Proposition 51K1960

Projet de loi instaurant des tribunaux de l'application des peines.

General information ¶

Submitted by

The Senate

Submission date

April 20, 2005

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

civil procedure judicial power criminal procedure carrying out of sentence

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.

⚠️ Possible data error ⚠️

This proposition could possibly include unrelated discussions due to a heuristic extraction bug in propositions prior to 2007. As soon as I've got time to fix it, these will be removed when they're not supposed to be here.

Discussion ¶

March 29, 2006 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, colleagues, the bills, several of which were submitted by the Senate, and the bills submitted by certain colleagues, gave rise to extensive meetings and hearings.

At the beginning, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Justice gave an introductory presentation on the draft laws. Regarding the first bill, she pointed out that the Parliament will eventually provide a legal basis for the execution of the imprisonment, which was a long-awaited moment for many. It is, by the way, a logical consequence of the Basic Law on the prison system, which we in Parliament had the final vote on 12 January 2005.

The Minister has recalled the two committees that have prepared everything, on the one hand the Dupont Commission and on the other hand the Holsters Commission, which has argued about the external legal status of the detainees and the establishment of the Criminal Enforcement Court, the point that prevails today.

Generally speaking, the area we are talking about today stands out by the lack of legal rules and by the confusion at the level of the division of powers between the executive and the judiciary. As Ms. the Minister noted, the principle of legality is still subject to violence, since the execution of prison sentences is governed by the different ways in which they are executed. They are not regulated by a law and in many cases not even by a royal decree.

A second sensitive point is the fact that there is a controversial division between, on the one hand, the executive power — the Minister of Justice — and, on the other hand, the judiciary.

What are the different strength lines of the draft laws?

For the draft law on the external legal status of detainees there are seven force lines.

The first, in addition to providing a legal basis for the external legal status of detainees, aims to rationalize the various existing modalities. The Minister referred to this point to the draft law which eventually also received its approval in the various discussions, namely the modalities of exit permit, imprisonment leave, punishment interruption, limited detention, electronic surveillance, the provisional release for the purpose of removal of the territory, the provisional release and, finally, the provisional release for medical reasons.

A second force line concerns the distribution of material competence between the Minister of Justice and the Criminal Enforcement Court.

A third force line concerns the status of the victim in the context of the execution of the penalty. On this point, several legislative proposals were linked.

Fourth, there is the distinction between imprisonment sentences of more or less than three years.

Fifth, there is succession and control.

Sixth, there are the specific powers of the criminal enforcement judge.

Finally, there is the possibility of appeal in cassation.

Regarding the second draft law on the establishment of criminal enforcement courts, the Minister spoke in particular of the five main characteristics that characterize criminal enforcement courts. First, the Penal Enforcement Court will be a real court and will form a division of the Court of First Instance, as recommended by the Holsters Committee.

Second, that a court is established in each jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal, under the meaning that there will be a Dutch-speaking and a French-speaking chamber in Brussels.

Third, that this criminal enforcement court will be chaired by a professional magistrate, which is the criminal enforcement judge.

Fourth, for the examination of cases relating to one or more deprivation of liberty sentences, the enforcement part of which is three years or less, the penalty enforcement chambers will be composed by the single-seat judge of the penalty enforcement court. In other cases, these chambers will consist of the judge and two assistants.

Fifth, the establishment of criminal enforcement courts will also increase the role of the prosecutor’s office in criminal enforcement.

In its final observations, the Minister pointed out the two reports that form a whole: the report of the Dupont committee and the report of the Holsters committee. She also referred to the two study days. The minister said that in the Holster committee report there were several points in which options were submitted to the government and parliament. Therefore, it was our task to take a position on this. That statement was refined on the two days of study at the KUL and the ULB that were dedicated to the execution of punishment.

The Minister also said that she has held special meetings with the chairs of the provisional release committees and the adjunct seats who will be appointed in these criminal enforcement courts.

Finally, the Minister also talked about the latest draft law amending the law of 5 March 1998. In fact, the Government Agreement of July 2003 provides for a modification of this law in order to give more legal certainty to victims and to society.

It is thus provided that, when a person has been convicted in the context of recidive for murder, that person may not be released or admitted to the provisional release only after serving at least three-fourths of the sentence. In practice, this means at least 16 years in prison.

The draft law also complements the justification obligation of the judge with an information obligation.

After the general explanation, we then received a presentation of the different submissions of legislative proposals.

There was colleague Monfils with a bill on the rights of victims, supplemented by several bills of colleagues Bacquelaine and Malmendier, which in fact all relate to the victim’s position in the different ranks of the execution of the penalty. Since I have heard that Mr Malmendier will speak, I will refer here to the written report.

There was also a proposal for a resolution and a bill by colleagues Verherstraeten, Van Parys and Vandeurzen, also on the position of the victim. I will leave it to the colleague Verherstraeten to immediately give a further explanation of his position.

Finally, colleagues Laeremans, De Man, Schoofs and Caslo also submitted several bills concerning the abolition of, among other things, the conditional release, and the punishment with actual lifetime imprisonment. I think colleague Laeremans will talk about this later, so I will not go into it further. Their

The various discussions have led to the fact that, after the amendment of the draft laws, we have moved to the final vote. Their

Bill 1319 was repealed. The bills 1597, 2063, 2091 and 2114 were disconnected from the discussion. The whole Bill 2170 was adopted with ten votes against one and two abstentions. The entire 1960 Bill was adopted with nine votes and three abstentions, causing the other combined bills to be void.

Colleagues, I give the order of the different speakers. I have as first colleague Verherstraeten, then I will let Mr. Laeremans, who probably has a different view, speak in second order, in third Mr. Wathelet, then Mr. Borginon and then Mr. Malmendier. I’ll see if there are any more people who want to sign up.

Do you want to get rid of the spike, Mr. Verherstraeten? You can also defend your amendments in one hand, as I sometimes say.

First and foremost, I would like to thank the rapporteur for his very solid report. I think that honesty also guides to assert that the draft draft that is being discussed here today in the plenary session comes at its time. In 1998, we were confronted with the problem of the constitutional objections that brought up the law on the VI, which in part was able to accommodate a lot.

I think it is a good thing that we as legislators make a distinction between the moment of the facts, the moment of the assessment of the facts and the moment when a delinquent is judged during the execution of his sentence. A perpetrator can evolve for good—sometimes ⁇ for evil, but we often hope for good—and that positive evolution must be taken into account. I think that this draft, therefore, in continuation of the Act of 1998, seeks to individualize that assessment more individually. We can only congratulate the fact that victims will play an important role here and will be treated with more respect. In some areas, we would have preferred to make different choices. We are actually somewhat afraid that these designs will start under a poor star. I will immediately come to what we consider essential in relation to those designs.

The essential thing for us is that we are leaving with six criminal enforcement courts, i.e. one per jurisdiction, just as today there are six committees VI.

Mrs. Minister, you know that the Holster Commission actually suggested a criminal enforcement court by province. We know that you too, based on the suggestion of the Holsters committee, were pleased with that idea. But at the government level you were flooded back by the Minister of Budget, thus ⁇ ining the six criminal enforcement courts.

For these six criminal enforcement courts, there is an additional total budget of 464,000 euros. That number of courts with only that extra budget, that is the Achillespees of the whole draft.

I quote the Committee VI, which has given us very useful advice and which has also been able to analyze our discussions in terms of content: “From the report of the Committee for Justice of the Senate it is clear that the government annually adds 464,000 euros to the establishment and operation of the Penal Execution Court. These budgetary data make hard what is shown in abundance from the interventions of the Minister of Justice in the Senate Committee, namely that there are as many criminal enforcement courts as there are now CVIs, i.e. six. The Minister seems to be well aware of the problem of the workload, as it also refers to the notification of the Council of Ministers of 25 March 2005, which stipulates that the number of chambers can be increased. But it is clear that the government is anticipating the launch of six criminal enforcement courts and only for this budget is provided. Their

Given Article 50 of the draft, which stipulates that the law enters into force no later than eighteen months after its publication in the Belgian Staatsblatt," — meanwhile, that, after amendment, twenty-four months — "and the lack of resources for more than six criminal enforcement courts, this scenario seems to be fixed at least for the first two years and, from experience learns, probably still much longer. Their

Six criminal enforcement courts, however, are predictably completely insufficient, given the extensive additional powers in the draft of the external legal status detained. Currently, the six CVIs are competent for the early release of convicted persons who have been imprisoned for more than three years and who are Belgian or foreigners with a residence permit for our country. This represents about 10% of all early exemptions. Their

In the future, only in terms of early exemptions will be added the current provisional exemptions — that is for sentences up to three years — and the provisional exemptions for removal from the country, which together make up 90% of all early exemptions.

In addition to this multi-dossier early exemption, the jurisdiction of the Criminal Enforcement Court shall also fall within the jurisdiction of whether or not to grant the limited detention and electronic surveillance.” Their

In other words, six is quite insufficient. Let’s take a look at the figures that we put in between the committee discussions. What do we learn from the figures of the CVI committees? The six CVIs made 1,674 decisions in 2004. That means 279 decisions per committee per year. If one talks with the magistrates of that committee, it shows that they are full-time in charge. This also seems obvious to me. Preparing 280 dossiers, reading opinions and reports, listening to the pleas, reviewing the conclusions, reviewing pieces, and then thinking and making a judgment on very delicate subjects. This is not a small job that goes ice over a day. For this reason, there are 279 decisions per year per committee.

Where will we go if both bills become laws? In the circulation letter of January 2005, which regulates the provisional release for sentences of less than 6 months, there is a question of immediate release. How many files are it? The Minister replied that over a period of 11.5 months, 809 files were involved. If I extrapolate that to a year, I come up with 840 cases in which the convicted so far are immediately released while from now on they will all get a file. Their

I have the figures from the Annual Report of the Penitentiary Administration of 2001. For 1999, the provisional release sentences for sentences less than three years affected 4,223. In 2005, there were 277 decisions on electronic surveillance. There will be a lot of withdrawals, but this will not limit the number to 277 sentences. If we inquire and extrapolate the figures, we come up with about 1500 files on an annual basis.

In the case of limited detention and semi-liberation there are 770 files and in the case of the provisional release for removal from the country there are 205 files.

Ladies and gentlemen, I have made the calculation. Without withdrawals we come out on 5,475 files, with withdrawals to a ratio of 1,500 we come out on 6,698 files. I go back to the current situation with the committees VI: 1,674 files on an annual basis with six full-time magistrates. This means either a quadruple or multiplied by 3,27. Per ⁇ the number of recalls on those 1,500 has been widely estimated, but there will be certainty: we will all agree on this. Take the average, then it means that there will be more than 3.5 times more files before the criminal enforcement courts.

With what transformation does it happen? With equal amount! A judge now, a judge then. The prosecutor’s office will indeed receive one additional staff member for the prosecutor’s secretariat, but will get a lot more work, as it is also partially charged with the follow-up of files. For the criminal enforcement courts themselves, there is a secretary and an official. What is the situation in the Committee VI? There is a secretary/secretary and an official. That is equal. Thus, one will do 3.5 times more files with the same number of people!

That requires problems.

The hearings in the Senate clearly showed that the judiciary houses are afraid of workload.

