we had at that time provided for a clear limitation for a number of crimes. After all, we found that for serious and horrible crimes mediation could not be done. However, this limitation was not provided in the present draft.

In addition, this draft law also allows mediation during the course of the judicial investigation, even at the time of the trial on the merits and at the moment of the sentence is pronounced in the stage of the execution of the penalty. I would like to warn you of possible consequences. The text provides that anyone who has a direct interest in mediation can request the initiative of mediation from the relevant service. However, you should know, colleagues, that in important judicial files anyone — a family member of the perpetrator, for example, who is obviously a direct interested party — can enter the case in this way. This can be too bad loyalty. This is not sanctioned or specified in the present draft law. This can delay the judicial investigation. When dealing with the matter in substance, this can lead to procedural incidents. This can also be done at the time of execution of the penalty.

This text has been edited in a ⁇ blind and boundlessly naive manner, undoubtedly from good care. I will give the example of the information that this way will be able to obtain incorrect stakeholders. The draft provides that the service assigned to mediate with the Department of Justice can obtain a copy of the criminal record. The question is whether the interested parties can get access in this way? If so, this means that they can obtain information either about the judicial investigation or about the criminal investigation in general. At that time, in investigative committees where important files were handled, we have seen that in this way various stakeholders have created a file through which they can get information about the course of the investigation. Their

I repeat that this ⁇ naive text through handy lawyers will give rise to numerous abuses.

We can then assume that such mediation is necessary. I believe in the experiments that have been conducted in this regard, including on the initiative of the King Boudewijnstichting, but then nevertheless initially limited to the civil interests. I think this can be ⁇ important: limiting the damage and finding ways to get the perpetrator more closely involved in the victim’s interests. I think that is a good starting point.

However, this bill is not limited to this. That draft law provides or may provide that such mediation could also relate to the criminal action, to the punishment, to the execution of the penalty. I really wonder how this could be done. Parties who may have an interest in any family member, for example, could take the initiative to initiate a mediation procedure or mediation in order to influence the way the matter is handled in substance, and, if necessary, later in the context of the execution of the penalty.

This raises the fundamental question of what is the position of this mediation service in the trias politica. It is a service dependent on the Federal Public Service Justice. It is not the prosecutor’s office, not the prosecutor’s office. It is not the judicial power. It is apparently an organ of the executive power, which could intervene at the time when either a judicial investigation is underway, or the proceedings are under way, during the course of the hearing, or in the stage of the execution of the penalty. In this way, that service will undoubtedly have some impact on the handling of the file. I wonder to what extent this is compatible with the independence of the judiciary.

I could still accept that the Prosecutor’s Office receives such assignments, as the Prosecutor’s Office now also has an assignment in the context of criminal mediation. I think this is a ⁇ important and useful initiative that is often used. It is an instrument in the hands of the Prosecutor’s Office.

But the question is: how will that mediation service, depending on the Federal Public Service Justice, i.e. Mr. Bourlet, relate to the task of the prosecutor’s office on the one hand, and the tasks of the courts on the other? This question also arises in relation to the courts. The courts have an important role to play in the execution phase. They play an important role in defending the victim’s interests. They are duplicated here by a new service, which will be able to interfere with the various commands. This is ⁇ worrying. I wonder who could tell me what is meant by "by anyone who has a direct interest in the research". It is so formulated in a text relating to criminal law. I am afraid that almost anyone could claim that importance.

At least, interests will be created that are not general interests or the interests of the victim, but individual interests. Their

Then the question also arises: if the mediation leads to an agreement or result, what will be done with it? In previous texts we have said that when there was mediation, then there was an enforceable judgment so that the mediation could be carried out and thus creating legal certainty. This is not at all defined here as it states that the judge can take this into account. Now, if, in the course of the proceedings, there is essentially a kind of agreement between the victim and the perpetrator, can the court then, on the basis of that agreement, with the exception of the civil interest system, allow reduction of punishment on the basis of that agreement? Can this be done based on this text? This can be done, as it is now edited. I assume that this may not be the intention, but as the text is drawn up in such general terms, this must be able. Their

