Proposition 53K0445

Projet de loi modifiant l'article 47octies du Code d'instruction criminelle concernant la collaboration avec des infiltrants étrangers.

General information ¶

Submitted by

CD&V Leterme Ⅱ

Submission date

Oct. 26, 2010

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

civil procedure judicial inquiry judicial investigation police police cooperation

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Vooruit LE PS | SP ∉ Open Vld N-VA LDD MR VB

Voted to reject

Groen Ecolo

Contact form ¶

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

Discussion ¶

Nov. 25, 2010 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, this bill was discussed at the meeting of the Justice Committee on 10 November 2010. The Ministry initially approved the draft. It is about special detection methods, more specifically about infiltration. In the context of an infiltration, the prosecutor may authorise police services to use certain police investigation techniques. Examples of such techniques are the pseudokoop and the pseudo-sale. The Royal Decree of 9 April 2003 regulates these police investigation techniques.

In particular, by the judgment of the Council of State of 19 November 2009, part of Article 2 of that Royal Decree was annulled. To address this problem, the full article 2 of the relevant royal decree is now incorporated into the law.

The Minister told us that this legislative amendment is of a purely technical nature and that this bill provides the right legal basis for working with foreign undercover agents.

According to the Minister, the draft law is urgent in the context of an efficient and effective approach to international organized crime. Since the interim judgment, foreign infiltrators are no longer used in new criminal investigations in our country.

During the discussion there was an intervention of Mrs. Boulet who wanted to know in particular whether it is an ongoing case. She also asked if it was urgent. The minister answered her, and at some point also the minister’s co-worker, as he was supposed to leave us. There were also interventions from colleagues Giet, Marghem, Becq and Terwingen. All of these colleagues believed that this project needed support.

The chairman of the committee, Ms. Smeyers, pointed out to us that a number of points need to be improved legally. The improved text would be submitted to the plenary session.

The draft was adopted with 12 votes against 1.

Until then the report. If you allow me, I would like to speak briefly on behalf of my group.

The proposed bill is actually a repair law. Part of a royal decree was destroyed and is now incorporated into the law.

Figures show that between 2006 and 2009 approximately one hundred and eleven undercover operations were carried out. In fourteen cases, foreign undercover agents were deployed. In one out of ten undercover, there was a need for foreigners. Why is this the case? Well, in such operations it is mainly about cross-border crime where foreign undercover agents must assist our agents. This also includes operations that require specialization that is not present to such extent with us, such as illegal art trade.

The legislative change is urgent. After all, as the minister said, since the ruling of the State Council, foreign undercover agents can no longer be deployed in new operations.

The amendment does not imply a new policy. It is only a formal adjustment, an improvement, such that it can be continued on the ground.

In that sense, we will then fully support this technical design.

Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen, the debate in the committee on this bill amending Article 47 of the Code of Criminal Investigation and concerning the collaboration with foreign infiltrated agents has caused little reaction in the Justice Committee and I was sorry. Indeed, there was apparently an agreement between the partners of the government in current affairs to deal quickly with this project and the minister being very busy, he left us after a quarter of an hour to discuss the project alone. I must emphasize that the Minister of Justice is also not present today. This shows the urgency of the case as it invoked it, but also the interest it brings to the question.

He left us — I said — to discuss, but this was not really the case, the majority having the heart to vote for him quickly, given that it was in his eyes a mere technical modification. In my opinion, this is not a technical change, but it is much more. This amendment to Article 47 of the Criminal Investigation Code opens the door to foreign infiltrated agents and raises many important questions.

On the form, first, I pointed out, in the first place, a certain uncertainty as to the justification of making this amendment vote by Parliament in ordinary matters. There was no real urgency. I must tell the rapporteur that the minister himself meant that he was not opposed to a postponement if necessary. There was also no international obligation as these are conventions that suggest or invite Member States to strengthen their cooperation in judicial matters. And above all, the text had never been discussed in parliament since it was a royal decree that was broken by the State Council on 19 November 2009 for the reason that a law and not a royal decree was needed to establish this international collaboration between infiltrated agents.

No preliminary debate in Parliament on the matter, but the sad presentation made by the minister and my questions at the Justice Committee, here two weeks ago! Now, we know how much this subject, concerning the use of particular methods of research, had in its time aroused many debates, reactions, hearings, and even emotions. This is justified because, again, we are dealing with a dangerous project that could pave the way for many drifts.

In fact, this project aims to give the possibility to conduct police investigations in collaboration with foreign services, with the consent of the federal prosecutor. This means that these foreign services could use the particular search methods in Belgium to conduct searches with the Belgian police. This is, therefore, to legally authorize the authorities of any country to investigate in Belgium, using our particular methods of investigation in any case, whether it is, positively, the fight against organized crime, such as the dismantling of the networks of prostitution and gun trafficking but also, more dangerously, in the context of international terrorism.

“The projected article clearly speaks of collaboration but that a foreign undercover agent can himself implement police investigation techniques, however that the acts he poses are always framed in an infiltrated operation and executed by the special units of the Belgian federal policy.”