In fact, in your 2006 budget you entered 3.6% more budget for the judiciary houses, which represents 16 additional staff members. What is this 3% for? It does not serve before the criminal enforcement courts. This 3% extra was already provided for problems that arise for the judiciary houses already on the ground.

Colleagues, I refer to the House of Justice of Dendermonde, where the decisions of the committees VI are not or hardly followed due to lack of female or male strength. Dendermonde is, in this regard, not alone. It has only partially dared to express it.

As a result, there is 3.5 times more demand for work with exactly the same people. Well, that’s questions about problems.

What does the High Court of Justice say about this? “The implementation of laws, without guarantees of feasibility, rightly leads to a further undermining of the citizen’s trust in Justice and to dissatisfaction among the actors of Justice. Provisional launch with six criminal enforcement courts will immediately lead to overload and judicial lag. It is absolutely necessary that there are additional means of action and an increase in the number of magistrates."

What do Erdman and the Leval say in their "Justice Dialogues", which were interesting and unfortunately disappeared? Publication of a text should be avoided where the implementation is not ensured, because the implementing decisions are not ready or because the budgetary resources are not available. An announcement that is not followed by immediate implementation discredits the standard."

This will be the case here. Conversations with people on the ground teach us that the proposed system will crash. We already have waiting lists in so many areas. Well, we will also get waiting lists in the courts, with all the dangers going on.

Will the magistrates, who have the personality qualities to do such work that requires specific qualities and personality traits, still candidate themselves when they know that they will soon get so much work that they will not get it done and that they will get on their heads of the actors who will come to their seat to defend because they have had to wait too long or because the case needs to be postponed again because of the overload of the role? However, the law stipulates that the case can be postponed only once. I am afraid that this overload and the waiting times, even to the detriment of the victims, will de facto compel these courts to make purely formalist assessments. There is not only the problem of capacity at the level of the criminal enforcement courts themselves. I fear the same problems with regard to electronic surveillance capacity. At the moment, this government fails to respect its own government agreement and realize 1,000 electronic surveillances annually. In 2005, it reached 277.

This draft, which provides for the possibility for criminal enforcement courts to convert a prison sentence into electronic surveillance, could only lead to more electronic surveillance. What will happen if there is insufficient capacity? What justifies us to have more confidence in this government that it will be okay if it cannot respect its own government agreement at this point?

Moreover, CD&V even fears about the capacity in prisons. We know that prisons are overcrowded. We know that this is not a problem of yesterday or today, but it has been drawing for a long time and costs phenomenally a lot of money. For the latter we have understanding.

I take the example of the provisional release orders for imprisonment sentences of less than six months, the 809 dossiers as the ministers say at 11.5 months or 840 dossiers on an annual basis. According to the circular letter, these persons never went to jail. From now on, they will go to jail anyway, ⁇ for a short period of time. In any case, a decision must be made. With the long waiting lists and right-wing backwardness at the level of the penalty enforcement courts in the forecast, it would be possible that the 809 would eventually have to wait a long time before being released and the length of time they were in prison could be longer, with all the effects of this on capacity. The Minister has rightly stated that the circular letter of 2005 expires. However, I fear that these designs will also create capacity problems in prisons.

Colleagues, CD&V would have made other choices, on the one hand, as regards the arbitrary distinction depending on the duration of the sentence, three years or more. We know that this finds its inspiration for a piece in the law on the VI's. The whole design is, in my opinion, built on it for a piece. This has resulted in this design being less transparent than it could have been. The criterion of a sentence of more than or less than three years will result in very different regimes. Think of the contraindications. For a sentence of imprisonment of less than three years, the likelihood of recurrence is not included in the contraindications.

Although studies show that recurrence mainly occurs in convicts with shorter sentences, the likelihood of recurrence is not included as a contraindication for sentences of less than three years. There is no social reclassification plan for sentences of less than three years, as is the case for sentences of more than three years. Time conditions are different. For sentences of more than three years, one appears before a multidisciplinary criminal enforcement court, whereas for sentences of less than three years, that appears only for a single-seat magistrates, who therefore cannot invoke multidisciplinarity. However, cases with sentences of less than three years – and I think we all agree with that – are sometimes very complex and it is sometimes appropriate to invoke that multidisciplinarity.

I understand that it is a matter of trying to work as efficiently as possible. In this regard, however, the Holsters committee had useful suggestions. If, for example, the prison director, the prosecutor’s office and the detainee go through an agreement – and we add that the victim can be involved in this and that his voice is also heard – one could perfectly say that it is only homologated by a criminal enforcement judge. However, it is not done.

The Holsters Committee gave another example. If there is a negative opinion from the director, the detainee wants a VI and disagrees with the proposal of the director and the public prosecutor and there is a discussion merely about the special condition, then it is evident that multidisciplinarity is in place and one immediately comes to a court instead of a single-seated judge.

We regret that the suggestions of the Holsters committee, translated by the opposition into amendments, were not taken into account.

Also the Committee VI, which has a lot of experience, says that the arrangement in Article 11, which stipulates that all cases relating to deprivation of liberty sentences whose enforceable part is three years or less, would be handled by a single judge, implies a delict-oriented thinking, while the preparation of a reclassification must be forward-looking and supportive.

If we compare the present draft texts with the law on the VIs, we see that there are also nuance differences that we should pay attention to.

The law-Lejeune, a magnificent law that has put Belgium on the world map in the field of justice, states that it is or was a favor. The law on the VI’s also provided for it. We now see that in the law "can" is changed to "be granted".

I do not want to polemize on this matter. There is indeed "it is granted" in Article 25, but there is also Article 28 that gives conditions and Article 40 that gives special conditions. This also applies to punishment procedures.

But we cannot deny that there is a nuance difference. I would not like to use the term "subjective right" because it is incomplete, but "conditionally subjective right".

Previously with the law on the VIs and previously with the law-Lejeune, if one was in order with the time conditions, if there were no contraindications, if all opinions were positive both of the director and of the minister and of the staff college, the minister - now the committee VIs - had the possibility to make appreciation authority and opportunity considerations.

I think that is good. Think of cases where one indeed fulfils all conditions, but where the facts and the perpetrator-as-such have caused such a commotion throughout our society, then we find that there can indeed be opportunity considerations in addition to the justified respect for the positive personality variations of the detained. Now they will be much less. Penal enforcement courts shall be restricted by law and by the conditions laid down in Articles 28 and 40. If the detainee meets these conditions, then it must be granted.

You will never be risky. A recent example from the press has also taught that. We can and should not point to anyone with the finger. There is no risk-free society. But we must be as cautious as possible. Here, the double, even the multiple precautionary principle should be able to play.

I think of a dossier that has been in the press, the Martin dossier, about which I asked a question in the Justice Committee last week. Reviewing the file-Martin under the Act on the VIs of 1998 or later in the text of this draft, will be something very different.

It is my conviction that in this file Mrs. Martin can more easily, I say not more easily, release than in the law on the VI's, precisely because there is no more opportunity consideration and because in the law on the VI's the contraindications are wider than the contraindications that are currently in the text of the draft. Thankfully, Mr Malmendier, your amendment was accepted. It is a good amendment, which is also the reason why we approved it. I would have, however, preferred to go even further and, as far as the contraindications are concerned, had simply taken the copy of the 1998 law.

That went a little further. The risk is there and we must take that into account.

It is a good thing that victims are given an important role in deciding on early release or on the terms of execution. The design meets a great deal of this. It will rarely happen that an opposition party submits a bill that is less far-reaching in some aspects than the government’s draft. I honestly admit that. The concern why we went less far was the reality of the budget. Are the men ready to do all this perfectly? If you make a law, you must be able to implement it on the ground. A law is not a piece of paper; a law is not an intention statement; a law creates rights and they must be respected! It is good that we go ahead and not only hear the victims of all crimes, but also give them information. For this, the necessary resources and manpower must be provided. Whoever says a, must also dare to say b.

Colleagues, you know that we cannot agree that the victims must make a civil party and that a civil party statement must be declared admissible and justified before they have the right to information and can be heard. Why not ? Thro ⁇ history, the bourgeois party-position has always had a different fulfillment than obtaining information or being heard. It has always been linked to obtaining compensation. Now you are going to give that concept another definition and on the ground the victims will have insufficient knowledge of it. If one wants to keep this foot by foot, it will require a bunch of information campaigns. Not only we say that, but also Mr. Pierre Rans.

I will return for a moment to the discussion in the committee on the requirement that the victim must not only present itself as a civil party, but that that civil party position must be acceptable and justified before it can be derived from the right to information or the right to be heard. This will create problems in the field, which I have already pointed out in the committee.

First, what if the victim of a serious crime is fully compensated and no longer has any argument to stand for a civil party? Per ⁇ he will still want to be informed and heard, but there is no interest and the civil party position will be declared unfounded, if it is ever made, since the damage has been reimbursed.

Secondly, what does one do with a civil party which is almost remunerated and does not want to pay for the remaining small amount the costs of the civil party setting, since it will later cost more than it brings, assuming that it is not insured for legal assistance?

Well, he too risks standing in the cold, not being heard or not being informed.

Regarding the problem that I referred to, when the criminal judge has already ruled on the penalty, but has not yet ruled on the admissibility, nor on the basis of the civil claim, of the civil party, — I am pleased that Professor Franchimont, when he was asked for advice on this matter, did not exclude the position that I have challenged — then one is in trouble anyway.

I disagree with the view of the professor, whose knowledge, of course, I greatly appreciate, when he states that that problem can indeed occur, but that it can then be recalled on Article 2c, namely that one was mistaken in the impossibility of establishing itself as a bourgeois party. This article is not about this. However, that article deals with cases where a party finds itself in the material impossibility to become a civil party, or when he has not been able to become a civil party for vulnerable or emotional reasons, but does not refer to the case to which we have referred. Colleagues, this will create legal uncertainty, where the law on the VI’s with the requirements of the interest — the victim must prove the interest — had actually already provided a threshold that we thought was correct and had developed that jurisprudence. The victims have rights. and right.

But not all victims have been given rights in this design. The victims of interned perpetrators are not included in the design. We regret that. We also signaled this first. We note and also take note that we have made agreements in the committee, with the approval of the minister, that a bill will be submitted in this regard, which will be treated urgently in the Committee for Justice. In the light of the agreements made in this regard, I would like to suggest the following. This requires us to meet immediately after the Easter holiday with our colleagues who want to work on it to prepare a joint text so that it can be completed before the summer holiday and can come into force together with the current draft, so that the victims of interned perpetrators are treated equally with other victims.

The entry into force of the law will have to wait longer. We also understand for a bit how this happens. Therefore, I would like to propose you to draw up a temporary circular on this subject, to instruct the courts and prosecutors already to give the option and the possibility to hear victims already, as far as possible, even if it might only be for the serious crimes.

I would like to point out a few problems in this regard: concerning the authority of the priest; concerning the composition of the recruitment and evaluation committee, which consists of two senior officials of the FOD Justice and in which the high council had observations in relation to independence; concerning the fact that the duration of the assessors and the magistrates is temporary and cannot always be extended as in the case of juvenile judges and investigative judges. Their

I will not go deeper into that.

In any case, we fear that the design will create legal and practical problems in the field.

This is not a persiflage, but a quote.

Mr. Speaker, I will parafrase him.