How does this initiative relate to the Franchimont bill that is currently being discussed in the Senate and, of course, also to the bill on the criminal enforcement courts that will be dealt with in the Senate within a few weeks? It is clear that if mediation is provided for in the context of the execution of the penalty, this will have implications for the draft law at the penalty enforcement courts. This will be exactly one of the tasks of the Criminal Enforcement Court, if I understand it correctly. So one is going to arrange something very partial here, which at the moment is completely unclear in other initiatives. I think it would have been indispensable to know the views of the Balies on this subject. I think I know that the Order of Flemish Bales has ⁇ serious concerns with this bill. I don’t know how it is on the French side. Their

It would, of course, be of particular importance to know the position of the Board of Prosecutors and of the College of General Prosecutors in this regard. In fact, this matter has a particular impact on the course of the criminal proceedings and on the execution of the sentence, a matter which concerns the Public Prosecutor’s Office in a large degree. We do not know this. Has this been consulted? Last week we heard the Chairman of the Council of Prosecutors say that the consultation model between the Council, the College and the Minister fails and that it is still hardly taken into account. There is no trace of it back. The High Court of Justice was not consulted on this issue either. Mr. Speaker, I think we are doing this silly thing with the best possible intentions, and I agree with that. Their

This is unthinkable and not discussed. We will bear the consequences. Here are accidents. This may be abused in collecting information, delaying a judicial investigation or influencing the files in the treatment. One has not armed himself against the intentions in this regard which are evident in heavy files. It seems to me that the fundamental mistake has been made in not limiting mediation to the crimes for which it is actually supposed to serve. It also applies to the most serious crimes. Their

Unfortunately, in these circumstances, we will have to vote against this bill, although the starting point and the intention were actually good. In the absence of thorough consultation and consultation and a sound discussion, this draft will become what it shouldn’t be.

I have just explained the reasons that led me to intervene. They are largely the same as those of Mr. by Van Parys. I will not take them again. I agree with the words of mr. Van Parys, especially in his questions. Indeed, are we well armed under this bill to prevent any person of bad faith from slowing down a procedure?

I would like to repeat several questions from Mr. Van Parys which I think are pretty basic.

The first concerns the role of the public prosecutor. This bill refers to numerous occasions to “everyone with an interest.” These are people who can request or refuse mediation, who can have access to pieces or refuse the production of pieces before the magistrate who will be able to intervene after this mediation. Does this also apply to the public prosecution? Is it considered a part? Take the example of a hearing where a person appears before their judges and, in accordance with their law, asks for mediation. You must also be informed of this right and even encouraged to use it. Can the judge object to such a request? and no. Can the public prosecutor, party to the case, oppose this? Can the public prosecutor be considered a party?

Let’s take the case of a person who has been granted mediation, which is a good thing. I would like to draw attention to the fact that — Mr. Van Parys also said, just recently - the intention is obviously excellent.

The Minister of Justice at the time had the same name and the same surname as the leader of the CDH group today!

What a coincidence! We are supportive of mediation. We no longer need to demonstrate our willingness to go further on this subject. This must be done in the best possible framework.

Let us return to the one who finds himself in the context of a mediation. Who will find him in the negotiation? The Public Prosecutor? The Ministry of Justice or the services of this Ministry? Who can be involved if there is no civil party, no interested person? With whom will he negotiate? In order to go to this mediation, to try to find an agreement, he produces documents, he decides to play free-game, starting from the principle that a bad agreement is better than a good judgment.

He wants to play the game. He produces all the documents, acknowledges his mistake and indicates the situation in which he was. Then, for some reason, the mediation capote and no agreement is found. Can this person no longer produce his documents before a judge? Would there be an impossibility for her to use her means of defence while she has done everything she can for mediation to succeed? This can be understood from a civil point of view, but not at the criminal level. Can they replicate them, put them down again? If the interlocutor is opposed, can she submit them again? This question seems quite essential. This applies to the production of documents.

Who can reject this request for mediation? Let me return to the example of the public prosecutor. I think mr. Malmendier asked a question in the commission regarding the execution of the sentence. Mediation is now possible, the exposition of the reasons clearly says it, at the time of the instruction, at the time of the procedure but also at the time of the execution of the sentence. If that person does not execute the mediation agreement that he has concluded in the context of the execution of the sentence, what will happen? There is a moral obligation in the committee. I agree, but it seems a bit short. The intervention of Mr. Malmendier in commission is, in my opinion, quite grounded.