I would have, in this regard, appreciated having clarifications in the committee – the minister is not there to answer today – about the nature of the files in which an infiltrated agent was deployed. It is indeed mentioned in the statement of reasons that between 1 January 2006 and 15 July 2009, there were 110 infiltrations that were initiated in Belgian files. In 14 of them, an infiltrated agent was deployed.

This would obviously have enabled us to take the actual measure of the necessity of these foreign infiltrations as well as the reasons and nature of the files that require this recourse.

This also seems to me to be very problematic in that the foreign authorities concerned may be authorities from countries outside the European Union and that, in doing so, do not necessarily have the same standards in respect of human rights.

With regard to the investigations to be conducted in Belgium, it is better to let the Belgian police work rather than to let foreign authorities investigate what they will do with the information collected.

Furthermore, I have not received a precise response regarding all the countries that could collaborate, and this also worries me. That is why I, along with some of my colleagues, submitted an amendment to restrict this collaboration to countries that have not been condemned for human rights violations by international bodies. Indeed, if this is not the case, we can easily imagine the risk that we will take on some of our fellow citizens who have a political refugee status.

If foreign authorities can investigate in our country, it will endanger all political activists who flee their country and come to refuge in our country.

It will also be remembered that telephone interceptions operated very recently on our territory by the Colombian secret services and which are the subject of activists as well as Belgian politicians during the vote on the UEBL agreement.

In conclusion, we will not vote on this bill, given the criticism of the League of Human Rights in particular regarding the way the fight against terrorism in Belgium is conducted and the drifts it brings, but also the way the Belgian authorities use particular methods of research, sometimes very intimate. Nor will we vote on this project in a preventive way to protect militants from all hair. We will remember the altermondialists who were put on listening for months in 2001 because they were preparing a demonstration on the occasion of the ECOFIN summit, listening which in addition earned a condemnation of the Belgian state to pay damages and interests.

This is the point of view of the Ecolo-Groen Group! Amendment to the Code of Criminal Instruction.

I have no doubt, dear colleagues, that you will support our amendment in the name of respect for human rights and international conventions.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to emphasize from my bank what has already been shown in the reporting.

This is a repair law of a draft law of 12 March 2002, still under Minister Verwilghen, in a government of which Ecolo was also a part. This decision was made in that government, but apparently there was a problem with it.

This bill was submitted precisely to remedy this problem and to have the necessary legal basis. This is an ongoing matter, but above all also an urgent matter. Ultimately, it is about a number of obstacles to cross-border infiltrations and investigations. In this sense, we support this draft so that it can be discussed quickly in the committee.

This is a technical adjustment that we fully agree with. Foreign infiltrators should be able to fight very serious crimes related to human trafficking and terrorism.

I understand the attitude of Ecolo-Green! Absolutely not. They shy away from privacy and human rights, but they seem to forget that they protect terrorists and traffickers in this way. This is incomprehensible

If I am not mistaken, the minister’s co-worker in the committee has said that two ongoing investigations would be in danger if we did not incorporate this strict guarantee of legality into the law.

I think that everyone is morally obliged to approve this draft so that we can arm ourselves against very serious criminals who attack the human rights and the rights of honourable citizens and it is exactly what Ecolo-Green! and forget.

Mr. Speaker, I understand that Mr. De Clerck would rather not be present here because it is a little embarrassing.

The Minister is attending a European meeting.

I understand that he would rather be there than here. You should not take it personally. Otherwise he would like to be here.

What is being restored here is a judgment of the Council of State of November 2009. The Council of State was well aware that the voiced nullity is heavy and has serious consequences. Therefore, he exceptionally almost follows the technique of the Constitutional Court and determines the consequences of invalidity. He says that the ongoing investigations that are still based on the wrong KB should remain free.

The question also arises whether the State Council is competent to say this.

Where it becomes a little embarrassing is that, in order to fix the error, it was necessary to pour one paragraph into a bill. We have managed to work on this for six months. That means that now, only a year later, we will be able to vote on the law and we will also support the law.

We truly hope that in the period between the destruction and today there will be no illegal act in a file. If this is the case and this comes up, it will in any case be a clear mistake of the responsible person who has left his work behind for a year.

The addition of Ecolo-Green! It is innocent but useful. You are not opposed to the system that you have created yourself. It only clarifies that if one wants to fight the international crime well, it is best done in cooperation with countries that recognize human rights.

The Ecolo-Green Amendment. In fact, it is obvious. We can therefore support it. We do not understand why other colleagues would not support it.

Mr. Speaker, what surprises me is that when we worked on these devices in 2002, Ecolo-Groen!, at the time Ecolo-Agalev, was always critical as to the framework of the provisions taken in these matters of counter-terrorism.

What surprises me in the present case is that, both in the committee and in the plenary, there was no minister and therefore no answers to the questions asked by my colleague. The parliamentary debate and the work carried out in committees and in plenary sessions consists of meeting questions and answering them. I hope that the government representatives present here will be able to provide answers, otherwise it would be to deny the parliamentary reality, which is to ask questions, to obtain answers and to receive explanations about the fears that one may feel about texts that one can improve from year to year. This is also the purpose of the legislative work.