That philosopher, of course, had it at the right end, and so will be for this project. Quid leges sine argentibus. If no resources are provided, colleagues, the designs, which have good starting principles but for which we would make other choices, will succeed in the water. Then justice, politics and we as democracy will once again be vulnerable to the population, and then that is a missed opportunity. We regret that and therefore we will abstain.

Ms. Lalieux needs five minutes for her speech. This way I can maintain the balance in language and content, if you understand me. Mrs. Lalieux has the word, and then Mr. Laeremans, who will defend a different attitude.

The balance of genders. If we have to do this in every session, we will not succeed, Mr. President.

It’s two-thirds-a-third, but women are worth two, right? It is obvious.

In the Parliament!

In the Parliament, of course. How would I dare...? I please please.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Vice Prime Minister, dear colleagues, how many speeches, how many notes of general policy, how many white cards in the media, how many positions of university professors, magistrates, criminologists have called out of their wishes the creation of a court of enforcement of penalties?

I would also like to recall that the idea of creating such a court in Belgium was already found in the pre-draft law of the Criminal Code of the Royal Commissioner Robert Legros, published already more than twenty years ago. A lot of time has passed since then. Too much, some will say. It has long been expected — and rightly — a massive transfer of control over the execution of sentences from the executive power to the judiciary.

This is done today and we can only congratulate, Madame the Vice-Prime Minister, the determination with which you have carried out the two projects that are submitted to us today. Finally, we will replace words with actions and you are the prime minister to succeed in this performance.

I also want to thank the members of the Holsters Commission. The Committee of Experts, chaired by Mr. Holsters, was established by a royal decree of 27 June 2000. It was assigned to prepare a preliminary draft law on three themes: the fixation of the sentence, the external legal status of the detainees and the courts of enforcement of the sentences. She did a remarkable job, after which she submitted, in May 2003, a final report.

When the idea of a court for the enforcement of penalties was launched, the possible unconstitutional nature of this creation was invoked on the grounds that the enforcement of penalties belongs to the executive power and not to the judicial power that per definition embodies a court. This is one of those disputes where lawyers are exhausted in vain. I am pleased that you have chosen to make it a judicial prerogative. After all, it is the judge who decides whether or not to grant a suspension to a convicted person. What he can do at the time of the judgment, why could he not do it later?

The issue is large. It is about giving the judiciary the powers that are its own. It is he who can adapt the punishment to the evolution of the situation of the convicted person and this, within the framework of a contradictory debate that allows the exercise of the rights of defence, which is fundamental in our view.

The penalty enforcement court will take the form of a multidisciplinary court for convictions of more than three years. This will ⁇ facilitate the circulation of knowledge between the field practice and the judicial function. Our judges are probably not sufficiently involved in the follow-up of convictions. It is important that the work of the professional magistrate is finally enlightened by field people who will prepare and who are already preparing the detainee for his reintegration.

I will not go into the technical aspects of the project. In this regard, I believe that the path chosen by the government is right. There have been a lot of debates in the Senate and in the House and it should not be repeated here. We decided by a majority and I think we made the right choices.

As for the right of execution of penalties, it has long been a right to be built upon which it was appropriate to draw attention in order to remedy the opacity surrounding the matter. Currently, the terms of execution of penalties, as has already been recalled, are not regulated by a law, not even by arrests, but rather by circulars causing legal uncertainty.

I will not overlook all the measures regulated by the project which are the interruption of the execution of penalties, limited detention, electronic surveillance, conditional release because the conditions imposed appear to me to meet a balance between reintegration and protection of society.

Whether you like it or not, the sentences of deprivation of liberty are limited and there will always be a time when the justiciable must be released. Preparing for reintegration and developing alternatives to imprisonment are indispensable steps.

By offering the detainee the opportunity to reintegrate socially through measures such as limited detention or electronic surveillance, the Belgian criminal system finds its place in the humanist tradition of punishment and that is important.

By giving a real place to the victim, in terms of recognition and information, through the various procedures, the texts we discuss today establish a true indispensable and positive balance between the different actors of a trial. We welcome, as others have done or will do, the measures that have been taken in favor of the victims. I think in particular of measures providing for better information and preparation of victims throughout the execution of the sentence, as well as the possibility of formulating contraindications in relation to the different forms and modalities of execution of the sentence.

In conclusion, I would like to make two considerations.

First, a first step was taken with the adoption, in the course of 2004, of the text on the internal legal status of detainees. At that time, we had already emphasized that this reform must necessarily be complemented by the texts we are discussing today. The two texts that are submitted to us complete this vast construction project, and this is pleasant. The Minister did not have to wait long. Let us assume that, coupled with the improvement of the internal legal status of detainees, these texts can contribute to a greater respect for the rights of the convicted person and to a better functioning of our prison system.

Then, if the reform that we are going to vote just now is undoubtedly a not negligible advance, it will nevertheless be indispensable, like Mr. Verherstraeten has just recalled that sufficient resources are accompanied by this reform so that it finds a quick realization. I know we can trust you in this regard, Mrs. Minister.

Therefore, it is with conviction that we will vote in favor of these two bills.

Thank you, Madame Lalieux.

Mr. Laeremans, you see that what I said has proved true.

I will give the word to Mr Laeremans in the general discussion. I suspect that will take a little longer.

( ... ...

It was a suspicion, Mr. Bultinck.

A presumption of innocence, to remain in the application of this law.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, Mrs. Minister, from the many wisdom life lessons I have received from my rhetorical lecturer 22 years ago, there is one that may always be remembered by me. He told us that we must always retain the ability to be amazed, to truly be amazed at what is happening in the world around us, and to avoid finding everything normal through the routine, the slurry and the eardrum forming on our senses.

Well, I am surprised. I am ⁇ surprised. I am actually astonished that such an important and revolutionary law as this, which involves such a profound amendment of the law-Lejeune, can be so long and so intensely brushed under the mat by the media. It seems that one is afraid to inform the citizen and to inform the citizen that the country is soon filled with a new world record, with the loosest, most smooth and most extensive release policy for criminals in the world.

The “democracy” in which we live today in this country is characterized by a terror of politically correct thinking. Anyone who dares to oppose it is placed in the corner and depicted as a marginal. He is silenced to death as hard as possible, because one is afraid of the people, because one does not trust the people. People might react badly. The voter would ⁇ be able to distribute a solid pack of rammel to the political class if they knew how much he is put at the box today, how much the promises made a few years ago are buried without shame today, how the word given to the voter here today without the slightest scruples and without the slightest embarrassment is broken. In 2003, colleagues, the sp.a-spirit cartel achieved a giant victory. The left-wing cartel then got almost a quarter of the voters behind it and got almost as much as the historic result that the Flemish Interest would get in 2004. One of the highlights of the sp.a during that election campaign was the heavy commitment of Fidel Stevaert — the man who last year crowned himself after the great example of his friend Castro to the lifelong unelected leader of Limburg — that there would be a fundamental reversal in liberation policy. Less than a month before the May 18, 2003 elections, Steve Gratis turned the steven and placed the abolition of the Lejeune Act at the top of the political agenda. That was a change of format, because the socialists had been the originators of the early liberation. With Stevaert, everything would change. I quote from The Last News of April 24, 2003, less than a month before the elections on May 18, 2003: "Every prisoner has the right to the appropriate penalty," says Stevaert, "of which he knows that he must sit them out until the last day. Once that punishment is determined, you should no longer grumble on it. The family of a victim does not understand such a reduction in punishment. Just put it out. Your child will be murdered and the perpetrator will be given nine years, but after three years he will be released because he behaves well."

Fidel Stevaert went even further. He copied shamelessly the program of the then Flemish Bloc. Punishments should not only be executed without reduction, but a second punishment may also be added if prisoners do not meet certain conditions, such as good conduct. This is punishment for bad behavior. We have been pushing this forward for years.

Then comes the top. “Did the Sp.a. have been radical in recent years against an adaptation of the law-Lejeune?” asked a journalist of Het Laatste Nieuws. Mr. Gratis replied: "This was the SP, I am the chairman of the sp.a., with the a of other. If one blames the SPAA today for neglecting this topic, then I say: let the next Minister of Justice be a SPAA, then this proposal will be implemented. At the sp.a, the ministers listen to their chairman.” – Steve Stevaert

Colleagues, in the past few months, the Sp.A. has had the opportunity to turn to the law-Lejeune, to tighten the law and to introduce uncompromising penalties. In addition, they had a red minister. If the SP had really wanted, then it could have tightened the law. Today, however, the exact opposite is happening. The law is becoming louder than ever, with the full support of the sp.a. parliamentarians. So not only do you fail to fulfill your promises, you also make it much worse. There is a name for this, Mr. Casaer, it is voter deception of the purest water. Rarely have I seen Members of Parliament swallow their commitment so flagrantly and so strikingly. So your 2003 promises, Mr. Casaer, were nothing more than flat, ordinary lies. Your promises, with which you won the 2003 elections, were rough and gorgeous peopleship.

The law on the external position of the detainees, which is discussed here today, is purely shameful, primarily due to the irresponsible extension of the penitentiary leave and the initial permit. In the future, they will both be part of the standard regime of each detainee. Condemned persons, except in exceptional cases, will have an enforceable right to it that is automatically renewed, unlike today. Now such licenses are rightly a favour for those who behave properly, are truly willing to reintegrate and work to compensate the victims.

In any case, what is at hand is perfect, in contrast to the current circulation letter on penitentiary leave, which clearly emphasizes the character of favour.

This leave is granted only to those convicted persons from whom it is expected that they will not abuse that favor and whose presence in the environment in which they will spend the leave does not disturb the public opinion. The granting of the leave, according to the current circulation letter, “is never considered a right to which the detainee can make a claim. It can only be the result of an individual decision of the higher government, taken as part of the treatment. The system excludes any automation.”

That is the current circulation letter, which works to this day, but with the rightful favour character of today is thus forever broken. Worse, prisoners are already entitled to leave 12 months before they are eligible for early release. I repeat: 12 months.

From now on, this is only 3 months in advance. In practice, the new law means that the overwhelming majority will be allowed to go on imprisonment leave immediately or more than 80% of all convicts, especially all those who have received less than 3 years effectively. They will be entitled to prison leave as soon as they are convicted, as soon as they enter the prison. They are entitled immediately and automatically to prison leave, except in specific circumstances. As a gift after a conviction, it can count.

The law is absolutely shameful, because, secondly, it breaks down the safety valves that still allow the conditional release to be stopped. Today, more than rightly, the prison staff college can block a release. This can, by the way, be repeatedly repeated if one considers that the release is irresponsible.

That responsibility for the staff, that necessary involvement, disappears from now on, without even being argumented. No argument from the Minister was put forward: it was not examined and there was no failure of the involvement of the staff college demonstrated. On the contrary, it seems to work quite well. Yet it must disappear. The prison staff will in the future only be heard if the detainee asks, in other words, if it plays in its own advantage, and not if it could be warned, for example, of its danger. This makes prison staff irresponsible.

There is even no legal guarantee that there will be an opinion from the psychosocial service of the prison in its release file, despite the strong warning of the Flemish members of the release commissions. This again creates room for a paraplopolitics, the so-called paraplopolitics in the Commission-Dutroux, in which all stakeholders could shift the responsibility for the failure to another. The whole law makes the psychosocial service of the prison irresponsible.