What happens if the person does not comply with the mediation agreement they have concluded? The chairman of the committee intervened in this direction and he raised all the problems of using this procedure for a bad purpose. We are all for the intentions, we are all for the principle but the risk is really that there will be a misuse of this bill, based on a bad faith, like Mr. Van Parys said it recently. And we have demonstrated that this bad faith can occur in several places: on failure or not, on the very fact of resorting to mediation, on the status, on the place of the public prosecution in the framework of this procedure, on the documents that can be filed, on the documents that can be invoked by the parties in the framework of mediation in order for it to succeed. Does this not have the opposite effect? I will not produce my documents because I do not want to be prohibited from producing them later as part of the procedure. So I keep them and I do not ensure that mediation can result. The only thing I have won is time.

Last element: the possible non-execution of a mediation agreement. We have, in the right line, raised the words of mr. Van Parys, four elements that demonstrate that we may not be - we can discuss it, that is the purpose of any debate - in the presence of a bill that has sufficiently marked this opening that is good and towards which we all must tend.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I did not intend to intervene at first, but when I hear the arguments of colleagues Van Parys and Wathelet, it seems useful to me to say the following.

It is a pity that the Minister of Justice is not present, because she may have been better than me, could have made clear why the various interventions actually start from a misunderstanding.

The speeches of Mr. Van Parys and Mr. Wathelet make it seem that what is stated in this text is a kind of mediation in criminal matters that would replace a normal criminal procedure, but that is not the case. It is not that the result of such mediation is that the perpetrator and the victim agree that there is no longer a possibility of prosecution. This has nothing to do with it. The criminal procedure is just going on as it normally should be going through. Both the prosecutor’s office and the sitting magistrates play their role in the process as it would be without mediation.

What is it about? There are already a number of initiatives in this regard. This is called recovery mediation. There are a number of VSDs that are dealing with this. For example, I think of the vzw Suggnomè. There are a number of other VSDs that do that. What do they do in practice? They seek to restore the relationship between the perpetrator and the victim, regardless of the criminal judicial consequences. Why Why ? Because this can be both in the interest of the perpetrator — in the context of the processing of the guilt of committing a particular act — and of the victim to understand what happened. It is undoubtedly a bit of confusion happening but that is precisely the core of the matter. It is about recovery mediation. It is not a type of plea bargaining that should lead to a change in the criminal procedure.

Why does this law contain a list of certain data that could be transmitted to the criminal court? Because it is perfectly possible that, when such recovery mediation is initiated at an early stage, for example, a civil interest arrangement can already be made and implemented, as is the case in a classical procedure today. The lawyer of the civil party and the lawyer of the perpetrator will inform the chairman that the perpetrator acknowledges his guilt and has already begun to pay compensation to the victim. This happens every day in our courts. This is a typical example of information that can be communicated.

There is the problem of the non-implementation of such an agreement. This has also been discussed in the committee. The essence of the case is that one does not come to a kind of enforceable punishment, in which the parties have each put a little water in the wine to then come to a kind of legally enforceable agreement. It is not about that. It is a recovery mediation. It is an attempt to contribute from society to the restoration of the relationship between the perpetrator and the victim.

It is said that this must be reserved for the smallest crimes. Practice shows that it must be exactly the opposite, that it is precisely in the most serious crimes that such a form of recovery mediation is most appropriate. A typical example is the family dramas: a result of partner violence, a serious crime being committed, up to murder. This implies, in addition to having a whole criminal procedure, which naturally punishes the person who committed the act in a normal way, that one must also try to continue to live and work after the process. This should be done with the same family members. In order to respond to this, such a framework is provided.

Mr. Speaker, I am going around. The question that can be asked is why this should be stated in a law. That must be inscribed in a law, because the mediator must be able to talk to someone who is imprisoned in prison. No one can be allowed to go to prison simply under the guise of an intermediary role between the perpetrator and the victim. Criteria must be established for this. The core of the design is that there will be recognition criteria, that one will determine what conditions the people who must carry out that guidance process must meet.

In this sense, I am a little surprised by the content of the argument. The argument would arise when the recovery mediation or the mediation that happened here would be a kind of plea bargaining to result in no criminal prosecution. Then the arguments of the gentlemen Van Parys and Wathelet go up. However, this story is a completely different story. I think there is some misunderstanding in the game.

Listening to Mr. Van Parys and Mr. Wathelet, I was interrogated. I re-read the bill and after hearing the chairman of the Justice Committee, I believe that it is ⁇ necessary to well frame the scope of the text that is submitted to us, adhering to the principles that govern our criminal procedure.

1 of 1. It is obviously impossible to imagine that this mediation may one day refer to the punishment as such or, to use a broader term, to the punishment as such. Criminal mediation in the present sense is another thing: it is a system of extinction of public action; here, we find ourselves in another framework. It should be applied the principle that one cannot make a mediation on something that is of public order. There can therefore be no mediation in the current sense of the text on the sanction as such.

2 of 2. It is obvious that, already now, mediation can in any case take place on civil interests. Civil interests may be settled, at the limit, the day after the offence or ten years after, no matter. This already exists, it can be transacted and a mediator can be used in this matter.

Therefore, once these two problems have been eliminated – sanction and civil interests – it appears clearly that the text only targets what is called, already for several years – it has been discussed in the Justice Committee at the time that Mr. P. De Clerck was minister of the department – restorative justice or reparative justice – whatever the term – that is, to try to engage in a dialogue that is hoped to be constructive with the accused, the accused, the perpetrator of the offence and, if possible, the victim so that this dialogue can become more effective than a criminal penalty or the payment of a sum of money in repair of the offence.

This is the same principle as the criminal mediation organized by the prosecutor’s office currently when it puts face to face the offender and the victim to try to “comfort” things and that everyone becomes aware of what happened to him. We are therefore fully in this concept of reparative and restorative justice that is already applied at the present time; indeed, there are assistants in restorative justice and assistants in reparative justice within the penitentiary establishments.

It is about giving a legal framework to what already exists now. We must not go beyond. I repeat, it is simply the will to have a legal framework. This is what I wanted to say on the principle level.

I would like to make two further remarks in relation to what Mr. by Van Parys. First of all, it is obvious that the text provides for the possibility for the service responsible for mediation to obtain the copy of the repressive file but it is understood that all this is done under the responsibility, as already in our criminal procedure, the prosecutor’s office, the prosecutor of the King in particular.

Then, as regards the problem of serious offences, I believe that, by definition, the concept of restorative justice or reparative justice has its limits. As much as I can imagine it as being effective for offenses of minor or medium gravity, so objectively, it cannot be reasonably considered for offenses of great gravity; it is obviously the practice and common sense that lead me to say this.

I will now give the floor to Mr. The shoes. Then, although it is not the habit to intervene twice in the same project but it is a good debate, I will give the floor to Mr. by Van Parys.

I would only like to recall the Rules of Procedure and then allow the exception with pleasure.

I have approved the draft in the committee. I still have no problem with that, when I hear the reasoning ventilated by the majority. However, there are a number of points that ⁇ do not make me change my opinion, but they may still make an update.

One issue may not have been clarified in the matter and we may not have been sufficiently in-depth in the committee.

I have indeed understood that it is a kind of rehabilitation mediation in the embryonic phase, which can still be postponed, both in the youth mediation and the youth sanction law or youth protection law as in the law-Franchimont.

I have also understood that there can be little or even no influence and ⁇ no coercion on the victim and the judge or prosecutor to direct the procedure in a particular direction through mediation. At that point, I feel pretty safe, and I don’t think we’re going to have to do with a revolution in our criminal justice system that is driving our system in the wrong direction.

What worries me somewhat is the next case that may occur. A judge may, of course, take into account the fact that mediation has taken place and that the perpetrator has compensated the victim or another party who believes to have been injured by the crime. However, if at any given moment an offender receives a reduction from a court because a mediation has taken place, and subsequently it turns out that the object of the mediation was not carried out and the mediation agreement was thus broken by the offender, then the offender has in fact unlawfully benefited from a reduction of the penalty. He thus received a penalty reduction for an agreement that he ultimately did not execute.