Third, this law is absolutely shameful. For the majority of those convicted – for more than 80% of those convicted with a sentence of up to three years – the distinction between primary convicted and recidivists disappears. Today, the distinction in the lawLejeune is very well known and very clear. Primary punishments can be released after one-third of the sentence and recidivists after two-thirds. This fundamental distinction from the law-Lejeune is for the vast majority of the detainees forever eliminated. This important deterrent signal from the legislator to recidivists — that they will be treated more severely than others — is finally overthrown. Their

I know that it will be said that in practice it is already so, because Verwilghen – the predecessor of this minister – had introduced it in a circulation letter. We have questioned Verwilghen in the plenary on this subject on 18 January 2001. In that session, his answer concluded as follows: "I emphasize that this measure is introduced only to remedy the temporary peak in the month December - December 2000 -". It was then clearly an emergency measure and that temporary emergency measure of then becomes now definitive.

In fact, Verwilghen then announced additional vigilance towards these recidivists. I quote again: "Committing four, five or six times the same facts is a manifest contraindication." It is precisely this stick behind the door that also falls away today, because for sentenced under three years of punishment, the risk of recidive is no longer an indication to keep a convicted inside. This will be abolished.

Then we come to the fourth reason why this law is so shameful. The possibilities for the new Criminal Enforcement Court to detain the criminals are drastically limited. It is the express intention of this minister and of the majority parties – as is stated in the explanation to this bill – to grant a conditional release in as many cases as possible from now on. The release will therefore be accelerated and anticipated, where it is already so bad today and we already have the most loose release policy in Western Europe.

This law is only inspired by the desire to counter the overpopulation of prisons, and at least not by the concern for the protection of society. In this regard, the law is revolutionary. Their

Today, the release committees can proceed to the release, but this release can – as the current law literally states – be granted only if a whole set of conditions are met at the same time. With the new law, everything is reversed. In the future, the release will be granted by the Criminal Enforcement Court. It should therefore be granted, unless there are contraindications.

The conditional release thus loses its favourable character and becomes indeed an enforceable, subjective right. The policy margin for the criminal enforcement judge will be much smaller than the margin that the current release commissions have.

The number of contraindications is also severely limited. The personality of the detainee and his behavior during detention are no longer of consideration. In fact – I have just cited it – in the case of those convicted up to three years, the risk of recurrence is in no way more relevant, only if there is a manifest risk to the integrity of third parties.

The Flemish members of the current release commissions, who have given a very thorough and very comprehensive sound advice, a destructive advice for the law by the way, are very sharp in their advice. They warn: “A notorious scammer with an extremely high risk of recidive, but who can demonstrate that he can meet his needs, cannot be denied VI if his sentence is up to three years.”

Also for those sentenced to more than three years there is a strong relief. Release may only be suspended if there is a risk of committing new serious criminal offences. If, therefore, it is known with certainty that the detainee is preparing from prison to commit ordinary or less serious criminal offences, the court of execution is obliged to release that serious criminal, a person who has been sentenced to more than three years of effectiveness. That is simply unimaginable.

However, much is not enough. When the offenders recur and commit new serious crimes, today the commissions can recall them. They can revoke the release. However, this is also underestimated, because such a thing would go against the so-called presumption of innocence. A revocation of that release is only possible after a new conviction and only after that conviction has entered into force.

The world strangeness of purple therefore knows no boundaries. We heard that famous presumption of innocence a few weeks ago in the Erdal case. Today we hear it again. The purple government has abused the so-called presumption of innocence to let Erdal run, to let Erdal disappear in the bush. In the future, this presumption will be used to keep recurring criminals out of prison, even if they are caught on the other hand, even if everyone has seen that they have actually committed that crime.

This is an unheard of scandal! You will get a lot of protest from the public. The protection of criminals clearly weighs much heavier for purple than the protection of society.

So we end up with the fifth reason why the law is so purely shameful. The existing safeguards for the protection of society are sloping, for example with regard to sexual offenders, for which after Dutroux a significant tightening of the legislation was implemented.

Treatment and accompaniment of sexual offenders as a mandatory precondition for release has been omitted. They are no longer mandatory. Sexual offenders will no longer be excluded from accelerated release, even faster than a third, under electronic surveillance, in the future, just like traffickers — today it is still forbidden. Sexual offenders can also enjoy this. Apparently, such crimes are no longer a priority and are no longer as serious as they were a few years ago.

Particularly gorgeous, finally, is the removal of the unanimity rule for the criminal enforcement court. This was also a guarantee to prevent too lighthearted and irresponsible releases and to protect society. For convictions of up to 10 years or more, or for detainees who have served less than half of the sentence, it still applies today that the judge and his two assistants must unanimously decide the release. This requirement is finally removed. The two social assistants, who do not have to be a lawyer at all, can now easily impose their will on the magistrate. Understand who can!

Finally, we end up at the top of the bill, the red cherry on Minister Onkelinx’s cake, the biggest shame from the entire design. All short prison sentences, all sentences up to 1 year effective will in the future be converted by the penalty enforcement court into short working sentences of maybe a few hours, a few dozen hours or very exceptionally 300 hours, the absolute maximum. It is another attempt by purple to not execute short prison sentences in practice, even though the first judge has explicitly ruled that the work penalty is not in place. The first judge has all possible instruments: from a penalty for a suspension and a conditional penalty to an alternative penalty. The convicted may appeal against it. If, despite all these possibilities, the court of appeal still imposes a prison sentence, even if it is only a short sentence, there are clear reasons for this and this must be respected. This is fundamental in a rule of law. Furthermore, the Minister of Justice considers that the judge was wrong and made a mistake and consequently the sentence must be cancelled. That’s where it comes down! The punishment is repealed. Prison sentences of less than one year are repealed by the criminal enforcement judge and converted into a ridiculous work sentence that is not deterrent.

That you have given your approval to such a foolishness, colleagues, the Flemish Interest thinks it is truly immoral. You are undermining the rule of law. You are bringing down the criminal judge. You make the criminal judge a flower pot. You simply say that the criminal judge is incapable of judging, that you and the criminal enforcement judge know it much better. It is really a scandal of format that such a thing is put on paper by lawyers.

Mr. Casaer, we have searched extensively, but nowhere in the civilized world we have found a legislation that is as lax as the dragon that will be approved tomorrow. Our country will soon not only have the most lax nationality laws in the world; our country will also have the most lax release laws in the world, thanks to Laurette Onkelinx and her loyal slippers of sp.a, MR and VLD.

It is therefore unlikely to be false that the current Minister of Justice, in response to the legitimate petition of the VZW "Parents of a Murdered Child", through her cabinet dared to claim that the release policy would be tightened because dangerous fools, who for the second time in their lives receive lifetime, after all, could only be released after 16 years instead of after 14 years.

What a terrible signal to the parents! Instead of assuring them that monstrous figures, the genre of Fourniret and Dutroux, by the Dutch example, could truly get a lifetime and remain behind the rails until the end of their days, you say that even such gruesome persons, after just 16 years — then even if they are in the situation of recidive — will be allowed to release and be sentenced to the proposed, crazy release carousel.

In this way, all confidence in the rule of law is taken away. Today you lay the foundation for a justice that will be more incomprehensible than ever, for a justice that collides with the sense of justice, and for a justice that will once again lead to great anger and indignation among the victims. The present law is nothing but a tough bullshit in the face of the victims of crime.

Mr. Malmendier, it is therefore ⁇ disheartening that a party such as MR, which has so profiled itself as the pioneer of the rights of the victims, behaves today as the made shoulder dog of the protective angel of the criminals, Laurette Onkelinx.

The Flemish Interest can today only launch a solemn appeal to all criminal justice magistrates in our country. If politics no longer wants to protect society, then only the judges can do so. If the politicians abandon the people, then the judges are the last stroke. I would like to address the ladies and gentlemen of the Magistrates.

Ladies and gentlemen magistrates, we ask you to read the present law carefully and draw the appropriate conclusions, in particular by punishing much harder than you do today. If you want the criminal to actually end up in prison for you, give him a punishment that is greater than one year effective. If you want the recidivist to see the inside of the prison for longer in the future, automatically give him a double penalty. If you want the criminal to not be able to enjoy imprisonment leave immediately before you, then give him a prison sentence that is higher than three years.

If you believe that the criminal deserves a prison sentence of at least three years for you, think of him with a prison sentence of nine years. If you think that the criminal deserves a five-year prison sentence for you, think of him with a fifteen-year prison sentence. If you believe that the criminal deserves a ten-year prison sentence, think of him with a thirty-year prison sentence.

Ladies and gentlemen magistrates, the victims of criminals and the whole population rely on you.

I would like to comment on Mr. Let me tell you that I am no one’s handcuff. Nevertheless, I would rather be Mrs. Onkelinx’s handcuff than the genius who inspire them!

Mr. Speaker, I will try, in a telegraphic style, to highlight the positive points and those on which I still ask myself some questions.

First of all, the two projects we will vote on tomorrow seem to me overall positive and that is why our group will vote for these two projects.

The first positive point is to finally have a legal framework for the external legal status of detainees and the creation of the court of the execution of sentences, which were long sought. by

Nevertheless, it would be appropriate in a second instance to entrust to a court not only the execution of the measures depriving of liberty but also other types of penalties and measures such as probation, labour penalty, suspension and social protection. This is, I hope, the next challenge we will face.

Second, as regards victims, it should be noted, as the title of the amended draft also expressly points out, that this is not only a draft relating to the external legal status of detainees but also to the rights recognised to the victim in the framework of the modalities for the execution of the imprisonment. The project provides a system of information and taking into account the victim’s interests when executing the sentence of the convicted. This system is generally positive.

It must be acknowledged that the text has sometimes been amended in a positive way in the House — Mr. Malmendier contributed to this — and now provides that the victim is heard in the proceedings for revocation, suspension or revision of the terms of execution of the sentence if this proceedings are due to non-compliance with the conditions imposed in the victim’s interest and that the public prosecutor can react when the convicted person seriously endangers the physical and psychological integrity of third parties.

It also incorporates Bill No. 1319 by supplementing the obligation of motivation of the judge by a general obligation to inform all parties to the criminal proceedings of the execution of the sentence of deprivation of liberty pronounced and of the possible modalities of execution of the sentence, as well as by a specific obligation to inform the civil party about the possibility of being heard about the conditions to be imposed in its interest. These elements are favorable to victims and have been incorporated in the draft law on the external legal status of detainees. Third, the establishment of a specialized prosecutor’s office is also a good thing; I think in particular of strengthening its role in the execution of sentences.

Now, I would like to highlight the points on which I still ask myself questions.

The first point concerns what colleague Verherstraeten has widely mentioned, namely the means that must be made available to meet all the expectations that are created by voting these two bills, at the level of the establishment of the courts of enforcement of penalties, at the level of the public prosecution to exercise its new tasks, ...

Mr. Wathelet, you have criticized the fact that certain cases, depending on the length of the sentence, are the responsibility of the judge who applies the sentences and not the court. Now, while we refused, precisely to answer this interpellation concerning the means and the time, you interpell us on the question of whether we will have the means of our policy. and yes! But, of course, the workload will be evaluated as soon as the file...

Maybe you can let me finish.

You said there was a question, you asked it, I answer. This allows me to say something!

I think you will agree with what I’m going to say about the budget. In my opinion, you may be less likely to do so on other points!