In our system, no innocent person should be punished. The reverse side of the medal of our system, however, must be that no one should ever benefit from his own mistake, ⁇ not when he pretends to have corrected the mistake and that in reality does not appear to have done it. In that case, we would have to deal with innocent victims who are punished. This is not tolerated by our system, of course.

Therefore, I ask the Minister or the colleagues of the majority to explain this point. What do we do with an offender who has concluded a mediation agreement, on the basis of which he has obtained a reduction in punishment, but ultimately failed to execute the agreement? In fact, there are no criminal enforcement courts — I recall again — that can remedy such a situation in favor of the victim.

It is an interesting debate. It could have been better done in the committee, but now it is being done here. I understand it. You have the word.

So is it, Mr. President, but well, it has not happened there. Again, in that regard, I plead guilty, although I was legally apologized.

I would like to comment on what the Chairman of the Committee on Justice and the Chairman of the Group of the PS said.

We have not understood the present draft law as such that mediation would replace a normal judicial procedure. On the contrary, we have well understood that during the course of the judicial procedure, the judicial investigation, the treatment on the merits and even the execution of the penalty the mediation is possible, thus not instead but during, at the moment of. There is, of course, the problem of the impact of mediation on the course of the process.

I give you a very precise example: an important fraud file in which the Belgian State has been cheated for billions. Well, the handy lawyer who has reviewed the law asks one of the relatives of the fraudsters, of the company or anyone else to say, either to the prosecutor’s office, or during the hearing on the substance that will mediate with the Ministry of Finance to try to develop a arrangement regarding the harm that the Belgian State has suffered. With what intention? Obviously with the intention of delaying the judicial investigation or delaying the treatment in substance and actually affecting it in part. One will of course not be able to refuse the offer to mediate with the Ministry of Finance. As long as this law exists, it will be a data that the judge can take into account, either the investigation judge or the judge on the merits. Therefore, one will effectively have an impact on the course of a file, inevitably.

The texts are the only thing that counts. I think our colleagues have excellent intentions, but we are talking about criminal law and therefore about strict interpretation. What are we reading? Mediation is a process that allows persons in conflict, if they voluntarily consent to it, to take an active and confidential part in the resolution of difficulties arising from a crime.

Colleagues, "difficulty arising from a crime" is such a general qualification that one will of course not limit this to the recovery mediation as one would like it. However, it will be interpreted much more broadly and found ground in the texts as they are present at the moment.

I fully agree on one point with the Chairman of the Committee on Justice, especially when he says that this text has been given a “flood”. On this basis, colleagues, you will provide tools that will trigger all kinds of delays and procedural incidents, which will cause complicated files to be delayed again and can again give rise to prescription and similar manoeuvres.

Mr. Borginon, one must judge on the basis of the texts approved. It is criminal law. This has been described in such a careless manner that it really opens the door for all forms of abuse. Of course I am in favour of recovery mediation, but it should have been limited in the preceding texts to what it should actually serve. This is not the case.

Finally, a final consideration. This is initially an order of the Prosecutor’s Office, ⁇ at the time when the judicial investigation is in progress, especially when the case is dealt with in substance by the court and even more at the time of the execution of the penalty. This seems clearly sunny. I do not understand that the Chamber Committee on Justice can approve or discuss these texts without seeking the advice of the bodies existing before them, the Council of Prosecutors, the College of General Prosecutors and, of course, also the bailes which are obviously parties involved. They signal us that, as we have said, there can be a lot of unpleasant consequences from the current texts.

It is your responsibility to do or not do this. From the opposition, we can only point out the risks that are taken with regard to very important texts in sometimes very important studies.

I let go of the discussion because the time does not press, but I would nevertheless point out that the Chamber seems to me sufficiently informed to be able to decide.

I would like to return to the interventions of the Chairman of the Commission and Mr. by Giet. Indeed, the intentions are good and when everything goes well, this new possibility is left in the framework of the procedures both at the level of instruction, in the substance and in the execution. Certainly, one cannot negotiate on a sanction, but one can, in any case, negotiate on the execution of that sanction and on the modalities of its execution. The explanation of the reasons clarifies this. He clearly mentions in the text at our disposal: “The government also wishes not to exclude mediation in the context of the execution of sentences.” Therefore, it is clear that at the level of execution, this possibility is left to the parties. When everything goes well, so much better!