You told us that the necessary means will be implemented at the level of the public prosecutor, the houses of justice, the assistants of justice and the court of execution of penalties, to ensure that this reform is carried out. I’m not going to not believe you in advance and I accept it!

by Mr. Verherstraeten raised quite relevant questions; it is our role, as members of a constructive opposition, to ask questions. You reassured us about the case, so I have no reason, at least today, not to believe you, even if it will not be easy. The investments will be quite consistent, but I think they are worth it.

On the other hand, as regards the division of competence between the penalty enforcement judge acting as a single judge and the penalty enforcement court, I have some reluctance with regard to this famous “three-year period.” If the sentence sentenced is a sentence of less than three years, it will be the judge of execution of the sentences; if it is a sentence of more than three years, it will be the court of execution of the sentences. by

Is this "three-year sentence" criterion adequate? The Conditional Release Commission and the Supreme Council have raised a number of reluctance in this regard. There are sentences of less than three years where the personality of the convicted person is more problematic than in others.

I do not know if there is a link between the execution of the punishment and the punishment as such, the one to which one has been sentenced. My objection is identical to that raised by the Supreme Council and the Commission on Conditional Release.

This also means that the single judge will assume about 90% of the burden of the cases against only 10% for the sentencing courts. I have no doubt that this procedure is less expensive: it is less expensive to have cases processed by the sentencing judge rather than by the sentencing court. But this means that the files that provide for the assistance of the magistrates, this resort to scavenging in some way, will be a small part of the cases that will have to be dealt with as part of the execution of the sentence.

Furthermore, the criterion is inadequate and is deprived of the assistance of magistrates for persons convicted of sentences of more than three years; the criteria to be taken into consideration by the sentencing judge are not the same as those to be taken into consideration by the sentencing court.

The most basic example in my view is the recurrence. The risk of recurrence is not to be taken into account by the sentencing judge, in the context of persons who are serving sentences of less than three years. However, the element of recurrence is a criterion that must be present in the context of any decision regarding the execution of the sentence, whether you are before a judge of execution of the sentences or a court of execution of the sentences.

I recall the proposal made by the Holsters Commission, namely that only the terms on which all parties agree would be settled by the single judge, all other situations should be settled in a multidisciplinary manner. It might have been a more proportionate approach with probably higher costs, but it was worth it.

Regarding the violation of the principle of the thing judged in the case of a decision of the penalty enforcement judge aimed at replacing imprisonment with labour penalties, the subject, Mrs. Minister, has been the subject of an important debate in the committee. Obviously, we do not agree on this point. I maintain my point of view. This is a change in punishment.

The [...]

Legal arguments have been developed. In the substance too, this risks creating a kind of second-degree jurisdiction that does not aim to strengthen a better confidence in the justice that must precisely handle a case. A magistrate, at a given time, gives a very precise sentence, depending on the file and the elements in his possession. He reserves the right to subsequently modify the sentence as such but not the execution of the sentence. This does not appear to me to give confidence in the judge’s decision.

[...] an interest in the very nature of the labour penalty.

You know, I have always been a fierce advocate of the possibility of labour punishment. It actually has some positive aspects. Nevertheless, I can’t imagine that a judge of the substance doesn’t ask himself the same question. I can’t imagine that a judge of the substance does not at any time question the possibility of giving the convicted a work penalty or an alternative penalty.

As lawyers, we always raise this question. When the possibility exists, we always ask whether it would not be more appropriate to resort to a labour penalty. Nevertheless, if the judge of substance makes a decision, it must be respected because there is authority of the thing judged!

I would like to point out to Mr. Wathelet said that all studies and all research shows that alternatives to imprisonment are underused by the judge when permitted by law, whether suspension or probatory suspension. As for the labour penalty, we do not yet have an assessment, but it also appears to be underused compared to what the legislator wanted, i.e. a very broad application of this penalty.

The judge doesn’t always think about it. In addition, you also know how sometimes judgments occur before a correctional court. A social survey is not often done; the file is often reduced. If you do not have a good lawyer who thinks to remind you that alternative measures exist, there is little chance that they will be pronounced. Mr. Wathelet, all the studies over the past 20 years show this. For example, regarding the changes we have made with the Law on Criminal Mediation, on probatory suspension, all studies show that they are underused by magistrates. Maybe it’s time to remind them, to tell them they didn’t apply them, but they can be now!

We had a constructive exchange in commission with the Minister. I am surprised at the angle you approach here.

Mr Wathelet, let the Minister answer.

Mr President Mr. Wathelet said he was surprised. It must be nice to have surprises, it breaks a possible monotony, so so much better for those surprised!

No, it will obviously not be able to re-examine the penalty if there are no new elements. We discussed this in the committee. If new elements allow him to resort to the workforce, which you also call your wishes in some cases - this is not the ideal solution for everyone - it is a good thing. I think we find ourselves at the goal. You have a few questions at the legal level that we have really tried to answer, but Mrs. Lalieux’s comment is correct: this modality is underused.

Let us continue the reasoning. When Ms. Lalieux says that the work penalty is underused by the magistrates, it means that somehow one makes an evaluation of their judgment, and one tries to modify what they have decided. This scares me. We must have a certain degree of confidence in our magistrates and in the judges of the ground. They work well, they judge according to the files and elements presented to them by the parties. When they make a decision, it is in their soul and conscience and with the right that is at their disposal, including the possibility of a labour penalty. When they decide to give a punishment other than a labour punishment, one may regret it, but they do so according to the right that was theirs. Wanting to subsequently change the decision they made simply because we lawmakers want to impose labour penalties is a problem for me.

You are next to the bill, that is not what is in the text we have to look at today!

We discussed this very long in the committee. I’m not the only one who says this; other people say the same thing. But, fortunately, it is not the magistrates of the bottom, who would once again have been swept, since it is well known that they make bad judgments!

I believe that one can discuss years on the execution of the punishment or the punishment as such. This is not a way of executing the punishment. The best proof of this is that it is the court of the bottom that chooses whether it is a work penalty or a prison penalty. This is the best demonstration that it is a decision that is made at the moment the judge decides on the substance, and not an execution of the sentence. Then we revert to the discussion that we had and on which we disagree!

The fourth element to which I would like to return concerns the provisions providing for a specific competence for the minister in terms of granting provisional release following a prison overpopulation. These provisions have been removed. This was already removed in the Senate, following an amendment by Ms. Nyssens. This is positive and I can only rejoice!

The fifth aspect concerns the victims. Regardless of any progress made in this project in favour of victims, the communication of decisions concerning the manner of execution of the sentence could have been extended, when the victim has made a request. Indeed, why is the victim not informed about periodic exit permits — we talked about it in the committee — or when the convicted person withdrew from the execution of the penalty or measure. We could have further deepened this point, even though there is already a significant progress in this area.

The project did not include the section "internationalization". Mr. Minister, you have committed to having a discussion on this aspect; I look forward to it! We had submitted a number of amendments in this direction at the time of the discussion, which could not be accepted.

Finally, as regards the status and mandate of the counselors and judges of punishment enforcement, I might have preferred a presentation by the Supreme Council Nomination and Appointment Committee. The selection committee should at least be composed of one of its advisory members, for example. It would also have been important not to limit their mandate to eight years but to provide for renewable character, like other functions of assistant magistrates before other courts.

The General Assembly could also have intervened for the appointment of judges for the execution of sentences. I would have wanted to look at all these elements in the project. They are not included in it, but that does not take away its positive character.

I actually have some reluctance: the work penalty, of which we have been talking again, the crucial part of the three years, the way to inform the victim. I would also like to go deeper into some points. Nevertheless, this project is positive; it is a legitimate expectation that has existed for a long time. I hope that this is a first step and that others will follow later. As a result, my group will vote in favour of this bill.

I have registered three other speakers, Mr Borginon, M. Malmendier and Mr. Casaer. After that, I will give the word to the Minister.

Mr Borginon, you have the word in the general discussion.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, colleagues, I would like to stop for a moment on the framework in which we should situate these two bills. When one looks back on this legislature, I think that one will remember in the field of justice around one policy area that a lot of ground-breaking work has been done. That is the whole area related to the execution of the penalty.

When we discussed the order in which a number of topics could be discussed at the beginning of the legislature in the committee, I remember that there was a debate about what to do first. Should we first address the Dupont proposal on the internal legal status, should we first implement the results of the Holsters committees, or should we first discuss the measures for the interned? That was the debate that took place at one of our first committee meetings.

I am delighted to note that today we are already at the second luke of that triple luke. Moreover, in the meantime, the penalty enforcement courts are also on the agenda, which already date from the Octopus period and which were also promoted in the investigation committees that worked at that time as one of the means to improve the penalty enforcement. I have also understood that, thanks to a number of amendments and a continuing interest in this area from among others our colleague Malmendier, we are increasingly shaping a genuine victim right. I am very pleased that this has also been pushed forward in the title of this draft.

Globally speaking, this will be a significant improvement in the situation regarding the execution of penalties. Let us be honest, all those of you who have ever pledged as a lawyer, sooner or now, know that execution has always been a rather ambiguous story of which many did not even know the ABC, resulting in a lot of uncertainty and a lot of problems for the people involved.

When I talk about the larger framework, I suddenly say something about a smaller part. That is the discussion of whether or not the rules relating to the notification of victims apply to interned persons. We have indeed had a debate on this in the committee. We have also seen a number of amendments on this subject from colleague Verherstraeten, who has already tried to include it in this draft. Those amendments were ultimately not held, especially since it is not obvious to include it in this draft. We then made the agreement that we would try to solve this problem through legislative proposals. I think we should try to keep that promise. I only noticed in the editing of such a text, that it is not so obvious. I have begun to take the provisions from the proposal I submitted with colleague Muls about the statute of the interned, which was the acquisition of the old draft-Verwilghen in this regard.

I have tried to prepare the chapter on the victims of interners simply as a separate proposal, but I noticed that I quickly encountered a number of cross-connections between that text and the other text of the statute of interners. I tried to adjust the texts so that that euvel can be addressed.

Mr Borginon, Justice will cooperate with the representatives.

Mrs. Minister, the real question is whether we should not use that break iron to look at the debate about the status of the interned somewhat more globally than just the aspect of the victims. I am afraid that otherwise we will end up with an imperfect text. This debate should continue in the committee and in the Parliament’s hallways. I would like to extend it for a moment, because for me it is part of the big story about punishment enforcement.

Colleagues, the two drafts do not come into Parliament for the first time via the road of the House. They were first discussed in the Senate, where they were discussed in detail and where a number of important amendments were approved. Nevertheless, the debate in the Chamber did not stand apart from extensive and pertinent discussions, although significant improvements were made to the text. This means that the text must be returned to the Senate.

Now, I would like to address a limited number of elements from the debate.

I consider a first very general element. Some want to give the impression that with this draft, together with the whole policy of the majority in relation to imprisonment, criminal justice policy or execution, we are pursuing a policy that would advocate laxism and as if we are doing everything we can to get as few people in prison and to get as few people condemned as possible. This is the underlying image created by some colleagues.

I would like to correct this picture with the concrete figures. Whoever looks at all the numbers he can find, sees that in recent years there has been no atmosphere at all or a situation of impunity, of no persecution or of not imposing penalties. Whoever follows the evolution of the punishment sentences — this is of course not a merit or a lack of a political majority, but a story concerning the whole of the judiciary — sees, however, that in criminal penalties the number of heavy penalties — I compare the figures of 2003, the most recent I have, with those of, for example, 1999 — is constantly increasing. More people are sentenced to life imprisonment. More people are sentenced to sentences from twenty to thirty years.

With the correctional penalties, we see the same evolution. If you compare the period from 1994 to 1999 and the last four years, you can see that imprisonment sentences from 6 months to 1 year have increased from 1,603 in the first period to 2,072 in the last period. That is an increase of 25%. Penalties of 1 to 3 years have increased from 1,045 to 1,250, or an increase of 20%. In the case of sentences from 3 to 5 years, a 7% increase is also observed. In addition, there is a 400% increase in punishments from 10 to 15 years. Although it is a small number, the general picture is clear: today in our society there are more severe punishments than in the past. Their

I have not even talked about the work penalty. These penalties were introduced in 2002. In the past, these penalties did not exist. In 2002 there were 528 work sentences, in 2003 there were already 3,174 and in 2004 5.052. If we put all this together, I can only conclude that in our society today punishment is more severe, more repressive than in previous years. This is reflected in the figures concerning prisons. I took the numbers a moment. The number of incarcerations evolved from 14,538 in 1999 to 15,735 in 2004. The number of arrest warrants evolved from 9,200 to 10,484. The total prison population has also increased to about 9,500, coming from a significantly lower number.

Why do I give those numbers? I would like to clarify something in this speech. Adopting legislation which, in addition to the external legal status, also casts the internal legal status of detainees in a framework worthy of normal democracy and the rule of law, and attempting to do the same for internships does not have as a motive to come to a society in which any behavior can simply pass without being punished. On the contrary, it is our concern to ensure that the rule of law remains stable even in this difficult matter.

A second element I would like to talk about is the discussion of a favor versus a right. If one looks at the texts, one could find that it was once a possibility while it is now a right. I am pleased that colleague Verherstraeten has applied a nuance to this. I would like to extend this nuance a little further. They confuse favour with arbitrariness. Their

It is not at all that the people who have the freedom to judge whether a particular case may or may not fall under one of those measures can play a kind of birdpick and say, “Mr or Mrs, your face does not touch me and for that reason I decide whether or not to grant you a certain favor. A number of aspects of these benefits are also subject to a reasoning obligation. Conditional release has been carried out since the previous law of 1998 under the control of the Court of Cassation, a control which is also used with eagerness. You should only look at the Internet for some rulings of the Court of Cassation in this regard. There are approximately sixty examples of cassation rulings in question, which repeatedly raise arguments regarding the extent to which the obligation to give reasons has been fulfilled or not.

The Court of Cassation – I say it honestly – is reluctant to break those decisions. It is without a doubt so. But it is far from a mere story: there is a committee and that committee does its favour, which simply decides anything.

I want to make a small interference. It is easy to take the example of the Netherlands. If we take the Dutch example, we must take the whole Dutch example. In the Netherlands it was until recently that, when one applied a conditional release statement, that was in fact an unconditional release statement. Those who were released after two-thirds of their sentence were finally released. The point. and Amen. No trial time. No period until the end of the sentence in which a revocation could still be passed. It is only since very recently that in Dutch politics a discussion is being conducted — I do not know what the correct state of affairs is now — to be able to work with a trial period, just as we have been doing for a long time, so that one still has some grip on the person who has been put on conditional freedom.

There is a difference between a reduction in sentence and a conditional release.

Indeed indeed. Making comparisons is always an engaging exercise. From my background, in which I once studied legal equation, I know: one must be careful with equations. In fact, we must always compare whole systems with each other.

What is especially important is that the judge who will make a judgment on the penalty today will know within what framework he is issuing that penalty and what the normal continuation of that penalty is.

In that sense, it is a fact that from today, with the present draft law, in accordance with the conclusions of the Holsters committee — in which such favour is to be defined as a right but then a right under conditions, a right in which the criminal enforcement courts still have a number of possibilities to take measures and set conditions — there is precisely an improvement, because the criminal judge will essentially have a much clearer picture of what he stands for and what measures he actually takes after the adoption of the legislation.

I think that both the concept of favour and the legal concept should be nuanced. We move from a system of discretionary judgment under control of all rules of law that apply to a system of conditional subjective law. If one comes with examples of some serious criminals, whom one asks not to release them after a very short time, it is usually about examples where the conditions described herein would indeed apply because they have a risk of recidive. All those who have a psychopathic personality, even under this new law, will find it difficult to get into the quick conditional release.

It may be true that those people are not so likely to be released, although Mr. Horion has appeared before that committee so many times. It is true that those people—including a Dutroux when he becomes eligible, now a Martin and after x-number years after his conviction a Fourniret—all fall into that system. They all get into that carousel. Every time again, one must call upon the victims to answer, to say why one should hold him. This is again and again traumatizing for the victims, rather than providing for such people with a punishment that guarantees society that they will not be released. It exists in the Netherlands. In the Netherlands, the murderer of Theo van Gogh, Mohammed B., will no longer be released, because he is sentenced to the end of his days. Here is the maximum now sixteen years. From then on, everything is possible.

These are the cases where in the Netherlands, indeed, this type of uncompromising punishment is used. These cases are exceptional, so let’s talk about the vast majority of the cases.

Second, the aspect of the victims is, of course, a two-sized sword. I myself am a little involved with that too. On the one hand, there is a clear question of involving victims in the execution of punishment and not simply confronting them with the possibility of walking over the Meir on a beautiful Sunday morning and meeting the one who has done something to them on the street, without even realizing that the person has been released. On the other hand, there is a risk that when one involves the victims at some point in the execution of punishment, that painful wounds open. There is no clear solution for that. If there is already a solution, then I think that solution should be sought in all mechanisms of recovery mediation and of the permanent contact with the victims to try to support the processing process of these people in a proper way. I think that is more essential than what you are aiming at.

A third element that I would like to draw your attention to is, in my opinion, the essence of this story. This story is one in which we, in the order of the powers in this country, try to take a different path in terms of the execution of punishment than in the past. We reduce the power of the executive, we reduce the power of the government, we reduce the power of the minister and the FOD Justice, and that for the benefit of two categories. On the one hand, we give more power to the judiciary, which, on the other hand, has long been asking for more involvement in the execution of penalties and not to be confronted with an executive power which, especially in the case of short sentences of imprisonment, is too inclined to put aside what the judiciary decides. On the other hand, we also make politics in general and Parliament in particular more powerful in terms of the execution of penalties. We give ourselves the responsibility to remove the debate on the general conditions and the general criteria for the execution of penalties from the responsible minister and to vote on it in Parliament.

In the coming years we will notice that colleagues will submit proposals again and again; one to be stricter and the other to formulate weaker conditions. Again and again there will be a political debate about the execution of penalties and the conditions and standards that apply in our society. That element, along with the creation of a whole series of administrative directives, the replacement of invisible, opaque measures on criminal enforcement, by a system in which it can be clear to everyone, even a layman, what the essence of criminal enforcement is, is the merit of this draft. I think the criticisms that are formulated here and there will not take the merits of this design.

There has been criticism of the ⁇ too limited budgetary resources. I admit that this is a point of attention. Mr. Verherstraeten makes the material thinking exercise of x number of files, multiplied by y. I don’t think it’s so linear. One file is not the other. I can imagine that for a large part of the files that are added it will not be so problematic at all. Naturally, it is first and foremost the responsibility of the Minister of Justice to re-evaluate this in the future, if it turns out that the criticism you are formulating on the ground would prove to be justified. The necessary budgetary resources should also be provided for this purpose.

Mr. Borginon, I know you as an intellectually honest man.

The figures I simply draw from objective data from the then Minister of Justice Verwilghen.

I share your opinion that one file can be handled more easily than the other. This is, of course, a part of the case today with the files at the VIs. There are, of course, many more complex files than others. Nevertheless, this problem is still faced. If one compares the objective figures, which I have cited during my presentation, then some things are still very striking.

Personally, I still think that the colleagues of the majority cannot simply say that something can cause a problem and that it should be kept in mind. I think we should have already made decisions and commitments for the future. After all, it is written in the stars that such problems will occur. With regard to the population, however, we must have the intellectual fairness and political correctness that, if we give detainees or victims, rightly, rights, there must also be the framework to provide a response to the legislation, which will be voted today or tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, I conclude with two more punctual dossiers, all at the end of the draft.

Mr Wathelet also spoke about the conversion of a short prison sentence into a labour sentence. In my opinion, as it is formulated in the draft, it is not a problem of authority of the saint. I think it is worth trying it, provided it is applied with moderation and provided it is applied according to what is stated in the design. This means the situation in which, after the judgment of the criminal judge, there are a number of new elements that could ultimately lead to a better execution of punishment — in this case a work penalty. In that case, I think it’s worth trying, especially because we — let’s be honest — come from a system in which short prison sentences were de facto barely executed.

At that time, however, the various ministers were given the possibility to use all kinds of systems in this field, such as the collective grace before, and not even to carry them out independently of any judicial control. The situation set out in this draft is to implement it and provide for a possibility to go to work penalties if there are exceptional cases that arise after the judgment. In my opinion, this is a significant improvement compared to what existed before.

As a final element in the draft, the piece on punishment enforcement post factum was discussed: the possibility for the punishment enforcement court to establish that a sentence had technically to be enforced by previous convictions. We have had an exciting debate on this. I think it is useful to repeat this in the plenary session. It is therefore not merely an invention, the creation of a novum in order to substantially undermine the decision of the criminal judge.

No, it is something that was technically applied by all Justice Ministers in the past. Now we finally have a legal framework. I think it is an important improvement that it is well written in the law.

In summary, I think that this is an important second leak of a triple leak, and I hope that this speaker will one day be able to speak about the third part, which belongs to it.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Deputy Prime Minister, dear colleagues, I am at the origin of the two most important petitions addressed to our assembly since the creation of our country. The first was delivered in December 1992 and demanded that dangerous criminals should no longer be released. The second was delivered in October 1996 and demanded the application of pedagogical penalties, as well as the introduction of incompressible penalties, the latter in order to demonstrate to the victims the importance of the damage they had suffered and that this was taken into account. In 1985, Royal Commissioner Robert Legros made the first formal proposal for the establishment of a court for the execution of sentences. In 1997, the parliamentary commission of inquiry Dutroux, Nihoul et consorts had joined this notion and specified from the outset that the court of enforcement of penalties should be responsible in any case for all aspects and modalities of the enforcement of penalties, including conditional release.

At the end of the previous legislature, the major obstacle to the establishment of a penalty court was removed. In fact, Article 157 of the Constitution has been revised and its paragraph 4 now provides "(that) there are courts of application of penalties in the places determined by the law" and that the latter "regulates their organization, their attributions, the mode of appointment of their members and the duration of the duties of the latter".

The bill that is on our banks today aims to respond to two fundamental criticisms of the current system. The execution of prison sentences suffers from a legal deficit. Except for conditional freedom or provisional release for medical reasons, no form of manner of execution of the penalty deprivation of liberty or early release is governed by the law but rather by an impressive series of ministerial circulars. The current situation does not provide sufficient legal certainty.

As the Holsters Commission points out in its final report, Belgium is therefore in a paradoxical situation: only the conditional release and the provisional release for medical reasons are the subject of legal regulation while all other modalities of execution of the sentence, quantitatively much more important, are regulated exclusively by ministerial circulars.