Mr. Wathelet, negotiating the execution of a sentence is done daily between a person who is convicted and the public prosecutor. This of course exists! In this case, there is nothing new!

But if an agreement is reached at the level of execution, there is no sanction if mediation is not observed.

Does the text say at one point that the judgment will not be delivered? The text simply states that the main judge can take mediation into account. This demonstrates that mediation is obviously not about the sanction or even about bringing the case to the hearing!

This is not in the text!

Because it is obvious!

If our two colleagues had attended the debate in the committee yesterday, the discussion would have been lively!

(...) when you read the file, when you go through this project. This is what has triggered today’s debate, which is not uninteresting.

It is said that this does not interrupt the procedure. It is true. But if there is not, at a given moment, a possibility of gathering around a table to discuss and that it is said that the procedure will continue anyway and that the interested person will have to appear before the magistrate, etc., does not a chance be missed? Couldn’t we have envisaged an opening in this text by providing correct tags? Will one tell a person who asks for mediation that the hearing is still taking place? The complaints are taking place. The case is deliberate. In this context, could the public prosecutor not play a role and intervene? That is why it might have been useful to clarify its role in these procedures. If such a possibility is left to the bottom, let us seize it!

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. It threatens to become a deceitful conversation.

However, it is heard well.

Mr. President, you are mistaken.

I can only hold the debate in the committee with the present. This is not an accusation but a determination.

Mr. Van Parys, you have already explained this.

Mr. Speaker, I assume that the CD&V group consists of more members than Mr. Van Parys alone. So simple is it. That is so.

Second element, I am giving an answer to Mr Schoofs’s observations on the agreement. The problem is that the debate is focused on the agreement. This is a legal reflection of all of us. If I have well understood the concept of recovery mediation, the agreement is not the core of the matter. The core of the matter is the path to that agreement. It focuses on the possibility that an agreement may not be fulfilled.

Colleagues, the core of the case is that the government provides a means to get out of the criminal procedure law to a situation where the perpetrator-victim relationship has re-normalized to the extent that it is humanly possible.

Is there a risk that the agreement will not be complied with? of course . Today, however, in the ordinary criminal proceedings before the court there is also the risk that matters brought into the proceedings and promises made are not followed afterwards. It is exactly the same as what is happening today.

As regards the delay, Mr Van Parys, what is stated in the draft that the judge must suspend his work until the mediation has been successfully completed? That is not in it at all. There is no obligation for a court or a public prosecutor to tame with its procedure while conducting a mediation. In this sense, this story is no different from what can happen now before the Criminal Court. A defence attorney, together with the civil party attorney, gives the judge the signal that he wants to get some time to settle the civil interests. The judge will respond to that request or will not respond. It is exactly the same here. Trying to imagine as if a new kind of mechanism is being created that causes mass delay in the criminal courts, that is honestly a bridge too far!

I will briefly replicate and answer because I have not personally followed the file. So I will have the modesty to answer some questions with great caution. Their

First, as regards the purpose of the new procedure. Mediation takes place only at the request of both parties, i.e. the perpetrator and the victim. This means that it does not matter who can appeal to the new procedure. This also affects the fact that it could be hindered by a third party. Their

As for the method of mediation, the following. The procedure, as I said before, will only be initiated with the agreement of both parties. This is done in addition to the judicial investigation. I will not repeat what Mr Borginon just said, but I share his position on this subject. Their

Why does mediation happen by a specific service? Ten eerste, om een reële garantie deskundigheid in professionalism te bieden op het vlak van de behandeling, in termen van vorming and so on. De dienst zal erkend worden door de minister in daarvoor wordt nu gewerkt aan een ontwerp van koninklijk besluit. Een werkgroep samengesteld uit vertegenwoordigers van de verschillende betrokken partijen, zoals de procureur-general; hat haar werkzaamheden aangevat. As for the different aspects of this bill, they were discussed on the basis of experiments that have already been conducted in different parts of the country. I know that the Dutch-speaking bar and the services of the King’s Attorney General were associated with the discussion.