It is of paramount importance that in a law the various modalities for the execution of the imprisonment, their conditions of eligibility and their effects are clearly stated. The draft law creates better protection for detainees, society and victims. It also includes recognition of the rights of victims.

Today, the execution of prison sentences reflects a disputable division of powers between the executive power and the judiciary. Under the principle of separation of powers, the executive power is not competent to renounce the execution of penalties imposed by the judiciary or to fundamentally change their duration and nature. This competence belongs to a judicial authority. The judicial authority alone is competent to change the nature or duration of the sentence initially imposed. It is therefore appropriate to provide a legal basis for the external legal status of detainees, to create a judicial instance responsible for deciding on the granting of a modality for the execution of a depriving of liberty sentence.

But responding to these two fundamental criticisms against the current rules for the execution of prison sentences is not enough. For my political group and for myself, the external status of the detainee must be placed in a logic of reparative justice. This principle implies, on the one hand, that the victim cannot be excluded from the execution of sentences. If she wishes to do so, she must be informed of the course of the sentence and must be able to be heard in matters concerning her. On the other hand, the convicted person must be placed in the possibility of repairing the damage caused by the offence. This principle also involves the accountability and participation of the convicted. He must become an actor in his detention, but also in his preparation for his release from prison.

This is where the law on the internal legal status of detainees takes its full meaning. This is also why I insisted that the attitude of the convicted person towards the victims of the crimes that led to his conviction should be included in the contraindications to be taken into consideration for the granting of a modality of execution of the sentence.

The draft law on the external legal status of detainees improves the rights of victims in the framework of the terms of execution of sentences. The victim who wishes to do so must be able to participate in the execution process and be informed of the progress of the execution.

This includes access for the victim, but also for the perpetrator, to reparative justice or, more specifically, to restorative justice. This legal determination of the victim’s role throughout the criminal proceedings until the execution of the sentence is of paramount importance. Therefore, during the work of the committee, I paid special attention to the status of the victim. by

First of all, I think it was appropriate to change the title of the bill. In fact, the latter concerns not only the external legal status of the detainee, but also the rights recognized to the victims, with regard to the modalities of execution of imprisonment sentences. Certainly, this change is symbolic, but victims should know that rights have been granted to them. Participants at all stages of the execution of the sentence must also know this, as well as the perpetrator.

The initial draft submitted to the Senate was in clear departure from the definition of the concept of victim and in comparison to the current situation in terms of conditional release. After constructive discussions, you agreed to extend the notion of victim. Therefore, they will have the status of victim within the meaning of this bill: the natural person whose civil action is declared admissible and founded; the person who was a minor at the time of the facts and for whom the legal representative did not constitute a civil party; finally, the person who could not constitute a civil party due to a situation of material impossibility or vulnerability.

With regard to the latter two categories, the sentencing judge will assess whether they have a direct and legitimate interest. This restriction aims to establish a balance between the responsibility of victims and the extension of their rights in the context of the execution of prison sentences.

However, I hope that the criterion chosen is not too restrictive. We will see in practice whether some victims remain on the side, and whether measures should be arranged so that they still have their word to say at the end of the race about the execution of the sentences.

The merit of this definition is to no longer make a distinction between victims based on the nature of the facts that caused them harm. It is, indeed, essential that every victim, as defined by the project, can be informed and heard if they wish. The separation of victim rights according to the nature of the facts is not relevant and may result in secondary victimization.

From now on, depending on the manner of execution of the sentence, the victims will be informed and heard as they wish. It will be necessary to ensure that real support and support is provided to them. Ideally, this accompaniment should start from the reception in the police offices until the sentence is pronounced. by

Then the victim must be prepared for a possible exit from the offender. She must also be prepared for any possible contact that the houses of justice will take with her to inform her that she can be heard by the judge or the court of execution of the sentences.

In this regard, I understand and accept, to a certain extent, the pragmatic considerations that led the authors of the project to provide for the possibility of organizing the hearings of the court of the application of sentences in the prison area. But I would like to reiterate the urgent need to improve the reception of victims in prisons. The reception that is reserved for them at the moment is unacceptable.

I give you the following testimony. It is the victim who speaks. by

“As part of the request for conditional release submitted by one of my son’s murderers, I was summoned, at my request, in order to be able to speak before the conditional release commission. This meeting took place on 23 March 2006 at 14.15 a.m., in the prison of and in Arlon.

I presented myself at 14.00 at the main door of the prison. After declining my identity and referring to my calling, I was able to cross the step of the first door.

I then ringed at the second door to get access to the entrance gate where I was taken care of by the planton at the entrance service. At the request of the head of service, I delivered, as stipulated on my call, my call accompanied by my identity card.

The service officer told me that if I was in possession of a GSM, I would have to give it to him until the moment of my departure. Then I was asked to position myself in a red square and look at the camera in order to take a picture. by

Having separated all the metal objects, I passed through the security portico; it triggered a warning signal suggesting that I was in possession of an unusual object. It was my electronic agenda. The security officer asked me what it was like a device; I turned it on to show it to him. He directly expressed reservations regarding the possibility of being able to take him inside the penitentiary establishment. by

In order not to make a mistake, he asked the prison director and he issued a negative opinion without further explanation. Since my agenda contained a summary of the various points that I wanted to present before the Commission on Conditional Release, I wished in no way to separate myself from them. The security officer gave me the choice between entering without my schedule or giving up attending the scheduled hearing. I chose to leave the place. I specify that no letter has been delivered to me by the director of the prison nor to confirm his decision of refusing to let me take my PDA, nor to confirm that I have responded to the aforementioned call. Here is, in a few words, what I have experienced.

First of all, I would like to express my humiliation and disapproval. In doing so, I feel that the respect of the victim is undermined. I understand very well that security measures are necessary, but I think that there is confusion between a person who presents himself as someone who visits a prisoner and a victim who asks to speak out, or even to issue his complaints before a commission that has chosen and defined to meet with her. I thought I was imprisoned and not invited to be heard. by

In conclusion, I think that the experience of this day cannot satisfy the respect to which any direct or indirect victim is entitled. I request that the meeting of the perpetrator and the victim before the release commission be planned in a more friendly environment for all interested parties.

I would like more equity with regard to the rights of the perpetrator who asks for reintegration into society and the rights of the victim who asks for reintegration into life.”

The witness whose experience I have quoted has traveled more than 200 kilometers in the hope of being able to speak and was forced to take a day off.

I really count on you, Madam Minister, for the provisions you promised me to take to be implemented urgently.

(The speaker is moved) I’m sorry, but the witness I’m talking about to you is my companion of misfortune, the father of Marc. by

I also welcome the information that will be delivered to the victim by the judge of the main proceedings when the sentence is delivered. From now on, the judge will pronounce a sentence of deprivation of liberty, inform the parties of the manner of execution of that sentence and will also have the obligation to inform the civil party of the possibilities of being heard in the context of execution of the sentence about the conditions to be imposed in its interest. I would have wished that the judge of the main proceedings should also be entrusted with the task of indicating to the civil party that it is possible for him to contact the houses of justice if he wishes to obtain in-depth information concerning the modalities for the execution of the sentence depriving of liberty which has been issued.

The pronouncement of the sentence shall be an opportunity for the civil party to be informed of the existence of this privileged interlocutor in the context of the execution of the sentences depriving of liberty. I was answered that at this stage of the proceedings the victim is already aware of the existence of the houses of justice and that accompaniment and support must already have been provided in the context of the criminal proceedings but must also take place in the context of the execution of the sentence. Ideally, this should actually be the case. However, I will remain very vigilant on the implementation of these measures.

As regards the possibility for the victim to be heard in the context of the revocation of the suspension and the revision of the modality of fulfillment of the conditions in the event of non-compliance by the convicted person, I am also pleased that I was heard. The draft law stipulated that the victim was informed but not heard. Following my remarks, the draft was amended and provides that the victim will not only be informed but also heard by the judge or the court of the application of penalties on the conditions imposed in his interest.

The same satisfaction with regard to the provisional arrest ordered by the Procurator of the King. The initial draft provided that if the convicted person seriously endangered the physical integrity of third parties, the King's prosecutor could order the provisional arrest. The draft amended by the commission extends the protection of third parties and therefore victims to the threat of physical and psychological integrity. This precision is important. Think of the convict who harasses the victim. Last Sunday, a testimony of a victim harassed by a perpetrator was broadcast during the show "Controverse".

My group is also pleased to have been heard regarding the granting of imprisonment leave. The original bill stipulated that the decision to grant a prison leave was renewed in full every quarter. This proposed system did not allow the Minister to adjust the conditions laid for prison leave without non-compliance with these conditions. This system lacks flexibility.

In fact, new contraindications can appear without non-compliance with the conditions. It is also possible that the situation of the convicted develops favorably. These circumstances must be able to be met by an appropriate decision of the Minister.

Therefore, my group proposed to take back the Holsters Commission proposal as it takes back the current regulation. The first application for leave will be submitted to the Minister of Justice for decision. In the event of a positive decision and unless expressly provided otherwise, the agreement will not only cover the first leave but also the following leave, and this, until the end of the detention. However, the decision will only take effect for each new leave if the previous leave can be considered successful and if the director has not raised any new contraindications.

Within the framework of this procedure, a leave shall be considered successful when the detainee has fulfilled the following objective criteria: reintegrate to the establishment in time, do not return into intoxication, have not caused an incident during the leave or during the return, have spent the leave at the address indicated and have fulfilled the conditions that have been imposed on him individually. Any facts, circumstances or events that have occurred or brought to the knowledge of the prison directors since the last leave and that are of the nature to compromise the possibility or the opportunity to renew it, for example relationship problems or a new environment of reception, a new condition of the detainee, a refusal of conditional release, an attempt to escape, etc. In case of failure of leave or recent contraindication, a new leave application must be addressed to the Minister of Justice, accompanied by a detailed report on the incident or contraindication.

Of course, this new procedure does not exempt staff from continuing to devote all their attention to the preparation of each leave. The same attention shall be required in the reception of each detainee returning from leave and in the after-examination of that leave.

By providing that the decision to grant a prison leave is fully renewed every quarter and by providing that an adaptation of the conditions is possible only in case of non-compliance with the particular conditions, the bill deviated from the current regulation and showed less flexibility. No adaptation was possible in the event of changes in conditions, circumstances or the detainee without there being, however, a violation of the special conditions.

To close this chapter, I would like to return to Amendment 165 to Article 49, which I withdrew following the explanation given by the Minister of Justice regarding the personal advice given by a psychiatrist and which will be required during the procedure for conditional release and the assessment of the risk of recurrence of convicted persons for ⁇ serious offences. Indeed, according to an experienced expert psychiatrist, it is quite possible to predict with certainty the recurrence of certain individuals, while the guarantee of non-recurrence is obviously impossible to establish.

The two projects we are about to vote today are therefore an undeniable advance. However, this is only a first step. In fact, it will be appropriate in a second time to entrust to a court not only the execution of the measures depriving of liberty but also that of other types of penalties and measures such as probation, labour penalty, suspension and social defense.

Legislative initiatives like these only make sense if there is certainty that the financial resources will be unlocked to ensure their feasibility. During the discussion in the Justice Committee, it was clear that the implementation of these projects will result in a significant surplus cost at several levels.

Of course, conditional release commissions will disappear for the benefit of the judge or the court; therefore, budget resources can be transferred. Nevertheless, it will also be necessary to take care of the financing of the houses of justice and of the assistants of justice whose work is extremely important since it is on it that truly rests the monitoring of the execution of the sentence.

Therefore, the Minister must be very attentive to this issue.

In conclusion, I would like to give you some personal reflections and formulate myself a response to the two petitions that I cited at the beginning of my speech.

Many of our fellow citizens are insurgent against the rights recognized to the culprits of all kinds. Worse, for smaller crimes, they are not even punished anymore. It happens more and more often that the acts committed are classified without succession because they are too insignificant compared to the cost of pursuing them. For the most serious facts, justice sometimes condemns to heavy penalties, which, however, are often executed only for a part that seems insignificant.

It seems that, in terms of punishment, our society has lost the benchmark standard against which it makes its decisions. Has the punishment lost its meaning? Would it only serve to postpone the problems for later? Would the correct answer be in the definitive separation of offenders according to the gravity of the facts? Should others be punished more severely?

In my opinion, the question is misplaced. Shouldn’t we ask ourselves what a punishment is for? As far as I am concerned, punishment only makes sense if it indicates to the person who suffers it that his behavior is not accepted and that, if he wishes to return to life in society, he must change it. by

It is only when the judiciary is convinced that the punished has understood the meaning of his punishment that a trial period under conditions can be considered. The good standard would be the willingness to repair the evil he has done. In this sense, incomprehensible punishment loses its own.

For many convicts, the prison also loses its own. For others, unfortunately, it remains the only fence against recurrences, even if they have to resort to the Social Protection Act. This is an extreme minority of our fellow citizens.

As for the victims, I submit to you the conclusion I made after fourteen years of personal experience. by

The greatest mistake a man can do to himself is to hate another. He forgets to love himself, he infects the love he has for other men, he knows hell and he feeds it.

We have the duty to bring the victims out of this instead of comforting them by letting them believe that the suffering of the author can bring them some kind of comfort. And so much woe to those who live on the back of popular vengeance and who do not hesitate to instrumentalize the victims to do so!

My group and I will vote in favour of this project with the conviction that we have done the work of restorative justice, offering a real way out to the culture of hatred and violence.

Thank you Mr Malmendier. The texts we vote for are generally abstract, we discuss them among ourselves but, from time to time, we realize through moving testimonies that they apply to women and men in the country.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Deputy Prime Minister, colleagues, I will try to be as brief as possible and not to fall into technical details. I think that in the committee we have debated long and broadly on the different aspects of the two draft laws that are ahead. I note from the arguments, both in the committee and today, that all political groups, one after another, share the principles and major principles of these draft laws.

What is important for us is that there is clarity and that through the criminal enforcement courts there will be a form of objectification that is also important. Rules are now being established. In the coming years, it will be up to the criminal enforcement courts to apply them and develop their own application and jurisprudence in this regard. This is of great importance to us.

Of course, a balance must be sought between, on the one hand, the position and the demand of the victims and a part of society to allow the punishments imposed to last until the last day, and, on the other hand, the vision that a person who has received a punishment has suffered a significant part of it and demonstrates during the execution of that punishment that he has come to repentance and has improved his behavior is given a perspective.

I hear some unrest. I think Mr. Casaer is dealing with a very different law than the one that is passed here. You say "a significant part of the punishment has been undergone." No, it is intended that the punishment will be suspended or suspended after just one third of the duration, and no country in Europe is following us.

You also say that the detainee can provide proof of repentance but that is not the case at all, because that is not tested anywhere. There is no moment in which it is examined whether the detainee has come to repentance. His personality, his personality, his ideas, or even even his behavior are not to be discussed before the criminal enforcement judge. What you say, therefore, touches neither side nor shore. Finally, you say that some want the punishment to be executed in its entirety while others want it to be executed only in part. Again, your party went to the elections with the demand to have punishments fully executed and then ⁇ for heavy criminals. Mr. Stevaert has said “Road with Lejeune”. Apparently you are not acting in accordance with your own party’s electoral program.

Mr. Laeremans, I want to say the following. In the committee you have taken a different tone than in our plenary session, where you are trying to exploit the “jusqu’au bout”ism. In the committee, you said yourself not to rule out that criminals can improve their behavior, a personality can evolve, and that that should be given a chance. You have also said that you do not want to hide everyone in a prison until the end of their days and close them away from the rest of society. You said that in the committee.

I checked on other websites of the time, not in the publications you cited, what Stevaert said and wrote about it. He called for more clarity. In the coming years, it will need to be evaluated whether the current bill provides more clarity. We believe that greater clarity is being created and the establishment of criminal enforcement courts is an important means of objectivizing the entire discussion on the enforcement of penalties.

A study by the VUB shows that in 35 countries that are members of the Council of Europe, there is a system of conditional release. In all these countries, a distinction is made between the award of the penalty measure on the one hand and the decision on the execution of the penalty on the other. This is really important for us. We believe it is important that people in prison have perspective and that at the end of the sentence there is no monster coming out of prison, but someone who has been given the opportunity to prove themselves and reintegrate socially, connect with family and friends, seek work or pursue a training, in short, have a perspective again.

Mr. Malmendier expressed his position in an exceptional manner, for which I am very respectful. Without using big slogans, he has honestly expressed his feelings and what he has experienced. I would like to bring an erasalut, because Mr. Malmendier has not engaged in the provocation to exploit his own drama politically. He did not do that. Every time again he has very clearly and in the most respectful words — I can only have great admiration for it — emphasized the desire to transcend vengeance and to want to believe that a man is improved, a society is improved, and there must be a perspective. I have the utmost respect for that.

The two bills can be approved. In the coming years, we will insist on a comprehensive evaluation.

Dear colleagues, I would like to interrupt you for a few seconds to greet the mayor of Emirdag, the deputy governor, and the members of the city council and the provincial council.

I have ⁇ a very exceptional visit in your city, Mr. Mayor. You are very welcome!

(Applause and Applause)

Given the quality of the subsequent interventions, I will be brief.

First, I would like to thank Mr. Muls for his report. In addition, with the exception of a caricatural attitude in the Justice Committee, the debate was of very high quality.

These projects, which were first discussed in the Senate — both the draft on the external status of detainees and the draft on the court of enforcement of penalties — have been subject to in-depth examination. Many amendments were accepted. The Chamber has indeed played a major role in a case that has been expected on the ground for many years.

As some have already done today, I reiterate that one of the interests of these two projects is to finally provide a legal basis for the external status of convicted persons. These projects, therefore, concern out-of-the-wall aspects, such as arrangements relating to the interruption of the sentence or early release. A legal framework was needed because this external status is currently under the cut of a multitude of directives, circles, green notes. However, in such a sensitive and difficult matter, this situation is contrary to legal certainty.

In addition, I would like to address three points.

First, as regards the distribution of material powers between the Minister and the Penal Court, let us be clear: with the exception of prison leave and exit permits, the different modalities of execution of the penalty will now be granted by the Penal Court or the Penal Court according to the duration of the penalty, greater or less than three years.

Why is there a difference in the treatment of sentences of less than three years and those of more than three years? We wanted to continue to participate in a more flexible and more feasible solution. Thus, small sentences will not be dealt with by a court composed of a magistrate and two counselors but by a single magistrate. This solution allows us to believe that the system will be manageable.

But what is more interesting to say here is that in the future the judiciary will receive a new competence. Following a land request, on a proposal from the government itself, the executive was denied part of its powers. This is a good thing that carries a double benefit: providing legal certainty to the different forms of release and enabling better overall coherence. One of the great advantages, I say and repeat, is to give a new capacity to the judiciary: legal certainty, legibility and consistency.

The second issue I would like to address is the rights of victims.

Yes, we have worked for a better handling of the rights of victims. The title has also been revised on the proposal of Mr. by Malmendier. I will not go back to the definition of the victim, we have expanded the notion of the victim. It’s not just the victims who have become civilian part.

These victims, if they obviously wish to do so, will now be informed of the granting of the modalities for the execution of the sentence, such as a prison leave. They shall be informed of the conditions which concern them when granting a conditional release and shall, if they express their wish, be heard by the Court of Application of the Penalties on the remarks which they have to make concerning the conditions which concern them directly and which may be imposed on the author for his release.

During this hearing, they may be assisted by a victim support association or even represented by their lawyer, if the fact of appearing before the court concerned constitutes a too difficult test. Furthermore, the contraindications that will be examined by the judicial authorities before granting a conditional release will also concern both the risk that the released person affects the victim and his attitude towards the victim of the offence.

It therefore seems quite legitimate to say that this bill extends the rights recognized to victims and that it constitutes a real leap forward.

This is the testimony of Mr. Malmendier urges us to say this – it is not enough and you have acknowledged it yourself, Mr. Speaker, to vote on beautiful texts. They must still be executed with the necessary humanism, taking into account the human dramas experienced by people. I am angry and scandalized by the testimony of mr. by Malmendier. I said it and I will do it: we will also work on the basis of circulars to arrange how victims will be welcomed and accompanied to the court of enforcement or the judge of sentences. Otherwise, these victims suffer in some way a double punishment: first, they are victims of the offence, the offence of the crime, then they are victims of some contempt. This, of course, cannot be accepted. The third and last point I wanted to address is the conditional release. As is well known, conditional release is an essential element of our legislative arsenal on execution of sentences since 1888. The project we are discussing is based on the principle that conditional release can be granted to any person who is within the time conditions provided by law, taking into account contraindications that must be evaluated accurately and rigorously and taken into account in the decision.

In other words, as several speakers have recalled, the draft does not organize the right to conditional release, it would be wrong to claim it, but it excludes the arbitrary. These are the words that Mr. Borginon has developed. We try to exclude arbitrary but we do not organize a right to conditional release, as Ms. Lalieux also recalled. I will not return to the incompressible punishments: I believe that Mr. Malmendier, with his humanism immersed in a painful experience, gave the best possible response to those who, throughout the work of the commission, chose the path of Pujadism. I will not go back to it, and I will take on my own terms used by Mr. by Malmendier.

I would like to remind you that for the protection of society, against recurrences, conditional liberation is a fundamental instrument. It must be said that one day or another, ⁇ even at the bottom of pain, these people will come out. Therefore, this exit must be prepared. How are they prepared? Not by a reduction in sentences—which is not conditional release, unlike the Dutch system, like Mr. Borginon was right to say this — but with a release under control, under conditions, under constraints; a release that can be postponed in case of breach of the conditions set at the signing of the agreement for this release. It is as important for the reintegration of the person into society, which has an interest in preparing this reintegration, as for society itself, in order to counter the possibility of recurrence.

That is why I think it is important that this notion of conditional release is well understood by the population.

I will conclude by saying that I hope that before the end of this calendar year, the courts and judges of punishment enforcement will exist. In this regard, I would like to thank the Holsters Commission, which has worked for many years. There was the Dupont Commission for everything concerning the penitentiary area and the internal status of detainees and there is the Holsters Commission for external status and the penalty enforcement court. by

With the vote on these two projects that are on the agenda, we will have done a very essential work for a new right for those involved in a trial, including victims, Mr. Malmendier: victims are finally recognized in their pain and in the need to rebuild themselves. That is why the notion of restorative justice, you said, is also present in the watermark of all these projects.

Mr. Speaker, here are the reasons why the Government is happy that we have been able to have a very high quality debate in committee.